Yesterday's post referred to Andrew Ramsey's Chuckley Award winning article but didn't mention the last paragraph which referred to Michael Holding's naming of Murali as one of a gang of seven chuckers:
Former West Indian fast bowler Michael Holding, a member of the ICC's panel which reviews bowlers' legality, suggested recently there were seven players with suspect actions, of which Muralitharan was one.
Strange, but I couldn't recall Holding saying this. In fact, I thought he was on record as saying the opposite. Given he's an ICC Bowling Advisor, and thus an official authority on the topic, you'd think I'd remember.
Never the less, I gave my brain a good hard wrack to see if it contained the odd detail or two - mainly grey ooze - and turned to Google.
It turns out Holding HAD said as much - note to Ramsey: TWO years ago is not "recently" - and what's more the Sri Lankan authorities had chucked a wobbly. Pun intended. Note to Sri Lankan Daily Mirror, Michael Holding is not "Anglo".
Which in turn means that if we accept ICC standard operating procedure is followed, when Stage Three is reached there's bugger all chance of Holding - like Dennis Lillee - being called as the ex-international player on the Bowling Review Group.
Correction: Courtesy of Martin Blake in today's Saturday Age I've been alerted to the ICC's revised reporting system (page contains a link to the relevant PDF file) whereby there are now only TWO stages of bowling review.
In other words, a bowler now only needs to be reported twice, rather than thrice, before the Bowling Review Group is convened.
Never the less, the same system applies to the new Stage Two as applied with the old Stage Three:
A. BOWLING REVIEW GROUP AND ADVISORS
3. Upon receipt of a second report that a player has a suspected illegal action the ICC shall appoint a second group, which shall be known as the Bowling Review Group (BRG). It will comprise a current member of the Code of Conduct Commission, a current ICC referee, an ex international player, an ex international umpire, a human movement specialist and the ICC Cricket Operations Manager. The ex international player and umpire shall be appointed from the ICC panel of accredited specialists. There will be a quorum of three including the human movement specialist.
As you can see, there's still rock all chance of Holding or Lillee - both ICC "accredited specialists" - being appointed to the BRG.
As regards the rest of Blake's article, at no point does he come out and criticise Murali, only the reporting process:
In truth, cricket is still some way from getting it right.
Speed's closing comments:
He said this week there was nothing to stop a referee or umpire from reporting Murali. "We want to take the stigma out of it. We don't believe that any bowler who uses an illegal action does it deliberately. But that stigma is still there."
I think Mal's on the right track here.
The umpires must be encouraged to call thrown no-balls, and to do so with the same diligence as they would for the over-stepped version. This way it becomes much less of an issue, and much more of an everyday penalty and the hysteria is taken out of the equasion.
It also avoids the not insignificant issue that bowlers with their actions "cleared", can still get away with throwing in a match ... just as Murali did when he dismissed Matthew Hayden El Bee on Tuesday.
After all, the first line of the Process for Review is:
Nothing in the following shall override an umpires responsibility to apply Law 24
Which states:
2. Fair delivery - the arm
For a delivery to be fair in respect of the arm the ball must not be thrown. See 3 below.
Although it is the primary responsibility of the striker's end umpire to ensure the fairness of a delivery in this respect, there is nothing in this Law to debar the bowler's end umpire from calling and signalling No ball if he considers that the ball has been thrown.
(a) If, in the opinion of either umpire, the ball has been thrown, he shall
(i) call and signal No ball.
(ii) caution the bowler, when the ball is dead. This caution shall apply throughout the innings.
(iii) inform the other umpire, the batsmen at the wicket, the captain of the fielding side and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of what has occurred.
(b) If either umpire considers that after such caution a further delivery by the same bowler in that innings is thrown, the umpire concerned shall repeat the procedure set out in (a) above, indicating to the bowler that this is a final warning. This warning shall also apply throughout the innings.
(c) If either umpire considers that a further delivery by the same bowler in that innings is thrown,
(i) the umpire concerned shall call and signal No ball. When the ball is dead he shall inform the other umpire, the batsmen at the wicket and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of what has occurred.
(ii) the umpire at the bowler's end shall direct the captain of the fielding side to take the bowler off forthwith. The over shall be completed by another bowler, who shall neither have bowled the previous over nor be allowed to bowl the next over.
The bowler thus taken off shall not bowl again in that innings.
(iii) the umpires together shall report the occurrence as soon as possible to the Executive of the fielding side and any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and bowler concerned.
3. Definition of fair delivery - the arm
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.
Of course, given one, the treatment of umpires Hair, Emerson and McQuillan, and two, the extreme reactions from the Sri Lankan authorities, it's highly unlikely an umpire will ever again call Murali.
This means the problem will forever be etched into the record books, because just as sure as Murali chucks he will pass Shane Warne and Courtney Walsh and keep taking wickets until he eventually achieves a record, that given the lattitude afforded his ... err, "advantage", will be insurmountable to future bowlers with legal actions and thus never be broken.
Ultimately, standing at the pinnacle of bowling achievement -- unlike Bradman whose batting feats were the stuff of LEGAL legend -- will be a cricketer who got there by dint of what amounts to cheating, and who will forever compromise -- an operative word if ever there was -- the achievements of bowlers past, present and future.
Remind me to shout you tickets to a baseball game sometime Tony. You're wasted on this quasi-English stuff.
Posted by: Mike Jericho | Sunday, March 21, 2004 at 03:17 AM
That sounds suspiciously like a compliment, so thanks Mike. And shout away with the tickies. I love baseball. And I'm a fanatical Redsox fan so a trip to Fenway would be grouse. You can take me out to the ballgame so I can root root root for the home team. And throw my seat at the Yankees.
Posted by: Tony.T | Tuesday, March 23, 2004 at 02:09 PM