BOMBAY, 7 May 2004 — The one controversy in cricket that is, perhaps, as old as the game itself and the one that raises its ugly head, though not so frequently, is “chucking.” The definition of what constitutes “unfair delivery,” has undergone changes several times over the years, but the interpretation of the same has remained as vague as ever. The lack of unanimity within the International Cricket Council itself on ways and means of tackling the menace has led to a feeling of deliberate bias on their part against some of the bowlers so accused. The latest such victim is Sri Lanka’s and world’s leading off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan.
Murali is just a few wickets away from being the leading wicket-taker in the history of Test cricket. To be precise, he is just six short of the record of 519 wickets by retired West Indies fast bowler Courtney Walsh. Now, at this important juncture of his magnificent career, he is once again being accused of occasional chucking. The ICC has already taken a stern step of warning him not to bowl his “Doosra” (the one which goes the other way) lest he be called for “chucking.”
This is not the first time that Murali has come under a cloud of controversy. A few years ago, he was called by umpire Darrell Hair for chucking and was banned for a couple of Test matches. A lot of Australian experts, including Daryl Foster of the University of Western Australia, had come to his rescue. Top physicians too had stated that illusion of a bent arm is due to a congenital defect in his bowling arm.
Foster, who is an expert on chucking and is often called upon to scrutinize doubtful bowling action, too had cleared Murali. Thus, the ICC was forced to lift the ban on him and he continued to haunt batsmen around the world with his remarkable spin bowling.
In all this, it may be worth mentioning that it is only in Australia, and nowhere else, was Murali ever called for chucking. Murali has had no such problems for some years. But suddenly when he began to challenge Australian Shane Warne for the top spot of wicket-takers in Test cricket, the Australians have once again raised the bogey of chucking. Strange as it may sound, the objection is to not to all of his bowling but only on the delivery of the “Doosra.” This delivery of his has flummoxed many batsmen, mostly Australians, and has earned him many wickets.
The lack of unanimity in the ICC pertains to the fact that even though the controlling body as well as the special committee of throwing had cleared Muralitharan, some Australian umpires have not accepted the ICC ruling as final. The same was the predicament faced by Pakistani fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar around the 2000-2001 season when he was not allowed to bowl in Australia and had to fly back home. The Australian umpires had dubbed his bowling action as being illegitimate. Jagmohan Dalmiya, who was the then chairman of the ICC, had to intervene and by ultimate vetoing power bestowed on him by the ICC constitution, cleared him and Akhtar was able to join the Pakistani team Down Under. The label of “chucking” seems to be more easily attached to Asian bowlers and more particularly by the Australian umpires. Two Indian off-spinners, Rajesh Chauhan and young Harbhajan Singh, though not called for chucking, were reported to ICC as having doubtful bowling action. Both had to go through a correction process. While Chauhan could not make a comeback, Harbhajan did and turned out to be a match-winner against Australia. His fantastic bowling in 2001 in the Test series in India earned him the nickname of “The Turbanator.” Now, as Muralitharan nears a rare milestone, all pressure has been brought upon him. He cannot bowl the “Doosra.” If he does, he is likely to be called for chucking. Being wary of this warning, Murali did not bowl the variation so far on the tour of Zimbabwe and yet picked up wickets.
The question to ask is: Can a bowler be denied the right to use his wiles and cleverly mix his deliveries under the guise of his bowling action going haywire from the path of what constitutes a fair delivery?
The special committee of the ICC must answer this question to the satisfaction of all and not leave it to the interpretation of a couple of umpires and just one national board of Test playing countries. Many experts around the world, who find nothing wrong with Muarli’s bowling action whichever variation he bowls, have called for a foolproof definition of what is likely to transcend into unfair delivery. Besides, they have also asked for a more consistent and impartial interpretation of law on fair delivery. A bowler, who has captured 500-plus wickets in Test cricket and 300 in the shorter version of the game, cannot suddenly be found to be a man with a dubious bowling action. The call is for all round fairness.
