Ambiguous laws on throwing leave room for biases to creep in

Lee has neither been reported nor do experts feel there is anything illegitimate about his action but the suspicion remains. Had the Indians not raised this issue, the Australians would not have been forced to debate the chucking controversy from a fresh perspective.

For the last few years only bowlers from the sub-continent have faced the wrath of the umpires, match-referees and ICC panel. Be it Muralitharan, Harbhajan Singh, Rajesh Chauhan or a Akhtar, they all have been cricketers from the sub-continent. Not that it matters. A cheat is a cheat, whatever his skin colour.

But it does matter in international cricket when a player in question belongs to the elite group. Will the same yardstick be applied to Lee? The suspicion arises because of certain reasons. Why are only players from the sub-continent charged with “bringing the game to disrepute” for their actions on the field? Why are players from other nations rarely penalised despite evidence of their transgressing the line quite often? The current Test series has, on many occassions, seen an Australian crossing the limits laid down by the ICC code of conduct and yet not fined.

It might be interesting to go back in time and trace the history of chucking. It was in the late fifties that the whole row surfaced and at the centre of it was an Australian paceman Ian Meckiff. In 1958, he took 17 wickets against England with nine for 107 at Melbourne being his best but there were doubts over his action and finally in 1963 he was called for “throwing” in South Africa. The first player to be called in England for the same reason was the South African Geff Griffin in the 1960 series. England left-arm spinner Tony Lock was once no-balled in the West Indies. It was in the sixties that some sort of truce was declared. And now after almost three decades, chucking is once again taking centrestage.

Like then, even now there are experts who feel that the laws governing throwing are too ambiguous and if they were to be followed in letter, there will be very few bowlers who would pass the test of not bending their arms at some point of time in their delivery action.

It was the Muralitharan episode which forced the ICC to take a decision that the umpires should not call the bowler in the match but report him to the match referee. The ICC also has a panel of experts from each Test playing nation who see the video recording of the action of the “reported bowler” before passing their judgement. This procedure was adopted to avoid humiliating a player in full public eye. The reasoning: If a bowler has managed to play for his country with a suspect action, the blame lies with that country’s umpires who should have called the bowler in domestic cricket. A human angle alright, but the system as prevalent now is as insensitive towards the players as it was then.

Take the Shoaib case. The ICC announced its decision that the bowler chucks on the day he lands in Australia to play the triangular series.

In Lee’s case, there might be some doubt over his action when he really lets go a quick one, otherwise, like Akhtar, most of his deliveries seem legitimate. In fact, in Akhtar’s case, players like Jeff Thomson and Ian Chappell have spoken publicly in the bowler’s favour.

Most of the former Test players would do the same for Lee as well. But the question here is will Lee be ever reported and then his action scrutinised by the panel of experts from the ICC? The Australians want the world to believe they play their cricket fair. Let us see.