Wanted: Straight rules for bent arms

Laws are meant to be implemented. Just as Tendulkar was out even though he had previously grounded his bat before being nudged out in that forgettable incident in Kolkata in 1999, so too was Inzamam. I’m surprised too that the ICC should want to gag Chappell. All that it seems he has said is that Shoaib Akhtar’s action looks different. But that is there for everybody to see.

If indeed Shoaib Akhtar chucks that is a decision for the on-field umpires and the match referee to take and they shouldn’t be getting influenced by what people are saying. In any case they have been pretty active with young Johan Botha now joining Shabbir Ahmad in the banned list.

But it does raise the question of what should be allowed and what shouldn’t. There were some pretty respectable names in the ICC panel that worked out the figure of 15 degrees as the acceptable limit. It was based on the principle that below that number the naked eye would not always be able to discern the straightening of the elbow. A logical inference therefore should be that anything that suggests a straightening of the elbow to the naked eye is likely to be more than 15 degrees.

Shoaib Malik was reported, so was Harbhajan but the list of bowlers who seem to bowl with a degree of bend is much larger than that. It includes Murali and Shoaib Akhtar and, off the top of my head, Brett Lee, Mohd Rafique, Shahid Afridi, James Kirtley, Jermaine Lawson and Kyle Mills. Some have suggested that Andrew Flintoff, when he bowls round the wicket, falls into that category as well.

However, the law seems a bit different if you have an anomaly in your physique. So Shoaib Akhtar being double-jointed at the elbow (and apparently at the shoulder) is allowed a greater leeway because of hyper-extension, meaning the elbow actually bends the other way rather than towards the shoulder as in most people.

However, he doesn’t bowl with the elbow continuously bent; there is a whiplash action because of the act of straightening it. That, to my mind, is unfair because it allows him a bend of greater than fifteen degrees.

What it also seems to do is to put him out of the purview of a bowling review because according to the law hyperextension is not covered being a unique natural phenomenon; which is what has caused the genial John Wright to ask if he could bat with three hands if he had them (and at times you need to take the law to an absurd situation to emphasise your point).

I think it is only fair that Murali and Shoaib be included in the legal process like everyone else. In all fairness Murali has got himself tested many times, voluntarily and forced, but Shoaib is a bit shy of that. I think just as Shoaib must have a fair opportunity to play cricket, a batsman must have a fair opportunity of knowing whether the ball coming at him has been legally delivered and indeed, whether he is in physical danger as a consequence.

Post script: On ESPN I was watching a game from 1973 between England and the West Indies. Keith Boyce, whose action had mesmerised me as a young teenager, was bowling as indeed were Gary Sobers, Bernard Julien, John Snow, Geoff Arnold, Derek Underwood, Ray Illingworth and Lance Gibbs. Every single one of them bowled with an absolutely straight arm. Boyce and Gibbs in particular, were actually beautiful to watch. If bowlers could bowl with straight arms in 1973, I wonder why they cannot in 2006!