Dear Tony,
What you are saying is what is in the laws of cricket today. That is going to change very soon since the executive body has realized the problems. You should read a superb article in the Telegraph by Christopher Martin Jenkins about the umpireless cricket game. Why do you think the TV umpire was introduced? The third umpire (or TV umpire) was introduced to adjudicate on certain aspects of the game to OVERCOME the LIMITATIONS of field umpires.

One cannot condemn a man for homicide without actual proof. If you followed the Simpson saga in the USA, you would agree. A throwing call in cricket is not any different. As you say, a call for a throw is basically the end of a career. So the umpire better be 100% sure. Yes, what is in the laws of cricket is not proof but only a doubt. This is a loophole which the ICC will fix very soon quite differently from the way you think.

In Hair's mind, it was not a particular ball that was a throw, but it was Murali's action that was suspect. No umpire has said that Murali throws a particular ball. This is why I referred to Hair's comment, "diabolical action" and not "diabolical ball". Your view may be different but we have to stick to the judiciary as you have stated in your email.

My view is that if an umpire has a doubt and makes a call, the decision has to be correct or close to correct and this requires a fair amount of understanding of the human eye, 3-dimensional motion, illusions and preferably scientific techniques. How could an umpire (or the governing authorities) be fairly sure that a call for a throw is correct? It is quite easy. Hook up a few different bowlers with biomechanical devices and ask them to bowl normally and occasionally throw the ball and see whether the respective umpire can detect a throw from a legal delivery. This would allow the umpires to be rated for throwing (depending on position) and if they are unable to make the correct call, then they should not make a call for throwing on the field. Yes, it is not a perfect system, but at least the call is based on the ability of the umpire and not on media speculation. Today, there is no provision for such in the Laws of cricket. In any case, before an umpire can make a call for throwing, the umpires vision has to be close to perfect.

I believe your statement that "First of all, whenever someone has been called for chucking, the umpire has allowed the over in question to be completed in a reasonable number of balls." is incorrect. There is provision in the ICC laws that if a bowler is unable to complete an over for whatever reason, the umpire may allow a substitute to take over (the wording may not be exact). So Hair could have acted on this rule or else could have made it known before hand to Murali or the Sri Lanka captain that he was going to call every ball that Murali bowled since in his opinion he has an illegal action and throws every ball. This would have tremendously lessened the impact of the Boxing day incident. Also, after Murali learnt that Hair was calling for throwing, he resorted to leg spin.

As laid down by the ICC laws, it is true that only a doubt is necessary. As we know, doubt for a 10 year old is not the same as doubt for a novice umpire or doubt for a 50 year old umpire. So, experience and hence age plays a role. If the umpires cannot see (those that don't have at least 20/20 vision), how could they ever make a call for a throw even when they have a pre-conceived doubt? This is what happened with Ross Emerson. He made calls for a throw for the leg spin deliveries. Can he see properly or does he know the difference between an off spin and a leg spin delivery? Having stood in international games, I would imagine that he at least knows the difference between a leg spin and an off spin delivery. What that leaves is that he cannot see in order to identify what Murali bowled. Under these circumstances, how can he ever make a call for a throw?

Regarding Hair, all his calls were when he was the main umpire. He never made a call for a throw when he was the leg umpire. Why do you think that happened? If he had a basic knowledge of 3-dimensional motion, he would never have done it. It is our eyes (or the interpretation or the processing of what is seen) that are deceptive. For a person with poor eye sight, this illusion gets worse. I have had an Australian comment on the pictures that I posted on the web page saying that the back view clearly shows that Murali is throwing. This is why I have the side view also to show that this is a total misconception. This is and was the problem - people judge 3-D motion in 2-dimensions.

In my opinion, at least two basic tests are necessary before an umpire can stand on the field: Vision test and a Hearing test (for a nick and not related to throwing). As you can see from the AFP report given below, Steve Dunn made a poor call having a TV replay in front of him. Either he could not see or else he does not understand that a ball cannot bounce up without hitting the ground (basic physics). Shepherd did neither see a deflection nor hear anything. I don't think most of the umpires have anything close to 20/20 vision and most of them have hearing impairments as a result of age, which is quite normal.

I am surprised how your arguments have changed through this exchange of emails. In one of your very first emails you said, "if the law is flexible and if exceptions are allowed, people will change their behaviour in order to exploit loopholes in the law". Now you say, "In my view, if the Sri Lankan cricket authorities don't like the interpretations of some umpires, then they should suggest changes to the law that will invalidate these interpretations". Quite contradictory!

The Sri Lankan cricket authorities have acted very wisely in bringing about change after the Murali controversy. I don't think any changes to the laws are necessary now. It is well understood that no umpire is supposed to make a call for throwing on the field - contrary to what you think. They are only supposed to report the suspicion to the match referee who will then report to the ICC where a committee will critically look in further at the action of the bowler concerned.

I "hear" what you are saying with respect to the judiciary and the executive. The problem lies with the judges (umpires) who are appointed by the respective countries. I think it is here that something needs to be done but very little can be done to avoid the senior judges of each country from being ousted before their retirement. The executive board of each country has to make sure that the umpires appointed for International games can at least see and hear very well leave aside basic scientific principles. This would never be done. So controversy rages on as can be seen below.

SHARJAH, United Arab Emirates, Oct 22 (AFP) - Two shocking umpiring decisions halted Sri Lanka in their tracks as Wasim Akram's Pakistan won the Sharjah Cup final by 88 runs here on Friday. Sri Lanka, chasing Pakistan's modest 211-9 from 50 overs, got off to a flying start as Aravinda De Silva and Romesh Kaluwitharana tore into the new ball attack to post 49-1 by the ninth over.

Both batsmen, however, fell to umpiring errors within the space of one run, triggering a collapse which saw Sri Lanka fold up for 123 in the day-night international.

Third umpire Steve Dunne of New Zealand ruled De Silva caught at first slip by Inzamam-ul Haq off Abdur Razzaq even though repeated television replays confirmed the ball had hit the ground before lodging between the fielder's knees.

Kaluwitharana was unlucky to be ruled leg-before by English umpire David Shepherd in Wasim Akram's next over as the ball deflected from the bat on to the pad.

Shepherd may not have got the benefit of replays, but Dunne's shocking decision after watching at least 10 replays from the pavilion took the shine off Pakistan's victory.

Sri Lanka's Australian coach Dav Whatmore gestured angrily outside the dressing room as De Silva walked slowly back to the pavilion ..."

Cheers
Ravi

Question:

Dear Ravi,

Thank you for maintaining a web-site devoted to Muralitharan and presenting objective, scientific evidence in support of the legitimacy of his action.

Having followed the world cricket very closely over the past three decades, I would like to offer the following comments on the controversies surrounding Murali's action. Perhaps not having lived in Australia, you are not aware of certain pertinent issues; such as the parochial nature of the Australian media, the partisan commentators and how the so called cricket journalists try to manipulate the public opinion to suit their whims and fancies and to undermine the opposition teams. The media has the sole say in influencing views, opinions and creating impressions etc

1. With due respect to the Australian cricket, one must note that umpiring is definitely the weakest part in Australian cricket. (Please also refer to Peter Roebuck, Sydney Morning Herald: 1 Feb 00: "Hair must follow Shepherd....")

2. The media in Australia thrives in controversy. Usually the visiting cricket teams are the unfortunate subject of their well-orchestrated campaigns and often are helpless because their point of view is rarely presented or would not get a hearing at all.

3. The media in this country hardly gives any publicity to cricket played outside Australia, unless Australia is involved. Hence the average public is blissfully ignorant of the capabilities of players outside Australia or the quality of cricket played by other countries not involving Australia. (The Australians took lot of pride in trashing Pakistan recently in the one day series at home. Two weeks later the same Pakistan team were thrashed by Sri Lanka 3-0 in Pakistan with Pakistan having the home advantage. There was no publicity given to these matches in the media in this country)

4. When the Sri Lankan team arrived in Australia in Nov 95, they received little publicity despite having recently beaten Pakistan in Pakistan 2-1, a feat that even overshadowed the mighty Lloyd's achievement in 1980 when his team beat Pakistan 1-0. In Nov - early Dec 95, Pakistan was in Australia for a 3 match test series and as soon as they left, the media turned its attention to Muralitharan. Suddenly the media (TV, Radio and more specifically the tabloids) was replete with accounts of the legitimacy of his bowling action. The question posed was; is he bowling or chucking? There was not a single reference in defense of Murali at this stage. Suddenly the whole of Australia was looking forward to seeing whether appropriate action would be taken against some one with an illegal action.

5. There is no doubt that the media applies tremendous pressure on the hapless umpires and it would not be incorrect to say that Darrell Hair succumbed to this pressure when he decided to call Murali for throwing. The media even pre-empted the call for throwing! The way Hair called Murali for throwing (standing at the bowlers end way back from the bowling crease, which normally umpires do not do) shows that his act was perhaps pre-meditated. (Also read Chapter 1 of Darrell Hair's Autobiography: "The Decision Maker" to get his own juicy account).

Your photographs of Murali's action taken from different angles clearly illustrates that Hair has committed a grievous error in his judgement of the bowler's action when he opted to stand way back so that he gets a rear view of his bent arm which must appear straight from that angle. Consequent to Hair no-balling Murali, similar photographs were published in the "Sydney Morning Herald" and "The Australian" newspapers in NSW which explained how Murali's arm may appear straightened viewed from behind which was termed as an optical illusion in layman's term. After Hair no-balled Murali six or seven times, Murali continued to bowl from the other end at least another 15 or 20 overs watched by Hair (now from the square leg) and Steve Dunn from the bowler's end, the latter standing at the usual place that the main umpire would normally occupy. None of these deliveries appeared to be illegal in the eye of both umpires.

6. It is pertinent to note that certain sections of the media was speculating that the call for throwing would come in the first test match played at Perth a fortnight before the Boxing Day Test. However, barely in to the second day the Sri Lankans were accused of ball-tampering and it is said that it is this episode that prevented Murali being called for throwing in the first test. (Sri Lankans were exonerated from the charges consequently, but this issue raises serious doubts about the capability of match referees who appear to have different standards to different countries and different players).

7. Once Darrell Hair called Murali for throwing, it appeared that the whole issue boiled down to the pound of flesh scenario. Emerson's consequent call on Murali at Brisbane in Jan 96 was probably motivated by support to Hair. It also appeared that some umpires wanted to distance themselves from the controversy. The media and the commentators were suddenly sympathetic towards Darrell Hair for doing the right thing and paying the penalty by being isolated. It was against this background that Emerson called Murali for throwing at Brisbane in the one day international against the West Indies. It is also interesting to record that on that day during the post match interview with Tony Greig the West Indian captain Ritchie Richardson (who was facing Murali when Emerson no-balled him) maintained that the umpires have got it wrong. The fact that Emerson called Murali even when he was bowling leg breaks demonstrates that his decision to call Murali was premeditated. ( Peter Roebuck always claims that Emerson should have been stepped down after this act)

8. Bruce Yardley (who had coached Murali), a very strong advocate of the legitimacy of Murali's action, came forward to defend the spinner. However, the media and some biased commentators did not support Yardley at all. Alan Border was another observer who was sympathetic towards Murali, although at that time Border was not probably as convinced as Yardley. In Jan 99 Alan Border stated that he has no problem in accepting the legitimacy of Murali's action.

9. After the first call on 26 Dec 95, commentators like Ritchie Benaud added fuel to fire by orchestrating further bias in the media by stating that Murali should change his action implying that he believed that Murali chucked. Geoff Lawson and Dean Jones are two other personalities that appear to still cast serious doubts about Murali's action. (These two appear to be totally against the findings of the ICC throwing committee, which comprises a panel of eight or 9 experts). Are these guys not demanding for their pound of flesh?

10. Consequent to the tour of 1995-96, documentary evidence was accumulated to demonstrate that Murali's action is legitimate. The ICC intervened to come out with a most sensible step by formulating the "Throwing Committee" to look at the bowlers with suspect actions and to assess whether their actions are legitimate or otherwise. It must be noted that more eminent umpires such as Dick Bird has openly claimed that the system wherein a panel of experts would look at the bowling actions is the best way to deal with suspect actions. It is certainly superior and fair than the previous system where we had to rely on the naked eye judgement of an individual umpire to make the call in an actual match situation.

11. When ICC formulated the throwing committee, which was triggered by the Hair-Emerson fiasco, the media here regarded it as the biggest snub on the Australian umpires, notably their authority, and the "integrity". The media in this country did exceptionally well, not to give any proper coverage to the new process. Hence by and large, the average public in this country were not aware of a new process in place to deal with the bowlers with suspect actions. The media and the biased commentators continued as if they were not aware of the new Committee and its role. It is amazing how the Australian media and the biased commentators refuse to see the merits of this process , which is based on technology, and the involvement of experts.

12. When the ICC Committee concurred that Murali does not chuck this was NEVER given publicity in the media in Australia. Newspapers were replete with accounts that the ICC is inefficient and that a chucker is still allowed to play!. The media opted not to divulge any detail about the process or its findings. Biased commentators like Benaud who promote the use of technology in the game and who also promoted the theory that Murali is a chucker showed little enthusiasm in telling the Australian public about the new ICC throwing committee and its findings. When Murali took 16 wickets in that historic test against England in Sept 98, the media in Australia was more keen in giving publicity to the comments made by the England's coach David Lloyd on Murali's action, than on Murali's achievements or to the fact that his action is OK.

13. Hence when Murali came back in Dec 98, in the eye of the ignorant Australian public he was still a chucker. A very few people knew of the ICC Throwing Committee, its recommendations on Murali's action and the committee's role. The media created so much of pressure even the match referee Peter Van der Merwe made a statement to the press about Murali's action probably forgetting his role. Prior to the unfortunate match in Adelaide in 25 Jan 99 the media laid the trap by focussing attention on Emerson Vs Murali. The high handed decision that Emerson took to call Murali in spite of the fact that now there is a process to follow with respect to dealing with bowlers with doubtful action, was also probably intended to snub the ICC and its throwing committee and to convey the message that the Australian umpires could decide on the basis on what they see.

14. As a result of all this, in every ground and in every match each time Murali came to bowl, the entire spectators "no-balled" him, which I think, is a very poor reflection of the Australian public and the media. (This booing occurred even before Emerson's call, I was there in the SCG on 13 Jan 99 to witness this sad spectacle. Even the Australian School kids were booing him). One must acknowledge that this great bowler has a deformity by birth and hence should be treated with admiration for being able to participate in the game in the most dignified manner at the highest level in spite of being handicapped. I think the Australian media and the public owe an apology to this very great sportsman.

15. Emanating from all this, to me the utterly alarming and disappointing aspect is the Autobiography of Darrel Hair released around Oct- Nov 98, its timing tailor made for the media to re-ignite the controversy. It's intent, contents and the tone are unworthy of a test quality umpire who is still practicing his trade. The book is written primarily for the consumption of the ignorant Australian cricket fan. It is amazing to note that how an active umpire could completely disregard the findings of a committee comprising distinguished cricketers and go on to call that Murali's action is diabolical and still be regarded as the best umpire in the country. Even without any reference to Murali, his book is certainly a very poor piece of cricket journalism and certainly the biggest embarrassment to Australian umpiring!

16. Peter Roebuck, probably the best and the most fair cricket journalist at the current time recently wrote a typically interesting article picking his 10 personal highlights in the field of cricket in nineties. At the end of the article Roebuck has also picked three of the lowest points in the game that took place in nineties. I would like to conclude my e-mail by quoting Roebuck: "The booing of Muttiah Muralitharan: Stirred up by a campaign in the newspapers, itself a product of bone-headed work behind the scenes, the Australian spectators booed the spinner as soon as he arrived in the country. The inhospitable treatment continued throughout the tour and showed the Australians at their worst. The attempt by local umpires, cricket followers and journalists to take the high ground had little appeal" (Sydney Morning Herald, 20 Dec 99). Commenting on the famous match in which Murali was called for throwing (25 Jan 99) Roebuck concludes that "The match was a ripper but it left a sour taste, for which Australian umpires and officials were largely to blame."

Are you aware of these happenings?

Jay A (Spectator)

Answer:

Dear Jay,

Definitely not! This sounds like a gang attack on Muralitharan. Thank you for your detailed report of the situation in Australia. I would least imagine that a few could inititate and execute such an attack.

This reminds me of a great analogy: The QC (quality control) inspector of a company doing pretty well thought that he ought to be the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the company since he was inspecting quality before the world class product left the factory. To cut a long story short, the QC inspectors (some of the umpires) ought to be more qualified and familiar with the development and "manufacturing" process of the products (cricketers) before trying such a miserable take over!

Very recently, an Australian umpire (Adam Cole) wrote to me saying that he would call Murali if he was the umpire. Umpires such as these have no knowledge of science and technology. They tend to make judgments based on their naked eye, which is not even perfect and thereby putting cricketers, officials and the game in to disrepute. Thanks again.

Cheers

Ravi