I asked Bedi why there hadn’t been a decent book written by an Indian cricketer in the last fifty years (apart for Sunil Gavaskar’s Sunny Days) despite the fact that lots of our Test cricketers were university boys. Erapalli Prasanna, his ‘spin twin’ in the late Sixties and Seventies had produced One More Over, a dreadful ghost-written thing, turned out in a week. Bedi didn’t really have an answer; ask him a question and instead of an answer, you generally get a really funny story and, at some point, an opinion.

So there was a story about Prasanna and his anxiety about being selected when Wadekar took over from Pataudi and a little later a story about Madan Lal playing Jeff Thomson from well beyond the leg-stump in Perth which stopped the discussion for a couple of minutes as the largely middle-aged audience screamed with laughter. Typically, Bedi followed up the story with the observation that we needed to remember that Madan Lal was playing the fastest bowler ever without a helmet and that there were one or two batsmen in the current Indian team who owed their reputations to the insurance they wore on their heads.

Then Gaurav asked him a question about Muralitharan and Bedi weighed in with his views which were familiar since he’s aired them so often. But because they were aired here in the context of a discussion (and in response to questions from the audience) they offered offered clues to his position on Muralitharan in particular and chucking in general.

Bedi seems to believe that the congenital crookedness of Murali’s arm is used as an alibi to shield him from the charge of chucking. Murali’s defenders make two points. One, if Murali’s arm seems crooked in the early part of his action, it isn’t a preliminary to straightening it: it’s just the way his arm is. Two, when an arm with a bent elbow is rotated, it creates an impression of a kink in the motion, which is an optical illusion.

The reason Bedi won’t accept this as a reasonable explanation is because he believes that the only practical way of supervising legitimate bowling actions is with the naked eye, i.e. what the umpires see in the middle. He refuses to accept that decades of cricketing common sense can be overset by laboratory science or sophisticated cameras.

There was a pointed question from the audience. Had Bedi seen the film of Murali bowling in a brace, where he bowled the off-spinner and the doosra (and turned them) with a rigid, inflexible arm? Bedi again offered his basic position: how do we know that Murali, when bowling a doosra competitively without a brace does not flex it? And who is to call him if he does? If it is the umpires, we have to trust their judgment.

On this point, I think, Bedi is being dogmatic. He (and others) have often asked the rhetorical question, how can any one turn the wrist for the doosra the way Murali does, without bending and straightening the his arm. Well, by bowling in a brace, Murali is trying to answer that question. He’s showing us that it is anatomically possible (for him, at least) to do it. And since so many of us have asked that question, we are bound to attend to his demonstration.

	'There was a pointed question from the audience. Had Bedi seen the film of Murali bowling in a brace, where he bowled the off-spinner and the doosra (and turned them) with a rigid, inflexible arm?'© Getty Images

This still does not rule out the possibility that in the heat of battle Murali may consciously or unaware, flex his arm to really rip the doosra. Bedi has made a serious point about the supervision of the game in general, not just the matter of policing Murali which the ICC needs to take seriously. Murali isn’t responsible for his imitators, but the ICC’s rulings change cricket from the highest level to the lowest, and I’ve seen children in neighbourhood parks manage very creditable imitations of Murali’s bowling style, happily bending and straightening their arms because they know its allowed on television. When Bedi says the ICC has created a monster, he doesn’t mean that Murali has horns: he’s being metaphorical.

But Bedi doesn’t seem to realize that what really annoys Murali’s fans and supporters is the implication that the ICC introduced the 15 degree rule to fit Murali in. The truth is that to start with the ICC introduced differential limits of flexion (5 degrees for spinners, 7.5 degrees for medium pacers, 10 degrees for fast bowlers) and when the unfairness and impracticality of this was pointed out, abandoned this plan. The fifteen degree rule happened after a study of the actions of international bowlers revealed that nearly every bowler bent and straightened his arm, including fast-bowling paragons like Glenn McGrath. Critics of Murali like Holding did an about-face when shown the evidence and by and large, the cricket world followed suit.

I asked Bedi what he thought of the finding that nearly everyone chucked, including bowlers who had never come close to being called like McGrath and Gillespie. Bedi dismissed the point. McGrath’s bowling action, he asserted, was pure (his word) and the only way you could judge the legality of a bowler’s delivery was relying on the human eye. McGrath looked legal, so he was legal.

Oddly enough, this is very close to the position the ICC took when it introduced the fifteen degree law. The ICC’s justification for flexion up to fifteen degrees is the argument that till that point (15 degrees), the human eye can’t see the bending and straightening that occurs. It’s only the modern camera that can catch that kink in a bowler’s action. The ICC is looking for historical continuity: it is implying that the 15 degree rule isn’t sanctioning a new era of chuckers: it is merely formalising a ‘flexion’ that always existed in international cricket but which couldn’t be discerned or measured because we didn’t have modern cameras and the apparatus of sports science.

	Tony Lock © The Cricketer International

Not unnaturally, Bedi isn’t keen to buy this argument. Bedi, by near-universal agreement, had one of the loveliest slow bowling actions in the history of the game and he refuses to accept that he and his spinning contemporary were actually chuckers but didn’t know it. He didn’t turn the ball much and a bit of ‘flexion’ might have helped him turn it more, but that didn’t fall within his understanding of the dharma of a bowler (as it was then defined) and he thinks that the ICC’s present permissiveness has slighted cricket’s entire history and the first principles of his craft.

It doesn’t help that the ICC’s rationalisation of the 15 degree rule doesn’t seem to work in real life. I think I can see the kink in Brett Lee’s action, and Harbhajan’s and Shoaib Akhtar’s. So do many other people. Either they’re bending and straightening their arms more than the allowed fifteen degrees and getting away with it or flexion below that fifteen degree ceiling is also visible, which makes a nonsense of the ICC’s rationale for that number. If it’s the latter, then it means that bowlers are getting away with more today than they were getting away with in the past.

Instead of going after Murali as the symbol of modern cricketing decadence, Bedi should be asking the ICC to publish the results of the survey of bowling actions that it undertook, complete with names and degrees of flexion. If it’s technically possible, the sports science boffins should look at older films, say Bedi’s bowling action, and tell us what degree of flexion they found. Once we have numbers on which bowler flexed his arm and by how much, we’ll be in a position to judge whether ICC should bend the rules (as it has done) to fit bowling ‘reality’ or whether bowlers will have to adapt their actions to fit a enforceable ideal. If, for example, a bowler like Jimmy Anderson is found to have flexed his arm appreciably less than, say, Brett Lee, then the ICC needs to lower its level of tolerance to Anderson’s level and force Lee to make changes in his action to conform. Similarly, if to bowl his doosra (or his pehla for that matter) Murali has to flex his arm more than, say, Ramesh Powar, the rules of the game should force him to alter his action. It’s worth remembering that this is exactly what Tony Lock had to do. An attacking left arm spinner, he changed his action in the mid-Fifties after he was called for bowling his faster ball and was never quite the same bowler again.

On the other hand, if the ICC conducts a systematic study of bowling actions past and present and publishes its results, and if these results validate Lee’s action and Muralitharan’s (to name two bowlers, one fast and one slow, whose bowling actions have caused comment) by showing that bowling actions were always thus and it is only modern cameras that highlight kinks which had hitherto blushed unseen, then the ICC could specify a historically consistent level of flexion and dissenters like Bedi and Crowe would have to fall in line or run the risk of being seen as cricket’s cranks, not its conscience-keepers.

Till this happens, we’ll continue to be treated to the depressing spectacle of a magical bowler being singled out and hounded for a system-wide problem. And now, thanks to Muralitharan’s lawyers, we are faced with the squalid prospect of the greatest slow left arm bowler of our times, being sued for speaking his mind (even if we allow that he tends to call a spade a shovel). Muralitharan’s claim to being considered the greatest bowler of all time won’t be settled by a defamation suit. His place in cricket’s history, and cricket’s historical integrity, needs the intervention of the ICC.

Editor's note: Given that this subject arouses strong passions, we will only publish comments that add value to the debate. Comments that are even mildly abusive, racist or defamatory will be deleted

Exactly Mukul! The 15 Degree law was set forth because the human eye can only process a flexation from the 15 degree point and beyond. The ICC's previous level of 5 degrees for example cannot be detected by the human eye...It was the university who recommended the 15 degree law. So if Bedi realises that 15 degrees is what his eyes can see and the jerk he sees when murali bowls is an illusion then he does not chuck? Filmed at 2000 frames per second it was revealed that murali's elbow shows no profound jerk, the jerk which was evident to the naked eye.

Its a huge conspiracy theory to think that reputed scientist, Former Murali critics, ICC officials and reputed past players are all in on a cover up to keep Murali in the game...

Its long been recognised that the principle of free speech does not extend to inflammatory and derogatory comments that serve no other purpose, and specific cases have been contested in court, with judgements relevent to the individual circumstances. Murali's decision to sue is nothing to do with his perceived claim to being the greatest bowler in history, as the author suggests in his last paragraph. On the contrary, it is Murali's (and presumably his lawyers') belief that he has been publicly defamed. The truth of this matter will be revealed in court. It is certainly his right to file that lawsuit, and to cloud it with red herrings about how it will not validate his "claim" to being the greatest bowler in history is I feel beside the point.

As to the question of whether or not Murali chucks, its crystal clear: he does not violate the game's governing body's laws on bowling, therefore he does not chuck. Re the question on does he bowl one way in field tests, and another in match conditions, test him and other bowlers any way that is considered proper. Obviously, since he and every other bowler are equally capable of adopting this practice, all bowlers need to be subject to this scrutiny in match conditions, since its been established as a fact that appearance counts for nothing in measuring degrees of flexion. Re the question of whether or not the rules were changed for Murali, they weren't, as the article clearly expounds. Re Bedi's... position that tests based on cameras are less accurate that the observance of an on-field umpire, no argument is necessary, since its prima facie absurd.

Mukul, the bowlers in question Lee Akthar etc have also been tested and were known to have hyperextension of their elbow, again creating that illusion of a flexation above 15 degrees. If you notice a flex with the naked eye, it should be tested in lab conditions, this is the authority given to the umpires and match referees now. I see nothing wrong with the issue. It would be silly to ask a man with a limp (due to deformity) to walk upright and straight, it would be similiarly ridiculous to ask murali to bowl like another spinner.

A really well written piece demonstrating that thought not a black and white issue, everything must be done to preserve the integrity of the game regarding an incredibly difficult and senstive issue that lies at the very heart of the game. The ability to bowl consistently good deliveries with a 'straight' arm is a hard-earned skill, and to allow anyone to 'throw' would denigrate this skill and the game as a whole. I am not alone in being in thrall to watching the magician that is Murali bowl, or Shoaib steaming in like a rampaging storm. However, the game must be played on a level playing field and the administrators must act without fear to retain the fervour of its followers to prevent the game from descending into farce. P.S What worries most is bowling in match conditions, and this being the case, would an arm-brace, as ridiculous as it sounds, be allowed during play?

Well written Mukul, it is true that the ICC need to get some system in place to keep in check the problems with Genuine ‘CHUCKERS” however you as well as Bedi and Martin Crow have completely ignored the fact that Murali and Shoib are two cases with abnormal elbow joints i.e they are physically impaired, while the Lees and Harbajans etc. are bowlers without any defects to their arms; hence making it easy to decide who chucks and who does not.

As per Bedi and your slanting towards what he professes; gives no opportunity for people with physical defects to play cricket.

It raises the question – Do you imply that people with no physical defects are the only ones who should play cricket and abnormal ones should be pruned out?

My opinion is that, Bedi should be educated on his views; and you too as a good journalist learn to accommodate all types of persons to play Cricket be it people with straight arms, bent arms (persons with genuine defects) or square armed...

Bedi may be right in his assessment but rarher than picking up on Murlitharan, he should continue writing or communicating with ICC.

I think Bedi has a right to voice his opinion as long as it does not hurt the reputation of a person. That is why libel and defamation laws exist. To counter the abuse of that right. I agree with Mukul that Bedi is dogmatic and stubborn...Bedi also went onto say that he had seen Murali bowling leg breaks without bending his arm and bowling off spinners with a flexed arm. In other words calling Murali a cheat. In my opinion, this is defamatory. I think everyone has a right to sue another when dishonesty is attributed to him without rhyme or reason. As a lawyer, my opinion is that Murali has a very good case...

Well said Mukul, let the ICC conduct a study of all the "so-called" recognized bowlers since the inception of the game and then come up with a ruling...

thank you for more enlighted discussion.i would like to point out two fallacies in Bishen Bedi's argument.firstly, cricket has moved long way since Bedi's times.Whether he accepts it or not is a different matter.we use technology in every deparment of the game, umpires at the middle seem fools at times.(correct me if i am wrong).if we adhere to Bedi, we should give up technology and stick to Human Eye todo the job.that is complete reversal of things and no fan in correct mind will accept that.
secondly,Batsman has tremendous advantage over the bowler in the modern game.why we scrutinize only the bolwers.
thirdly, there are no records in the world that cannot be broken or equalled.one day great Murali's records too will be broken or equalled.great human beings should be able to apreciate that fact. ...

..even schoolboys playing cricket in a park would protest if one amongst them had an irregular action,so why this... debate at the international level ?? ..an it's not b'cos anyone is jealous of his (Murali's) success - no one had/has a problem with the likes of warne, mcgrath,akram, ambrose etc and they all took a... lot of wkts & won matches for their side too.I'm not blaming murali - that's probably how he's been bowling all his life and his skill in getting to where he stands today is indisputable...but the fact that his elbow visibly bends more (due to natural or artificial causes)than is permissible is also in no doubt.
the...ICC should have stepped in long back,but didn't..and a lot of honest batsmen have paid the price.no point in intervening now,the damage's been done already over 15 years that cannot be brought back...just sit back and enjoy seeing him befuddle even more batsmen over the remainder of his career.

Great Article..and i agree a 100% that if the ICC finds out if a bowler can bowl a doosra at a lower degree then the minimum value shld be taken... But what annoys me and a vast majority of my fellow Sri Lankans is who is Bedi to accuse a magical bowler of chucking..so in his eye's if he feel's that mcgrath is clean...then mcgrath is clean...if he feel's murali chucks...then murali chucks!!! it all depends on Bedi?? is Bedi part of the team that did a whole lot of tests on Murali??...NO... ICC has Created a Monster" is just being metaphorical..???... i can start insulting ppl metaphorically...and i hope Murali wont be distracted...in the eye's of his true fans he has played a magnificent Game...

Nice article. I would like to point out that there are many limitations to bio-mechanics tests conducted in the laboratory. The subject does not bowl more than a few balls. It is not a real match situation requiring the maximum "tweak" or "rip" to fool a batsman. And he knows he is under scrutiny, and tries his best to minimize flexion. If the best one can conjure up is 15 degrees under these conditions, chances are that it is much higher in reality. It is also unclear what stresses are induced due to the brace. Can the bowler use the brace for 10 overs, bowl the doosra repeatedly, and not feel discomfort at the end of the day? If the brace itself is stressed during such a test, it perhaps indicates that the arm wants to straighten but is merely being restrained artificially. Remove the brace, and we are back to square one.

I am no fan of Bedi - but I am with him on this...Bedi has accused Murali of bowling legit deliveries sometimes and how is he able to do that - Basically Murali's action is not consistent and his braces don't explain it.

The problem as usual seems to be the ICC's half-hearted and expedient way of handling matters. All they have to do, with the technology and expertise they now have, is to take a sample of left arm and right arm fast and slow bowlers from 3 differant eras (of say 20 year spans) and produce a biometric report giving their names and action details including degree of flexion. If those who were considered perfect (e.g. Akram, McGrath, Lillee, Lindwall, Holding, Botham, Warne and Bedi himself) were strictly within the norms these norms should be reinstated with whatever consequences that has on Murali, Lee, Akhtar and others. If the naked eye is proved to be, and proved to have been, wrong as I suspect it is and has been, the ICC will fully justify the change they have made and hopefully shut the critics up.

You contradict yourself, you say Murali can bowl perfectly well in a brace, while stating he might have to alter his action to a higher tolerance level. What Mr. Bedi, and all Murali's detractors are saying is that Murali chucks, once in a while or once in a blue moon. What Murali is saying, is that he never chucks.

That debate cannot be solved by using the constant tinkering with tolerances. Cricket should rack its brains, and build a scientific system to define what is chucking or not. Following that, the cricket world should all sign off on the law.

It is insane that people keep challenging the rules. Does anyone ask why if a person is struck outside the line of off playing a shot, its not out? Or why it is o.k for a legend like Steve Waugh to relentlessly prattle on, even while batting, but Matt Prior/the Jellybean crew have to shut up? How do you know when a beamer or front foot noball is intentional...?

Cricket needs iron-clad laws on everything, or else the game needs to learn to ignore controversies about its rules. Let Murali sue Bedi, its a private matter. Defining the true meaning of free speech is a lofty legal argument, which has hardly any answer in sport.

Sir,

It is about time that someone sent your rational and logical debate about throwing to the ICC.

I know you may not publish this comment because it does not add to teh dabate, but I would just like you to know I found this extremely interesting and enjoyed reading it.

Many Regards,
Simon Williamson.

What would be absolutely ironic is if an analysis of Bedi's bowling videos revealed that he bent his arm greater than 15 degrees. That might make Bedi re-think things from a different perspective.

...Since ICC is the govering body you have to accept their judgement (Just like you have to accept a supreme court judgement). If Bedi doesn't accept science that's his problem and science's problem. As far as Mukul's suggestion of publishing old data to give strength to the case, it would be a welcome development. Who knows if Bedi sees his arm flexed 10%, he might shut up for ever!

Mukul, your fundamental arguments seems to be about whether the 15 degrees is the right flexion allowed or whether it should be less. I believe it was decided after having examined many of the current crop of bowlers and I see no reason to re-visit that. However, it will certainly be enlightening to see the data for the different bowlers. You also argue that to set the flexion limit, we need to look at past bowlers, including Bedi's. It makes no sense at all. Much has changed since those days. The bats, the balls, the pitches, and even many rules are different (most in favour of batsmen). As things evolve, so must the rules, naturally. I think the ICC has done what is most practical, but they have done so without properly educating the public, and they need to rectify this. As well, they must reveal their entire findings so that the fans can make better judgements.

The powers that be need to define clearly (and quickly)what circumstances provide somebody a unfair edge and work to eliminating such unfairness. In this process, if it is determined that congential crookedness of the bowling arm does provide that edge, then I am afraid that has to be eliminated as well. Unfair to the person? yes. Fair to the game ? absolutely. And that's the bottom line...

This is by far the best article I have read bu this author, and perhaps one of the best on this subject.

It was a pleasant surprise to read a deep and insightful approach to this controversial subject that didn't contain racism or knee jerk reactions, but instead looked fairly at both sides and showed that proponents of both points of view have good reasons for what they believe.

And, it took note of the fact that perhaps more than any other sport cricket depends on more than just numbers and figures, but its rich history and that almsot indefinable term, "the spirit of cricket". If only the ICC understood this half as well.

Thank you for such a well written article!

Fascinating presentation of a tricky issue, Mukul. I am with Bedi on this one, though on most other issues he shoots like a loose cannon. Bedi has held this view on Murali for the last 8-10 years, if memory serves me right, so it is not as if there is jealousy only.
The key issue here is the one that you mention about the bowling of the doosra with braces on, where the ICC has not seen any fault in his action. But what happens in a real match situation? Aren't we as citizens better behaved when the police is around than when he is not? True Murali has phenomenal wrists which helps him imparting vicious spin, but if the elbow/arm also gets into the act, then it creates a different picture...bowlers with kinky actions don't have to chuck every ball; one ball in an over or two is enough to put doubts into the batsman's mind. And after all cricket is a mental game and if the batsman is shaken up by that one delivery he can fall to a harmless 'genuinely' bowled off-spinner two balls later! Naked eye can tell cricket-watchers most of the time which one was right and which was not. Remember Grant Flower, how many times was he called - a couple only if i remember right. But then he wasn't a match-winner like Murali...

I have no problem with Murali's action just as I have no problem with watching a batsman like Dhoni who is very effective but not very elegant. The real joy of watching cricket is in admiring the easy elegance of batsman who simply time their shots to the boundary. It is the same with bowling actions. I'd much rather watch Monty Panesar's delievry than Shane Warne's round arm delivery.
If I understand the intent of the chucking law then it is there to stop fast bowlers from gaining an unfair advantage and endangering the batsman. The 'chuck' to a batsman is very much more difficult to pick up than a straight arm delivery and therefore is considered illegal on the grounds of safety. I do not believe that Murali poses any physical danger to batsmen.
A true game of cricket should permit equal opportunity for batsmen and bowlers to perform to the best of their ability. It is my feeling that when bowlers hold sway there is generally disquiet because the general cricket watching community appreciate biff bang batting more than they enjoy watching and admiring a bowler's subtle variation of flight and length.
Murali is a truly exceptional bowler with all the wiles of an old fox. We should recognise the contribution that he has made to cricket in stopping it becoming a game that favours the batsman too heavily.
Bowlers with perfectly legal bowling actions but who pose a serious threat to batsmen just the same are the likes of Jeff Thompson and Lasith Malinga. And there lies the true difficulty of the cricketing law makers. Fifteen degrees of flex is fine if there has to be a degree of consistency and it was introduced as it was deemed the minimum that could be realistically identified through the naked eyes of umpires.

I totally agree that the ICC needs to be more transparent in revealing the contents of its report with bowlerwise flexed degree levels. As for Bedi's comments i think he's wrong on two counts. Firstly we have now come to accept technology in almost all aspects of cricket and technology is the only objective way in which to judgement can be passed. Secondly I have yet to see an international bowler with an action anywhere near as similar to murali despite the master dominating off spin for the last decade or so. So there is no case of him having spawned a range of 'chuckers'. Personally i think(and this isnt because am sri lankan) Mr Bedi should accept the scientific evidence due to its objective nature in this instance.

thanks for this wonderful article... i think this issue is being taken to wonderfully irrational proportions...

firstly for an empirical law to be judged by the human eye without any measurement tools of any sort to help seems scientifically improbable, however scientific the explanation for the law may sound...

secondly, for an umpire to report a suspect action after the game is over (i may be wrong in this) and for forensic evidence to later prove that the action was 'flexed' does not alter the result of the game, or not jeopardize the career of a batsman who was the victim in the first place... same applies to most umpiring errors as well...

it definitely is not 'prevention is better than cure'.... however, how practical is it to actually implement a 'prevention' mechanism during the course of the game??? how would it change cricket as a television spectacle??? would it add to its marketability or make it so anal retentive that it ends up shunning its own spectators away??? at the end of the day, however the purity of the game may be affected, the marketability is the most important syndrome because it would not matter a dime if the game has to be played in front of empty stands and not be televised...

How will you decide whether the comments are "defamatory"? I guess "speaking your mind" is only allowed in front of reporters, not over the internet. Interesting!!

From what I've heard (I might be wrong), "defamation" is a deliberate and preferably prolonged and successful effort attempt to tarnish someone's good image. So Bedi's comments are definitely defamatory. ... Free speech has it's limits. Otherwise defemation wouldn't exist.

If a defamation suit manages to silence the repeat offenders such as Bedi, then people who don't know too much about cricket (ie. most of the Aussie ODI spectators) won't be so easily influenced by... comments because they won't be so widespread in the media. Then they might actually listen when told Murali's side of the story. Then the Australian media might change when they sense the change in attitude, eg. they might not put in the compulsory paragraph about no-balling at the end of every article. So the defamation suit will help.

Are you saying you can see kinks in the actions of Lee, Harbijan and Akhtar at full speed or in slow motion?* If it's the later then your argument for lowering tolerence levels (if Anderson

I think numbers like 12-13 degrees were being quoted for some "pure" actions, so 15 degrees seems accurate for the visible limit. Also, wasn't the flexion for Murali's doosra much much lower than 14 degrees when bowled at match speeds (later in Perth voluntarily). Doesn't get much publicity though. I wonder why??

Is a straight bent arm better than a straight straight arm? Only if the shoulder-elbow distance is different from the elbow-wrist distance, which it is. Try it yourself. I have for the last 10min! So Murali naturally has a (only) slight advantage due to his deformity. Add to that his very flexible shoulder and wrist, and the ability to turn the ball so much is explained. Without an extremely flexible wrist it's impossible to turn the doosra significantly without a huge amount of flexion (~45 degrees) so there's no doubt about his wrist. It really is a remarkable delivery.

What I would really like to see is Murali bowl wearing the brace.

** IMPORTANT **
Can't someone show it to a wider audience? Demand for it would be huge. Reading about it obviously isn't enough for a few people.

*At full speed. MK

Mukul,

Libel/Defamation is defined primarily as a statement about another party that is not true--i.e. established by a relevant authority as being false. In the case of chucking, it is the ICC, and by extension the lab they contracted to study his action, who is the relevant authority. Courts in the US, at least, have and do include expert testimony--usually from scientist/doctors who are recognized as authorities in their respective fields.

India has a fixation with superstitions and Bedi's is no different--to measure with the very fallible human eye, what is already measureable by the near-infallible machine/computer, is foolish and in Bedi's case, libelous.

if you do a biometric study of previous-gen slow and fast bowlers, you must also account for helmet use by batsmen, fielding restrictions, bouncer-restrictions and the like.

my prediction is, once you have done this study, that Murali will still be the greatest bowler the game has ever seen. (a claim which he has NEVER made--in fact, he's a fan of other bowlers--more likely to be watching a Shane Warne highlight reel than any of his own gems.)

By focusing on Murali, some of the respondents here are missing the point.

It is unfair to focus on one bowler, who due to his outstanding success and abnormal physiology, *appears* to bend his arm when viewed with the naked eye.

If the ICC biomechanical studies taught us anything, it should have been that the naked eye is a poor judge of flexion. Who on earth would have ever imagined that McGrath, that paragon of perfect action would flex at 12-13 degrees?

By posing the question "Does the bowler bowl differently on the field compared to their bowling when under biomechanical supervision?" and restricting the scope to only Murali, readers do him a grave disservice.

This is an important question, but it should be one that is considered with regard to all bowlers, for we have learnt how little we can trust the naked eye.

Unfortunately an decent article spoilt by it's (possibly revealing) last paragraph. It seems to me that by defending Bedi he is saying there is justification for singling out and hounding Murali - even though he finds it depressing and system-wide.

If Bedi is saying what this writer suggests he is saying, then that is how he should say it and certainly not in the way he (and others like Superatik) who seem to suggest Murali may slip in the odd chuck per over. That is in fact slanderous and as someone else recently wrote Murali has done a lot of "cheek turning".

Despite basically backing Bedi, the article raised the one question that is always raised because it's the floating straw - the umpire's naked eye. We've all had doubts about the umpires naked eye decisions.

the more i read the last paragraph the more i dislike it - and it seems to change the way i see the rest of the article. Bedi is the object of his sympathy: A misunderstood guy who, by "simply speaking his mind", is to be subject to the "squalidness" of being made to answer for them despite being "the greatest slow left arm bowler of our times". While Murali's hounding is, although "depressing", not unsurprising or unexpected and his claim to be the best bowler is only subject to more intervention by the ICC - but certainly not till then.

First of all I want to make it clear that I do not believe Murali is a chcker, there is streams of evidence that his action is within the law.

But the article raised an interesting point, if a player has an action that appears to break the rules but doesn't then how can you tell when the player does break the rules?

It would have been interesting if the testers of Murali's action had asked him to deliberately chuck a delivery down to see if there was any difference to his normal action that could be seen with the naked eye.

What is the point of this story Mukul? Another of these writers who blame the ICC for everything...
The point of my thrust is that the bowlers need to be monitored by umpires at school level where it starts. Watching the elbow and the wrist at the same time is a tough exercise. Clean up the game, but don't blame the ICC for everything when this issue should have been tackled in 1989/90, the ICC was not the body it is now. It was still largely an adhoc organisation.

All the examinations in the world have not proven that Murali "does not chuck".

They prove that he is CAPABLE of bowling without throwing, under the strict conditions of an ICC examination. This does not mean that every ball he subsequently bowls in international cricket is "legal": the only way to judge that is, quite literally, on a ball-by-ball basis, by the umpires out in the middle. He might be doing considerably different things under match conditions to under ICC trial conditions. Or he might not. Examination of one's action under strictly controlled conditions is, quite literally, meaningless.

All we know is that Muralitharan CAN bowl legally. Judgement has to be made by the people in the middle. And since it is one of the requirements of sport that it be entertaining, there is no choice but for the judgement to be made with the naked eye, by the umpires on the pitch. Anything else would take too long: it is necessary to be able to react to one ball being bowled with a different action to the previous ball. Video replays being called on for every ball, or even every time the umpire called someone for throwing, would cause unacceptable delays for a profession (sport) that has a duty to entertain.

In other words, whatever a bowler does in the nets, or under non-match conditions, is irrelevant. It's what he does right there and then that matters. A separate on-the-spot judgement is required, for every delivery bowled by every bowler, and only the on-field umpires are capable of providing it.

I am always exasperated at those critics of Murali who don't even bother to read up on available information before making their arguments. For one, any bowler can be tested in a match by using the super slow motion cameras, as Murali has been. True the biomechanics lab may give a better reading, but Murali has not been found to be flxing above the limit even when he has been filmed in real matches. And you can bet at least some of those real match situations were wicket balls. As for the brace, what I learned from the whole episode is best expressed by Amit Varma here: http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/135220.html
The point is not that the brace prevented him from flexing but that even with the brace he appeared to be flexing. This puts an end to the my eye is the best judge theory.
Finally, Mukul I disagree with your contention that we have to make all bowlers conform to the lowest flexing we measure in any bowler. What if a bowler comes along in the future who can bowl with even lower flexion? Alternately would we make a wrist spinner change to finger spin because others can turn the ball with finger spin? We have to set a sensible limit and make everyone conform to it. I haven't seen a sensible case made against the 15 degree limit.

The point here to be made is that why criticise Murali. The thing is that the regulator of the game allows you to do so, then why pin point only one single person. True to the fact that what Bedi says is logical. But the point of the finger should be raised to ICC and not to an individual. If ICC allows everyone, then anyone has the right to do so.

The human eye has limitations. Technology has proved it beyond doubt. Now, to state that chucking must be entirely left to an umpires judgement is to put it very midly "defies logic". It is time Bedi and Crowe accept the fact that they are being dogmatic... It is proved beyond doubt that the hawk eye does a better job than the human eye. Human eye has to track the ball for a longer time and distance to make a correct judgement. Well , it is true that the human mind can use history to help it come to making a correct judgement.This does happen nowadays with spinners getting more LBW decisions with their straighter ones. The change in the umpires thinking has come with the advent of superior technology. Bowlers of yester-years were denied the benefit of this technology. The flip side is that bowlers of yesterday were also at the wrong end of umpire's human limitations.It was found to the astonishment of Holding that a bowler like McGrath had a much higher degree of flexion than he would have ever imagined.The human eye can err. The human mind has to be trained with technological support to help it in making judgement with primary inputs from human senses. That is the truth of the matter. The sooner people like Bedi realise it the better.If they refuse to see reason, their opinions should be ignored. To state that Murali does not chuck when he bowls the doosra with the same degree of turn under test conditions and is being tempted to do it under match conditions since he enjoys protection from the umpires, is to put it in the right perspective, a prejudiced opinion...

An excellent piece ! I have a relatively stupid suggestion. We have the Hawk Eye technology to determine the distance (width) of the ball from the stumps and the angle which it would take. Could this principle be applied to a rotating bowling arm? Its just a thought !

We would have to rely on cameras though. however, it would facilitate an instantaneous review of each and every ball , giving us a degree of flexion/rotation. This would also help batsmen review and understand the unusual (but mabe legal) actions in some cases. If each and every ball in every form of the game is subject to review, no one would chuck. Just like no one in his right mind would try to tamper with the ball.

A small errata(makes the meaning opposite though) to my previous post "If Bedi doesn't accept science that's his problem and NOT science's problem".

Does Mr. Bedi contend that his own great cricketing achievements will be overshadowed by a bowler whose action is suspect? He seems to be implying that Murali's action represents a blow to the spirit of the game. I would argue that there are few cricketers today who demonstrate the level of enthusiasm and good sportsmanship as Murali. He is a credit to the game and the ICC is unlikely to dig up all the old bones that had been buried till now.

The key issue here is: Does Murali's unnatural elbow give him an advantage as a spinner, not related to skill but to the purported deformity? If it does not, then there is no issue. However, if it does, and I tend to believe so, then we should address the problem and give him a lesser degree of flexion.

Nice article Mukul, covered the subject comprehensively. I don't agree with "His place in cricket’s history, and cricket’s historical integrity, needs the intervention of the ICC." Most people don't seem to have much of an opinion for the ICC, let alone the sticklers, and after the ICC modified the rules, this only seemed to irk the majority who question the action. It took a TV show (and perhaps a lot of diplomatic intervention) to change the view of several other people. This, I'm afraid is the price you pay for a controversial action.

Doesn't the ICC have a system in place wherein the umpires can report certain deliveries to the match referee after the match? A bowler can be fined and/or banned if he is found to be bowling with an illegal action. Correctional schools and TV shows won't make a difference, if he does it again in a match. So the real question is, is this being enforced nowadays as often as it ought to be? Or has the issue become so touchy that it is rarely taken up? It will be interesting if there is a court case and Bedi presents evidence of instances of illegal bowling actions that have taken place matches, based on conventional rules, which the match officials did not pick.

I found it quite appropriate Mukul, that the current status quo of this controversy, at a function centered around you. But then it had all the other necessary elements, didn't it, what with Bedi and CNN-IBN?

Anybody can bowl legit deliveries when under camera supervision and then in a real game situation bowl one or two quick chucks which might be game deciding.We often see this spectacle of bowlers being called for chucking going for remedial therapy and then coming back to play.Ther are 7-8 bowlers in the game whose actions on particular deliveries are
suspect. If you are called once , you should get a 10 test ban.That would ensure greater discipline.

Anybody can bowl legit deliveries when under camera supervision and then in a real game situation bowl one or two quick chucks which might be game deciding.We often see this spectacle of bowlers being called for chucking going for remedial therapy and then coming back to play.Ther are 7-8 bowlers in the game whose actions on particular deliveries are
suspect. If you are called once , you should get a 10 test ban.That would ensure greater discipline.

The single most important issue here is how effective Murali has been with and without the 'DOOSRA'? It is the doosra which has particularly come under the spotlight and when the ICC stopped Murali from using it for a period when it was under scrutiny he was much less effecive ( a normal offspin bowler!). So whether legal or illegal it is the controversial doosra which gives murali that distinctive edge. This point alone is enough proof that ICC or the world of cricket at large must stand up and take a closer look at the issue of throwing

I am surprised as to the amount of space that the media has given to Bedi over the years. In my opinion Bedi has always sought publicity by making controversial statements which are most of the time not backed by facts. As a world class spinner Bedi does not come any where near comparison with Murali, Warne and Kumble and as such he should not be making comments about the legality of Murali's action. I remember watching on TV an awards event in India where the then Australian Coach John Bucanan was given an award as the best coach of the year and Bedi was called to give away the award. Bedi whilst giving away the award asked Bucanan as to whether it was Australian team which has made him a good coach or was it vice versa. It was quite an unnecessary statement which embarassed Bucanan and in my opinion Bedi made the comment with the sole intention of grabbing the spotlight. Some of us will also remember how in 1976 or so when England beat India in India Bedi who was captaining the Indian team accused the English left arm pace bowler John Lever of having cheated by applying sun cream on the ball. He made this statement without any proof in this instance to deflect attention from his poor captaincy. I am surprised that Murali has decided to sue Bedi as this is what the "forgotten" man wants...

Bedi is just being pigheaded. All the evidence is there to show that murali does not chuck. he is a freak bowler who has been "blessed" with certain deformities and he has worked hard to use these to bowl balls beyond the reach of normal individuals.
the thing about bedi and martin crowe are that they are always snapping at people usually indians. so you just cannot take anything they say seriously and there is no use trying to get them to agree to a logical argument.

First of all, I think Bedi critiques Murali because he had criticized him long before and does not want to change his mind. So, he is dogmatic and stubborn. But having said that, the point that he raises is serious and we cannot ignore that point simply because it came from a man who is stubborn or because it was directed against a spinner of huge success. I often wondered what would have been the reaction if someone who is not so good, say a Nicki Boje, was accused of the same?

Murali's experiments with braces are good. But are they good enough? I dont know. It may be possible for Murali to turn his offspinner,say 10 degree off a pitch prepared for his brace test in a non-match situation. But what guarantee does it give to ensure that he does not really flex his arms, at least at times, to give a rip and get a turn of 20 degrees off the pitch in a match situation? It does not give any guarantee. What if Murali mixes flexed deliveries with non-flexed ones? How do we sort that out?

I trust Murali and believe that he does not chuck. But how do we draw a standard without having to rely on the honesty of individual players? I suggest that any player noted by human eye for chucking should prove that they can bowl a reasonably similar delivery under similar circumstances under the eyes of science. For example, if Murali can turn his offspinner 30 degrees off the pitch in a spinner friendly Candy stadium with a 50 over old ball, he should be able to replicate an almost same delivery in an almost same pitch with an almost same ball in a few attempts, may be ten or twenty or even hundred attempts under supervision of science. If he does that, and if the cameras confirm he doesnot flex his arm much, then he is indeed a bowler capable of bowling that kind of a delivery, he is skilled for that, and hence he DO NOT NEED to chuck in a match situation. On the other hand, with enough attempts, if he cannot reproduce a similar delivery, then there is somehting suspicious about how he could do that in a match situation, which needs to be revisited. It may be take time and money to put this elaborate scheme into practice, but ICC dont lack both of them, do they?

The main arguement in regards to Murali after this article, seems to be the fact that Murali may chuck a delvery in real test match conditions. Even this was addressed during the ICC study. Murali bowled at various speeds and hit the stumps from various angles. More or less in a manner he would bowl to a batsman in match conditions. Testing all his variations in various speeds will usually make the bowler perform in conditions similiar to match conditions. Even Tom Moody commented recently in the press that he had seen all the reports, he has seen the evidence that cleared Murali. Murali was filmed at 2000 frames per second during all of Sri Lanka's 2006 tour to England. None of his delveries showed any resemblense to a chuck in a sluper slow motion replays.
See this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pR9v27FWBM

Interesting article and follow up comments. Couple of points I want to make.
1. Free speech is fine. Technically Bedi has the right to air his views but there is a way of expressing his views. When he goes to the extent of comparing Murali to a shot putter, tht really is going too far. Murali has been cleared by the ICC and he does not deserve to have anyone say such rude and derogatory things abt him- not even Bedi.
2. What is the right amount of flexion? Right now its defined at 15 degrees by the ICC. But I really liked Mukul's idea of comparing this no with past and current players. And the best way to do it would be by looking at footage in match situations (this precludes the debate on differences in actions in match and artificial environments). Question is can it be done? Can the amount of flexion be measured accurately without a brace i.e. only on the basis on slow motion cameras? I think Amit in his comment said it can. I am not sure and perhaps Cricinfo can help confirm if it can. If it can be done, then we have our solution and it helps solve 2 problems. It provides empirical and current data to help decide on the degrees of flexion allowed. It also settles the debate on differences in actions in match and artifical/test conditions. ICC can monitor bowlers during matches and illegalities can be dealt with based on video evidence.
Some of this may sound like a lot of work, but I think it helps us in reaching a solution and providing a solution/approach tht is not constantly open to debate. Someone with a physical deformity (for the lack of a better phrase) should not be penalised.
Bowlers like Murali deserve better than all this comment and accusation. They deserve to practice their art in peace. And if they are found to be illegal (and this is anyone, not just Murali) they should be penalised.

I believe that even Dennis Lillee's action came into question when the analyses were performed on the actions of old. I believe that that drove the ICC... when it came to bowling actions. Which leaves the third world nation critics (not that Crowe is a Maori) to remain the only ones who continue to question the validity of the actions. The bottom line is that once you knew about McGrath's action it isn't difficult to discern the kink in his action when you observe him in the last couple of years. Murali's action is just a lot more discernible due to the doosra. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think there's a lot of sweeping under the carpet that is going on.

I have a lot of sympathy for Murali. I think he is a lovely man and adds a lot to the game of cricket. Cricket is exciting when he is playing.

This is not, however, a justification for allowing him to play, as Nasser Hussain now seems to believe. There was a time when, with Gubby Allen and Don Bradman at the heads of the MCC and the ACB, no bowler with a suspect action was picked for an Ashes series. This was not to demand proof of illegality, just the suspicion.

I would not suggest this today -- it is unrealistic. I would, however, like a cricketing world where people are free to criticise bowlers if they believe they have an illegal action. If Bedi wishes to criticise Murali, he should be allowed to. What he has said, even if Murali finds it offensive, is a reasonable opinion -- that is, it is an opinion that a reasonable person could come to. Murali has a lot of benefits from his body. He should take the rough with the smooth and stop demanding legal assistance -- from the courts or the ICC -- to assist him.

The issue here is if the bowlers are throwing the ball or not, not if they are bending their arm.
So a bowler is born with a bended arm he is not throwing the ball. In other words he is not generating addtional force by bending the arm.
Isn't this the issue....simple physics Mr. Bedi.

here it seems that bedi is worried about only murali's arm!!why not mention all the other bowlers who have been suspect...
Secondly we all know now after the introdution of technology how much the naked has gone wrong in the past and even some times in the present.So it only through technology that this standerd can be set.Further evidance that the naked eye has failed to pick some of the present bowlers too. Then why trust the naked eye?

Bedi wants to go in reverse.
i am sure that great critics like mike holding have gone silent coz they have seen how much they have flexed their arm even without their knowing.Think bedi's action scrutinized should clear his ignorance.
i have seen murali since his school days..it is his qualities that make him what he is ( to me the greatest bowler of all time)the hunger to get wickets..its still the same as when he played for school. otherwise why should he repeatedly agree to tests and expose himself . do you think the icc will change the rules for one bowler.and that too a sri lankan? it is clear by trageting murali what has come out is that many greats have bowled with a slightly bent arm always .does this mean that all of them are chuckers?ICC is right in the process that they have arrived at the rule of 15%.one cannot just impose rules w/o tests and fairly tests on all bowlers past and present.

...

anyone who loves the game for what it is and will watch carefully this genious bowl will make up his mind as to his greatess.

Simple solution. Chuck all these confusing laws out and go back to the good old days of on field Umpires calling the game as they see it. Let them decide what is legal and what is illegal. These degrees etc. serve to add more confusion to an already controversial issue.

As far as the argument of not letting people with deformities into cricket, well, there were other players like Chandrasekhar of India, Azeem Hafeez of Pak and many others previously who played for their countries and did very well. Especially in a time, where the umpires could call what they see.

Just because ICC is being pulled in all directions by the powerful boards, does not mean that ICC need to come up with complicated rules to satisfy everyone. This is ridiculous. With this so called Flexion rule, ICC made sure that every one (especially the Asian cricket boards) are satisfied, while appearing to have done justice to the rest.

This is a very good article in that it tries to steer a sensible middle ground but in this case I honestly do think that Bedi has got it very wrong indeed and that there is no excuse for his behaviour towards Murali.

I'm a keen cricket fan based in England and in many ways a traditionalist:- I much prefer test cricket and 4-day county cricket to the one-day stuff, I don't like slow over rates at all and I can't stand heavy bats that allow batsmen to mishit a ball for six on some cricket grounds, for example. However, on the subject of Murali and his action, I am absolutely convinced that those who still believe him to be a "chucker" could not be more mistaken. Why? Well, I watched Murali bowl very closely from both behind the bowler's arm and from square of the wicket at a recent county championship match between Lancashire and Sussex in Aigburth, Liverpool. One could clearly see even without the aid of slow-motion cameras etc. that Murali's action involves a massive rotation, almost dislocation of the shoulder joint and that this is combined with a natural ability to flexibly rotate the wrist in various directions. There was no discernible use of the elbow whatsover and one could clearly see from square of the wicket that there is very little change in the angle between the forearm and the upper arm and that Murali's arm essentially remains bent throughout his bowling action. This is not the bowling action of a "chucker" at all, rather it is the entirely legitimate action of a wrist-spinning offspin bowler of which there are very few around.

As the vast majority of offspinners are finger spinners rather than wristspinners, it is rather too convenient and often misleading to compare Murali in any way to the standard finger-spinning offspinner. The only other great offspin bowler who was essentially a wrist rather than finger spinner that I'm aware of was Sonny Ramadhin - there may be several others - but it is only the likes of Ramadhin that Murali can be fairly compared to. Saqlain Mushtaq and Harbhajan Singh are both kind of midway between a finger-spinning offspinner and a wrist-spinning one.

In summary, Murali is a genius of a rare kind, a superb master of his craft and the sooner all cricket lovers realise what an absolute cricketing gem he really is, the better!

Very helpful background Mukul, now I can safely ignore any article or comment from Bedi as now I know it comes from a man who thinks what yo hear and see is more reliable than any scientific evidence, and considers that subjective openion to be more reliable than objective analysis and statistical evidence. Surely he is living a century behind when people thought they knew everything. There's no more to say than to suggest that he should seriously consider writing to a different audience than to write about a current topic with a century old frame of mind.

Firstly Mukul, thank you for not using this as an excuse to do some Aussie bashing.

Your article is a very well written, apart from the part where you mention that if Jimmy Anderson is proved to keep his arm straighter than Brett Lee Than all fast bowlers have to bowl to Anderson's flex levels.

The 15 degree rule is probably the best rule we can come up with. If it is genuinely true that below 15 degrees you cant see the "chuck" with the naked eye, then what more can we ask from the rule. The only problem is, is that if Murali bowls a legal delivery, he still looks like he chucks.

I totally disagree with Bedi’s comment "Murali will complete 1000 Test wickets but they would count as mere run-outs in my eyes." Murali is a very good world-class bowler. One does not get 700 wickets in tests by simply bending their arm a bit more than usual. Just because Murali’s action is not textbook or so-called “pure” does not mean he is doing something illegal. We should just leave Murali alone and let him get on with the job. Some top scientists and researchers did an extensive investigation on this matter. To throw all this away and suggest that the Stone Age naked eye method is better that modern science just does not stack up.

Also do we really want to go back and analyse the action of old bowlers? We need to let bygones be bygones. I mean imagine if someone were to go through all the run out decisions from the past using modern video technology. I am sure half of those run outs would be wrong. To them use that information and put a question mark on the result of each of those old games just does not do anyone any good.

Let us assume that all current international bowlers are within the 15 degree going by ICC's rationale are legal. What if Murali, Lee, Shoaib and Bhajji (whose flexions are noticeable to the human eye) are closer to 15 while the rest are lower? Wont it give credence to the theory that the limit was created to protect these bowlers? Will the ICC's position then be tenable?

In the old pre-boffin days, the umpires used the naked eye and if they saw it as a straight arm it was straight. Maybe they couldn't see the 3 or 6 degrees of flexion, but it looked straight, so it was straight.
Meckiff's arm didn't look straight, so he was called, and his career ended. Holding's arm looked straight, so it was considered legal.
So the hi-tech cameras can see a degree of flexion that the naked eye can't. So what? The naked eye can detect a degree of flexion in Ian Meckiff's action as well as Murali's. If Dennis Lillee was bowling with the same degree of flexion as Murali we'd see it with the naked eye, but our naked eye saw DK's arm straight, so he wasn't no-balled.
Don't blame Murali for Murali's action and the generation of chucker's growing up copying him. Blame the ICC for it's pseudo-science smokescreen.
Waltzing into a lab and lobbing down a few balls at 14.9 degrees of flexion, tells us nothing about any of the deliveries a bowler bowls in match conditions. If the umps see a bent arm, they should call them, but the ICC won't be happy if that happens.

Oh man, we need more professional (not only professional cricketers) people like this writer in our modern day cricket, so we can filter out bull...from the truth. Thank you Mukul for treating we cricket fans as a sophisticated audience, rather than treating us as mere crazy, unintelligent group of fans who would always support sportsmen from our countries no matter what! Keep up the good work !

An article well written evoking healthy debate. On the topic itself...all "scientific evaluation" does influence an umpires mind. This only goes to show that fast bowlers for that matter spinners tend to chuck in tense moments of the game (albiet intent). The viewer spots it quickly & the result is a near 150 kmph delivery or an impossible angle of turn that turns out to be the ultimate of batting tests for the batsman.The umpire, of course, does not have to bother as the bowler is cleared by the ICC...

Don't understand why this debate is necessary. If the ICC decrees that Murali does not chuck, then everybody must accept the verdict and move on.

Those who cannot would need to take issue with the ICC on the system it has in place for determining an illegal ball. No point in hounding bowlers who pass the test of legitimacy, whether it be a Murali, Akhtar, Lee or anybody else.

In my view, chucking is an unresolvable question. You can never guarantee that a bowler is not a chucker. It might be interesting to see how past bowlers measure up against this pristine law relating to chucking. I am sure many of them did chuck consistently, at least at some point in their bowling careers, if not more regularly. The ICC's discovery that almost every modern bowler is a 'chucker' under the previous unenforceable law is a case in point.

To prove chucking against any bowler, you will need to measure the kink in the elbow as the arm is brought over in the delivery stride, then measure the 'kink' at the point the ball is released. All of this would have to be done in a match situation. If it exceeds the maximum permissable straightening, then the delivery is illegal. If it does not, then it is not.

With the naked eye, it is impossible to judge this. You can only raise a suspicion, no more.

Those who state otherwise, are arrogating themselves a superhuman status, or they are plain blind to reason. They are also forgetting that in this day and age, calling a bowler without scientific evidence is tanatamount to denial of his right to the free exercise of his best skills in the interests of his wellbeing (i.e. to earn a living, and more). There are definite legal consequences from this unless chucking can be conclusively proven in a match situation.

I have always thought the notion of a "bowled" ball in cricket is nothing but romantic fallacy. The best you could do is to set the mechanisms in place to police it, not to stamp it out, which is impossible. This the ICC is doing. They are acting within practical and practicable limits.

This debate is pointless in my view, and people like Bedi need to come down to earth.

has anyone every tried this trick... you pick up a straight object like a pen or a ruler and then you move your hand up and down.. wallah, you have the pen/ruler that bends...magic!! Not very sceintific, but a simple way to conclude that it is very difficult for the human eye to pick variations at high speed.

Good one Mukul. To me the debate will rage on till cricket sees these cricketers off the field. But the point is instead of fingerpointing and reducing the legendary achievements we should be taking it up with ICC to bring an end to this issue. It would make sense to see the action of legendary pace bowlers of the past say a Malcom Marshall or Curtly Ambrose with some of the actions of Bedi , Gibbs and Chris Old to compare with the present lot of Murali, Lee and Akthar. The tendon flexing , the legitimate limit set by ICC vis a vis the natural angle that is visible to the human eye. To me possibly this was on the field for a long time but just got worse as the exposure to chucking got better with modern age of visual media. The last point is when ICC allows a rule and by and large cricketers are facing the allowed bowlers in the field then what ever they do on the field has to be acknowledged. To undermine their achievements in the name of criticism is to undermine the whole cricket played out after the judgement is passed. The international players who played Muralie - in this case- are undermined too for they had spent innumerable number of hours during crisis facing or surviving or attacking Murali for their team's sake. If Murali's actions are questioned and criticised then it also demeans all the teams who had played won or lost against Murali. Lets put a full stop to this and may be ask ICC to provide much more insight into the rule that defines bowling - lets not even ask or mention Chucking-. If we still expand our thoughts we can see there are different bowlers with different actions and all we need to see is how much of a impact does that bowler do to the batsmen around the world and what these batsmen do to encounter them. Be it slinger Malinga, round arm Ambrose , Up over the hill Tremlett , skidding Jones or the Nel's and Sreesanth's coming from the back of Umpire. Our own bowlers had curios actions both in the past and now, B.s.Chandra for one , i was told that it was extremely difficult to read the leggie out of his hand. We instead of looking at the word Chucking and making short of a bowler's achievements can also look at this as just another bowling action and how this is handled by international batsmen. After all the two legendary cricketers in question are top notch. They should only help improve cricket on the field . Cricket is to be played in a ground and pitch, courts do not find a place in this game, may be tennis would be the right game for that. Lets get on with game ODI's round the corner.

I agree with several people who have pointed out that the last paragraph really spoils this article. True, Bedi is a great bowler but why that should give him the carte blanche to say what he pleases about another bowler (remember he called Murali a 'burglar', a 'dacoit') I'm not sure. Also, he DOES have a fixation with Murali. As you mention Mukul, both Akhtar and Brett Lee's actions have been questioned. But Bedi doesn't see the wickets they've taken as 'run outs'. He's singularly, unhealthily obsessed with Murali. So let's not try to pretend (and buy into Bedi's line) that he's making some greater philosophical point about bowling actions. He's not...Why should other people make excuses for him?

You point out that he sees McGrath's action as 'pure', when it has been scientifically proven to have a slight kink. I suspect that if you asked him about other actions he would see them as 'pure' too, all bar Murali's.

That is why, it is in that light that I think we need to slightly re-examine his 'monsters' comment. I don't think he's talking about future generations who bowl like Lee, Akhtar or McGrath. I think he's very specifically referring to allowing a player with a deformity to play, and labelling him a monster and a freak. I'm surprised incidentally that disability rights activists haven't jumped into this battle...

Finally, that last line about 'speaking your mind' is seriously misplaced. We, in this comments section, are speaking our mind. You, Mukul Kesavan, are speaking your mind. Bishen Singh Bedi has been engaged in a campaign...which has harmed the reputation of an individual. And he has done so repeatedly. Since you are an author if you were called a plagiarist by some elderly... historian repeatedly, which you ignored, despite having proven to others that your research was original, I suspect that some day you would crack and sue the gentleman in question. I'm not sure you'd see it as him 'speaking his mind'.

Your argument about the degree of flexing is well thought out and well argued, but please don't apologise for Bedi. He isn't apologising for himself after all.

This is an excellent article, but perhaps it is a bit too kind to Bedi. For a bowler who was truly one of the greatest, Bedi does not seem to have taken to life after cricket with the same grace or ease that marked his bowling. If you take a look at his usual comments, he seems to be opinionated / biased against a few specific people (Gavaskar, Murali) and characterised by a lot of spleen. Irrespective of whether he is talking sense or not, he makes extremely strong statements which make excellent headlines and are quoted by all forms of media immediately. It may sound harsh, but one has to wonder if a great player has come to realize that this is the best way to continue to be in the news. The other issue is the potshots that he keeps on taking at Murali which do not have any constructive criticism let alone suggestions. It seems that Murali expected to be like Caesar's wife. He has been cleared by the highest authorities in the game (ICC, whether we like it or not) and yet has to deal with such statements, which border on malicious and defamatory. Regret that I have very little sympathy for Bedi on this matter, and find his criticism completely destructive, without any attempt to find out a way to have this issue resolved. And BTW, having watched Bedi face Andy Roberts in Calcutta in 1974-75, left me assure he, that he was not far away from the square leg umpire either, and perhaps that is a better example than Madan Lal who did score 48 in the first innings. People who live in glass houses....

I am no expert of bowling actions, but there is only one logical answer to the chucking problem. Have a standard and transparent procedure to measure the degree of flexing for every bowler, and draw the line - at 10degrees, 15 degrees of what ever - but fairly applicable to everyone. I do not care whether this includes murali's doosra or not. Only thing is that it should be fair and applicable to all. At present a few selected and unfortunale bowlers are hounded and abused, while a large number of bowlers - some fexling the arm more than those accused of chucking do not have any problem. Imagine the International Olympic Committee adopting this procedure to pevent peformance enhancement trhough drugs: Select a few athletes who are suspect - because the judges do not like the way they walk, or the way their shoulder muscles look or whatever, and subject only these players only to urine tests. Then finding certain amounts of certain chemicals in their urine, having a huge controversy about whether they abuse drugs or not - (with many others having a field day abusing these athletes) while never measuring or publishing the corresponing figures for other athletes who are not accused ! But this is eactly the ridiculuos position we have in cricket. Many bowlers who were very loud on this issue went silent when they learnt how much they flex their arms. The ICC is often accused of changin the rules to accomodate Murali. The only answer they can give is to publish the figues for all leading current bowlers. I this there is absolutely no point in going on and on about this issue without knwoing the facts: Just how much does everybody flex their arms in bowling?

This was an interesting article, balanced in its views, however, i feel that there is only one view here. Murali was cleared, and Bedi insists that it still isnt right. Relying on the human eye to make a decision and other "old school" measures isnt a very bright idea. Imagine a a rugby player, putting all his effort and training to score a try breaking from the pack, only to have it called by the referee as a NO TRY or KNOCK-ON? When TV cameras and the technology could have proved it otherwise. When you have a technology use it. Clearly Ross Emersons eye was not good enough to spot a legspin of Muralis when he called it. Technology is required. No doubt, living in an old school world doesnt make sense. Bedi's and other critics remarks need to be a little more open minded. Look at both sides. Not narrow minded and based on the "in my day" mentality. The game has changed, Murali isnt your everyday spinner, technology has advanced, why doesnt Bedi want run-outs, catches and stumpings viewed by the naked eye as well? I cant understand this jaded view. There is no balance, and seems baseless to accuse on such grounds. Im a fan of most spinners mainly Murali and Warne. Being a Sri Lankan and being glued to the seat while warning is bowling is rare, i enjoy cricket, and want cricket to win. We have a governing body, whatever my views maybe, that governing body has ruled and set rules. If your unhappy with it, take it up with them. Not with the player they cleared. Its childish for a former captain to act that way. Its time to let things go.

1. All Murali's defenders make the same basic error over "testing". Comparing his "bowling" in a test situation, where he could bowl gentle lobs, and make adjustments with measurements made without someone knowing they're being measured in a live match is ridiculous. Even with all those advantages he only scraped under the bar after a repeat test.

2. Murali wasn't actually measured in the scenario that the others mentioned were so we have no idea how his doosra compares in reality.

3. The point about the bent arm not necessarily straightening is the... excuse throughout the ages. Very very few bent arm bowlers don't throw.

4. The optical illusion would hide a throw. Even the very generous "tests" showed that there is a kink. The tests by Dr Goonatilleke (sic?) also shows a kink in their results.

5. The brace argument proves itself false, as Murali's flexion has been measured (albeit as a minimum value !). We *know* without the brace he flexes.

6. We didn't "trust the judgement" of Darrell Hair. Any umpire calling/reporting Murali is putting his head on the block and is likely to be abused...

7. There is nothing unfair or impractical about having different flexions for different speeds. Anyone who thinks this rule wasn't drafted with Murali in mind is naive. How about testing, live, without them knowing all bowlers - i.e. INCLUDING Muralitharan.

8. The "study of the actions" was a small test which took very few measurements, 1 or 2 per bowler - I think only 20 odd measurements were taken. It's idiotic to say it's sufficient to determine the level of flexion.

9. This is the first person I've heard suggest Lock wasn't a better bowler for his remodelling of his action at the turn of the 1960s.

10. There are two doosras Murali bowls. The standard one which was similar to Saqlain and others, and the leg break doosra which appeared (with much fanfare) on the last English tour of SL...It disappeared in England in 2006 but reportedly reappeared in 2007 in NZ.

11. I'm all in favour of Murali suing Bedi, then the... non-arguments of the Murali fan club will be seen for what they are ; non-sequitors all.

As a keen cricket fan I have seen Murali bowling live and on TV.Most of his victims are becos of the turn and loop he imparts on the ball.When you watch the replays have you noticed the rotations/revolutions in those deliveries?I have not seen that much even in Warnes deliveries.This is why Murali is an unique bowler.I sure these skills are results of hours of practice and immense concentration.Nothing to do with chucking and cheating.The reason others cannot bowl like Murali is the amount of hardwork and dedication required is unbelieveable.
So the bottom line is you wont see anyone tike Murali for the near future ( my guess is his son may be the heir apparent).So Mr.Bedi and all other Murali critics enjoy the show and think outside the square.
And finally Murali is not a fool to give away his recepie cheaply neither, Hope someone shows this to Mr. Bedi.

I think we should also analyse Bedi's viewpoint in this regard. There are many Kids today who are bowling with the same action as Murali's , we need to make sure that the law of checking a Kink with a Naked eye is again implemented. The whole 15 degree flexion is absurd and takes away from the spirit of the game. New upcoming spinners imitating Murali would be detrimental for not only world cricket but Sri Lankas's cricket would be the most tormented.

Well, the main thing in this debate is all because murali has been claiming wickets and of course, going to be the highest wicket taker in test criacket history. If murali, has been a low-profile spinner doing average bowling and say has taken just 300 odd wickets, these remarks by bedi or crowe would have not been delivered. If murali's action is chucking(as remarked by bedi or crowe or anybody else) its not only because of this he's claiming wickets. The fact is his precision and accuracy in bowling has been great and thats why he's taking wickets and tend to become greatest of all time bowlers. Its been years murali has been bowling and the recent harsh comments by bedi might be well within a year or two when murali started his career. So its all because he's surpassing all bowlers and leading the highest wicket takers chart he's been under sudden row of critics. Well if bedi was allowed to use the 15 degree rule, he could have turned much in which case he could have lost some wickets which were bowled by clipping the off stump.

Mukul
You are absolutely right on ICC producing scientific evidence to disapprove doubts of anyone who is genuinely interested on the subject. We are in an era were “perception is considered a reality” by many and “perceptions” are influenced largely by well orchestrated media/marketing programmes.

However Mr Bedi, does not have any right to make a Personal Attack on Murali...

I have not understood how this 15 degree thing works. If the action of a bowler is analysed in laboratory and found to be within 15 degrees, how can that ensure that its the same in a match situation ? How can anyone say that bowlers like Murali, Lee, Shoaib and Harbhajan do not bend it beyond 15 degrees in matches ? There is no online analysis possible when these guys are bowling in test matches. I also agree that there is a visible bend at the elbow in case of all these bowlers and all of them have been cleared by ICC. Therefore I think that the decision of the umpire who looks at each delivery should be accepted on this issue.

Second point here is even if they have abnormal joints or extended elbows etc. the key issue is does it give them an advantage which is deemed unfair in terms of the rules of the game. If it does then the only conclusion can be that they are not fit to play the game as bowlers.

I would like to hypothesise on a totally outrageous thing

The chucking (or throwing) law was initially written to prevent fast bowlers from gaining an unfair advantage. But it was written quite some time ago when cricket wasn't the "anything to help the batsman hit boundaries and get tv rating points up" game that it is today. Nowadays you see a hundred and one restrictions on the bowlers but absolutely no restriction on the batsmen. All these rules take away from the game. Also the throwing rule was probably (maybe stephen lynch can help out here) written when batsmen didn't wear helmets and that type of ball could be dangerous which it isn't now.

so here's my big idea WHAT IF BOWLERS WERE ALLOWED TO CHUCK? Lord knows that they are disallowed so many things. Look at it this way batsmen can change bats whenever they want to bowlers can't change balls. Bowlers have over restrictions, fielder restrictions, bouncer restrictions on them batsmen don't. There is no law that says a batsman can't bend straighten curve twist tweak or do whatever he wants when he plays the shot. It even seems that there is no law against batsmen stuffing foriegn objects in their gloves that enable them to win world cups.

So why not (and I know this is way out of the box but surely cricket needs some out of the box thinking) why not allow bowlers to chuck? You must admit it would really liven things up.

For the record I think murali is a treasure to the game and I also think that Bedi should have the freedom to say whatever he wants to say about whatever it is that he has opinions on murali or anything else.

Just thought i'd add something to the debate.

An article well written. Both Bedi and Murali are great bowlers for their respective countries.To put an end to this finger pointing, both countries Cricketing Governing Body should tell these two players to shut up and ICC should be asked to make further clarification on Murli's bowling. As for me Murli is a great bowler and I see no problem in his action. I would love to see him get 1000 wickets in Test cricket. Hopefully Sri Lanka will produce some great spinner in the near future, time will tell.

For all of those individuals who wish to rely on the naked eye -- remember they used to burn as heretics those who dared to suggest that the world was round, and not flat. Those who believed that the world was flat relied on the naked eye! Those who believed the world was round relied on science.
I believe the technical term for such individuals is neo-Luddite.

Why not make CHUCKING LEGAL as long as the ball is bowled below 80 miles/hr (No physical danger to the batsmen).

This might make the contest between bat & ball more interesting.

Throughout the history of our great game, at every level from schoolyard to international, all decisions have (until recently)been made through the eyes of an umpire. Wheather it be caught behind, run out or LBW, the decision has always been the umpires to make and as players we accept the decision without question. To do so "just wouldn't be cricket".Forget this rubbish about 15 deg. and bio mechanics. If looks out to the umpire, you are out.If he says you chuck, then change your action. This way the rules remain the same for every level of cricket.From juniors up to international.Even replays or video footage aren't conclusive. It must simply be left up to the umpires decision.When you introduce technology to sport you merely confirm what we all know, most of the times the umpires are right and sometimes they're wrong. This unknown only adds to the theatre of all sport.
Just quickly to finish, for those who say Murali has a physical defect and shouldn't be punished, think of this. There is no rule in cricket to say you cannot play with a physical handicap, there is however a rule that says you must bowl the ball with a straight arm.

Bishen Bedi was a w'ful bowler in his time. But this latest tirade from him proves the point that rarely do the masters in their arena of genius carry it into another area... The next few months are going to be very, very interesting - to put it mildly.

And as for the "advantage due to deformity" - well these narrow minded ones should read about Wilma Rudloph (athletics), Chandrasekhar (cricket) and or course the great Brazilian football magician of the 50s and 60s , the bow-legged Garrincha. I suggest all those who bark along this line of stupidity to have a good look at the sheer brilliance of Garrincha in action - he seemed to turn at crazy angles and do the impossible. Of course he had genius quality about him all the while, but there is no doubt that his bow leggedness, legacy of an operation when younger, was the factor that made him the entertainer that he was.

And Murali is weaving magic made even more poignant by his incredible ability to rotate his wrist and his fingers as well almost in unison - near impossible for any other. Mr. Bedi and the likes should read up on examples in other arenas where some have actually turned a deformity to their gain. If at all blame nature or the dieties (if there is belief that such a force exists)for making Murali carry such a 'prized' deformity in his arm.

There are repeated suggestions that, if possible, the video footage of past and current players should be analyzed and used to determine the degrees of flexion. That will never happen. It is unreasonable.
Suppose we were to find that Thompson, Lillee, and others (X,Y, and Z) chucked, while, suppose, Murali, Mcgcrath, and others didn't (hypothetical again), then where does this put cricket?
In other words, the knowledge that the 'eye' was always wrong, and that chucking has been a fact thru history (and here I mean beyond the current 15 degree rule), where does it put past achievements, careers ended because of batsmen getting out unjustly without ever even being noticed? Where does it put cricket as a sport?

Also, the argument that the bowlers with minimum flexion should be made the benchmark is flawed, too. Again, in principle, where does it put historic achievements and facts, what happens with someone with a lesser degree of flexion emerges in the future?
I agree with someone who effectively suggested that the matter of 'chucking as cheating' should be analyzed. Whether the bending of someone's arm gives him an unfair, extra advantage? More importantly, why is chucking cheating, what would be the most clear definition of cheating? Once this is accomplished, then the bowlers who don't fit that definition of cheating (however little or more they flex their arms) may be allowed. But therein lies the problem and the debate, there is less clarity as to what is chucking, what is cheating, and why? Once that definition is found, and it might simply be a historical precedent rather than a solid justification, it would become a lot easier to find what is right or wrong.

I am of Sri-Lankan origin and would like to make a few points.
The ICC must clearly state that able bodied and non able bodied individuals are able to play cricket at all levels and that includes international level. The reason why I say this is that Muralitharan cannot straighten his arm completely in the way most able bodied people can. So this could be termed as a disability.

The next point is that coaches and trainers around the world must explain to all youngsters wishing to join the game that bowling has to be done with a straight arm. The reason why Muralitharan appears not to have a straight arm is due to the fact that it is physically impossible for him to do so.

Muralitharan is a great bowler but it was to his good fortune that he was not there during the cricket tournament, held in England, when all the other international bowlers were properly analysed and scruntised. All those bowlers were found to be "chucking" under the laws at that time. The only bowler found not to do so was Sarwan (West Indies).

Muralitharan will break the record for the most wickets but he will never never get the recognition that he deserves due to a number of reasons - professional jealousy, nationality bias, maybe racial bias. There are always people who want to knock the achievements of others - Bedi and Martin Crowe (a ICC referee - beggars disbelief) are amongst them in the case of Murilatharan.

The so called controversy is very much blown out of proportion by the media.Though bedi is entitled his own opinion, there is no need for him to repeat it again & again. The best thing for Murali is to ignore it rather than giving undue importance to mr. bedi.Bedi is in no position to influence ICC OR PUBLIC to act against murali ,so why bother ? Your suggestion of testing anderson ,powar & asking lee & murali to follow is really absurd.The biological built up of people differ & i.e.why,theflexion differs.The ICC in its wisdom has analised & allowed 15 degree flex & that is the law.If any one goes beyond that ,then it is chucking.If murali is within that limit,I dont understand why Bedi is losing his sleep over that.If you play within the rules of the game ,then it is quite fair.On the part of murali also ,it is meaningless to go to court & you are only giving undue publicity to Mr. Bedi.

I don't think that there would be any issue with Murali's recognition. When there are fruits in the tree poeple trow stones at it. When the tree is with no fruits no body would dare to throw stones at it. The fact of the matter is there is nothing big in Bishan Bedi's complaints. He know in his heart how smart Murali is. If you replaced Murali for Warnie ( hypothetical) Bedi or Crow would not have open their mouth against him at all. These poeple are getting unnecessary recognition and publicity thanks to media.
All Murali needs to do is ignore it completely. Murali. You allready have your due recognition. There will be few here and there who make whole lot of comments about controversy etc etc. This is a fact of life. Even for poeple like Budhdha, Jesus there were poeple to say untrue,false things.
There is this famous saying that I need to mention here. If some one call one an Idiot, when you really you know that you are not an idiot, all you need to do it to forgive the other person for his ignorance and keep moving.
Muarli. You are the greatest baller that the Cricket history has ever seen. Poeple of Don Bradmen's caliber accepted that openly. There won't be any one like you ever again. We are lucky to be on earth to see you and Warnie both here on this very planet. We are ever greatful for both of you what you have done. Keep going Murali. You allready have the due recognition. That is why poeple like Bedi and Crow are still saying these remarks. You just frogive them and ignore them and carry on. I am sure both of them know in their heart that you are the greatest baller that Cricket has ever produced.

I am an off spinner who can bowl the doosra also. Not very good at that else you would have heard about me.

What I have noticed is that an off spinner always has a tendency to bent his elbow. Not always, but occationally. When I used to bent my elbows, I used to get extra spin, inspite of having a weak wrist. Wrist comes more into play when delivering the Doosra and here too a slightly bent arm gives you that little extra turn.

Bent arm whether congenital or purposeful, definitely gives an offspinner an added advantage. Ask any offspinner, before contradicting this.

That said, Murali is great, a magician with the ball indeed (I could not bowl like him even with a bent elbow!!!), but he surely enjoys an advantage with his deformity.

mukul, i am disappointed that you have not put my earlier post online. I do hope that you achieve some impartiality because then only can you become a good reporter. At the moment, my respect for you has hit rock bottom

It seems rather odd the Bedi (and as a matter of fact even Crow) should only target Murali. When the ICC introduced the recent changes, It was accommodate Glen McGrath, Shaun Pollock, and the rest. It was not to accommodate Murali. No one has queried or raised the point that these fast bowlers has consistantly been breaking the law (not deliberatly) because the human eye could not capture the flexing.

In Murali's case it his doosra that has the flexing and not his stock deleiveries. Whereas with the rest it is their stock deliveries.

Come on Mr Bedi, remove your blinkers will you?

Philip Gnana
New Malden
Surrey

Well ther eis no right and wrong in this one. the argument will continue till he retires, however couple of issues is if he is ganing an advantage coz of a cogenital disability the same is allright otherwise v will very soon need to stipulate that a person sld be pefect human being of certain propotions to be a cricketer...get rid of the records of joel garner he was too tall and hence had an advantage....i think in the modern age accpet what teh technology says and subject peopel like harbhajan, murali, lee and shoaib to regular checks....the ICC shld also look into something which can check the flexion while in match conditions aka the snicko and hawkseye.i beleive in the old adage abt ceasers wife and all that...now murali's response is stupid if u r kind to him if not it is something which hitler wld have done. if u read bedi's comments it becomes clear "Murali will complete 1000 Test wickets but they would count as mere run-outs in my eyes." it si bedi's opinion for god's sake, he can have any opinion like KP is from mars....or Warne worships devil...is murali saying that bedi cant have an opinion...shame man he can have any opinions that he wants and he can express the same as well.....within reason. is it slanderous...well maybe it is but all that murali has done is give everyone to clog the internet abt their opinions regarding his actions. he shdl have learned that it is better never to give another person an oppurtunity to say what he thinks of u

I do not see the need to add extra facts to Murali issue. It is as clearly known as water has Hydrogen and Oxygen, with facts of science. His visual "jerk" of arm is within 15 degree limit and everybody else do their little bit of "chucking" within this limit. If not enough, Mukul has done a great job in collecting all the information of it for one last time.

Certainly the fact remains, although he did not demonstrate a higher flexion than allowed limit, Murali may chuck in crucial times. In that regard, not only Murali, any other bowler can do that. In fact any other bowler whose 15degree flexion can not be seen, can do it even better. That is why we need regular screening and perhaps random checking (during matches) like in doping. Again this matter is not specific for Murali but for all.

I only see few people are still fighting their loosing battle. Notably, Crowe and Bedi. For Crowe's case he hasn't stated much points on this issue. So it's not clear what makes him not accept the obvious and scientifically proven fact.

For Bedi, firstly, he's absolutely dogmatic, just like other few Murali criticizers. He would not accept that he was wrong, no matter what facts you provide. Certainly Colombus was entitled to believe that he sailed to India, so is Bedi for the belief of his.

....

It is a diminishing breed of people who still thinks that Murali chucks. They are severely struggling to keep up with overwhelmingly gigantic facts that amass against them. But after all of those facts, you can simply shrug your shoulders and say, "oh well, I'm sure that he chucks anyway". This is why we need reconciliation now. You may have thought that he does. Well, it is ok. Now we have enough and more facts. We understand you. Time for you to do understand the reality. Give up your logic-less, out of planet arguments and accept the plain fact. It's not a sin.

Yes Bedi, it's not a sin. Now it's time for you to accept the original mistake in your judgment.

...But he (Murali) has been the center of attraction for this heating controversy. Its the ICC who should be blamed for this pandemonium as they have extended the parameter of flexing one's bowling arm. The ICC should have a thorough analysis of all the bowlers and their degree of flexation so that the angle of rotation notched up by most of the bowlers of varying catagory like spin, medium ,fast will be the benchmark and bowlers who go beyond this limit , be made to modify their action.In this way we can find all the bowlers in the same plane and no one is treated specially.

To the guy that posted the youtube link - I don't understand what is being said - looking at that footage, I was NOT convinced that Murali was NOT chucking. In fact it was hard to believe he did not chuck the last ball in that film.

...you see his photgraphs at point of delivery or just prior and you ifnd his action really doubtful.

Maybe they should show Dennis Lillee and Holding's action at 2000 frames/second. Maybe that would help to really understand the debate.

And oh, Bedi's action too.

This whole debate about Murali or Akhtar chucking then boils down to the fact that these players, specifically due to being double-jointed or having hyperflexion, or whatever, are able to bowl within the limits set by the laws of the game, which would be otherwise impossible by a normal bowler without these physical abnormalities. So why hasn't anyone raised the question... should those people with abnormal physical characteristics be allowed to exploit rules that are set with normal humans in mind? This might sound a little extreme... but when happens when x-men show up and bowl 200kmph deliveries because their hands move in exorbitant ways that don't exactly flout the limits of ICC's laws? Given the marvels of modern medicine, what stops people from surgically altering themselves to be double-jointed so they can turn the ball 90degress and get away with it? Are we expected to watch a team full of players, all with unique abnormalities tailored to make them superhuman bowlers or batsmen? These might seem like controversial questions to raise, but isn't this the crux of the issue? So I repeat my question, should players with physical abnormalities be allowed to exploit rules set with normally built players in mind?

Good article to debate on the Murali vs Bedi case. I would like to point out a few issues that seem to miss our fellow readers,

1. Fellow readers repeatedly suggest Murali straighten his arm, well he is bowling with a straight arm but it looks bent cos he cannot straighten it any further.
2. A few of our readers suggest that persons with abnormal arms should be thrown out of the game because there is the possibility of them having an unfair advantage - It springs up the word “DISCRIMINATION”.
3. The CHUCKING rule was to prevent a batsman being hurt by a missile AND not to prevent a batsman from a friendly bent arm bowler sending down a googly.
4. A learned reader has stated that the rules of cricket states that one should bowl with a straight arm – What is the definition of straight-arm? It does not mean the arm has to be straight like a pole; some of our arms when straightened might point to different angles. If you search for a perfect human being to match the literal meaning of straight-arm bowler no one will be able to play cricket.
5. It is also shocking to see how indifferent people are on the subject of impaired armed cricketers, some senseless readers tend to think that such unfortunate soles should not be entertained in cricket, how narrow minded can we be?
6. ICC has set certain rules on bowling actions; hence one should either put up or shut up.

Dear writer, Bedi, Crowe and all persons who think persons with physical defects (Particularly deformed arms) should not play cricket – Be humane in your judgment of people; take the inhumane aspect of your views and appreciate the achievements of all types of persons.

This is a topic that often makes Murali's fans emotional. And therefore, most of the opinions/comments will be made in haste. I am of the view that this particular issue about Murali's action should be treated as any other issue in the long history of cricket that led to a basic change in the rule of the game. Pitches used to be uncovered and there were some wonderful bowling figures in the early tests. Pitches started getting covered and it suddenly became a batsman's game. Batsman used to thrust their pads in gay abandon with no worry about being given out and then the LBW rule changed. People like Bedi belong to the tribe who beleive that the correct way to play cricket is to the way it was done by them. It is quite absurd to suggest that what is visibly legal is correct. This is a very flawed argument. By that count, he may even say that an LBW appeal which is visibly OUT must be indeed OUT? Bedi as a speaker has a colourful past and if he wishes to be taken seriously, he needs to be more tempered in what he says. Bedi, the cricketer demands tremendous respect but as a cricket observer, he leaves a lot to be desired. COming to Murali's action being legal or not - really now, what more can the poor man do excpet standing upto scrutiny for the past so many years and prove himself right? Murali has stood up to any test that the ICC or its appointed umpires have asked him to subject himself to. he did not make the rules, he only hoped for the best once he gave the tests. Bedi has to face the consequences of his utterances which were probably made just to liven up the evening...

If murali is bending his arm to enhance his performance, Is'nt Gilchrist using a squash ball to enhance his batting a cheat?

Well......Its all about Murali.Murali is a national asset and a sporting hero of our small island nation. Some under achievers of the game can not stand what Murali has done throughout his cricketing career.I fully agree that people who say wrong things of murali is to gain negative publicity & mileage for there deplorable conditions they are in. Thanks to the Media for they can not survive without 'em. Thats the bottomline.

I am not to impressed with most of the comments in response to this matter - could you please publish some of the 'abusive' comments so that we can see how other readers are looking at the matter? Please note that the first time that Martin Crowe saw Murali (1992), Murali welcomed him with a second ball duck. In fact Murali took his wicket in the two innings of the match and bowled Sri Lanka to victory and Sri Lank's first ever series win aginst New Zealand. To make matters worst Mr Crowe was NZ captain. Hence, I am not surprised at his incessant criticism of Murali. On Bedi's part, it is nothing but sheer jealousy!..

Irma

I wouldn't like to be associated with Bedi's attitude, but I also think that Muralli's action is sometimes illegal. He unintentionally admits it himslef, when he says that no-one complains about his action when he isn't taking wickets. Well of course not - when he is bowling legally, no-one complains and he doesn't take wickets. I also think that South Africa is responsible for the whole controversy that has built up around him. Huh? Read on. On his first tour of SA in the early nineties, he took a bucket full of wickets despite looking like a 57 pound weakling. There was hardly a person associated with cricket who didn't think his action was sometimes dubious - since we could all see the bent elbow, it must have been more than 15 degrees according to the new science and therefore illegal. We were so thrilled to have the Sri Lankans here and so liked Muralli himself, that there was a benign conspiracy of silence about it. If the SA authorities had, without reference to shot-putting, pointed this out to the ICC then and insisted that action be taken, things might have been very different now. Instead we contributed to building a legend which too soon could not reasonably be challenged. It is an insult to suggest when a man is five years into an illustrious career that he is bowling illegally and must fix it.

Does anyne remember Geoff Griffin? He was a SA fast bowler with permanently bent elbows who, well into a tour of Australia was no-balled out of cricket for chucking, by an umpire who must lurk in Darrell hair's family tree. He called no-ball every delivery Griffin bowled until Jackie McGlew enquired how he was to finish the over. Under-arm, said the umpire and so he did, a sad and undignified exit from test cricket. There was no science in those days, if the umpire determined the delivery was illegal it was called no-ball, until the bowler gave up. Maybe Bedi comes from that era.

I think in our heart we all know there is something wrong with Murali's action...At least Bedi has courage to say, what so many others want to but could not.

batsmen have enjoyed the use of extra gear (heavier bats, helmets, various kinds of pads - normal pad, thigh pad, chest pad etc - and the cricket ball has remained the same. WHY NOT AMEND THE LAW FOR BOWLING TO INCLUDE ANY TYPE OF ACTION FOR BOWLERS TO BE VALID ? Of course we could see more injuries for fast bowlers as a result of this but it is definitely worth a try to make the game evenly balanced between bat and ball.

Mukul, your article is generally objective as opposed to the subjective views generated by the political bias generated in ALL ICC countries.

I was once very opposed to Murali's action but since the ICC's 15 degree ruling, I have grown to not only accept but admire his guile. Apart from being exciting to watch, there is always a degree of amusement in seeing the differenr approaches to playing him. He is said to have bowled doosras with the brace on but except for those who take an off stump guard, he is still virtually unplayable when at the top of his game.

I agree with the writer who suggests that we can't keep lowering standards to match the lowest flex else everyone would have to go back to bowling like Ramnaresh Sarwan with absolutely no flex, ICC's view not mine. At this point, unless this controversy reaches crisis proportions on the field of play, I would suggest that we allow the game to go on with the current rule. Nothing in life is perfect but batsmen will still score centuries.

Best regards

Bobby Goodman

I have seen Murali bowling on the tour of India in 1994 and where Siddhu had hit him out of ground half a dozen times. I remember that very day he was not turning the ball that much. He was looking like a ordinary off spinner. But suddenly there comes the transition and he is the biggest turner of the ball, puzzling every batsman around the world. I still wonders how has that happened.

Few of my colony cricketers have shown that even they can turn the ball that much if they adopts that action. And I am really hopeful that there would be lots of Murali are making in the cricket playing nations.

I totally agrees with Abhishek that everyone knows this and only few have courage to say the truth.

It is also wrong to blame umpires who have no-balled him..they also had the courage to say the truth.

But we have come longway after Murali's rise to the zenith..and lets accept him as an exception and not as an exceptional bowler. And lets hope that he will remain the only exception.

Isn't it a fact that when you walk on the field that you accept umpires as the judges? Don't you appeal to the umpire when you think the batsman is out? An umpire makes a decision based on what he sees with his naked eye not with replays in slow motion. And if he says that the action is illegal, there should be no question about it. Otherwise get rid of umpires and install cameras instead. Let's see how much fun remains there then.

I don't think you can compare Murali's pehla or doosra with the genuine leg-breaks of Shane Warne or for that matter of Anil Kumble. I am not even going back to the days of Bedi, Prasanna, Venkat, Chandra, Abdul Qadir, Lance Gibbs, Richie Beanud, etc.

I saw some comments that people with deformities have unfair advantage and hence should not be allowed to play. Isn't that ridiculous? How do define "normality"? What about Joel Jarner's height? Didnt it give him "unfair advantage"? What about well-built batsmen, like, say, Symonds? He can thrash a ball, mistime it, and yet score a six. If a Sachin Tendulkar cannot do that, can he say that Symonds have an "unfair advantage"? If you think that way, let us define a normal person as someone with a weight of 80-100 Kgs and height between 5.10 to 6.2 inches. Anybody who does not fall under this category cannot play cricket. Woww!!!! That will be fantastic. A game meant for "normal" people.

Dear Pulkit Jain.. this i have to tell. i went to same college as Murali did. St Anthony's college katugastota. he 3 yers senior to me.. and i have seen him playing school cricket numerous times. i think he was turning the ball miles at that time too. i have seen school cricketers been out bowled by deliwaries which pitched on edge of the turf. (they were just leaving the ball). and he is not an exeption. He is the greatest of all time.

Once again a great article Mukul. I have to completely agree with you. It has been quite an amazing episode to watch how someone people want to brush aside Bedi's opinions, simply because they are fans of Murali...Until ICC is able to prove that their reasoning is justified and they are not trying to do "favours" for any bowler for any sentimental reason, experts such as Bedi should have their say as much as they want. It's within their rights and expertise. Thanks.

Whenever i try to draw a list of the greatest bowlers of all time, i find it hard to put Murali's name on the list. The reason is nothing
but his bowling action seen with my nacked eyes. It is sad for the game that he is the highest wicket taker in test cricket and will remain so for along time to come up with a questionable bowling action.

This is a huge conundrum here. ICC's flexion rule was implemented when Murali had gone past 300-400 wickets or so. It genuinely seemed to have been introduced to "accomodate" the stars and their records (Lee,Akhtar,Harbhajan et al).
And invariably, all those who come under suspect action worm their way out citing "congenital crookedness"...

Has anyone noticed RP Singh has an hyperextension of his bowling arm similar to Akhtar but his bowling action is far more legitimate?. Crooked arm is obviously not an excuse.

Bedi says it is umpire's duty to pronounce judgement. Darrell Hair has faded into oblivion..Modern cricket + TV nowadays weans umpires + commentators and other people away from calling a spade a spade...

Bedi now seems to me like the little rabbit that yelled "The emperor has no clothes!!!" and there was a collective gasp!

Sadly, I would blame ICC for the spurt in bowlers with suspect action. They didn't nip it in the bud... individual cricket boards wield more clout than ICC...

I rest my case.

Mukul

Bedi has a valid point. ICC needs to define and enforce rules without making exceptions. The science and technology exists today to do that. Comparing "pure actions" of McGrath, Bedi etc is a good first step. But rules enforceable in practice are needed. My personal sense is that Murali's action and results (doorsa) have induced Harbajan to seek a similar result through "flexion"(?). Not something we need in cricket. But if Murali is permitted why not Harbajan? Bedi is right to call attention to this -- we can say it was done crudely but the point made is important.

Ananth

I felt the article had a general message of, “what can be done to end this seemingly endless debate?”, which regardless of one’s opinion is arguably a good thing.

Aesthetically I dislike Murali’s action (old school personal opinion?), I deplore the idea of spinners intentionally to their advantage being allowed to straighten their arm up to 15 degrees during delivery, and am horrified by the idea of a whole generation of young spinners utilizing the ICC arm-bending guideline. However, the cricketing pain I feel is NOT with Murali, rather with the ICC’s inadequacy and the ugly debate between militant Murali supporters and detractors.

I do not believe that the optical illusion, bowling three balls with a brace, and arm deformity reasoning form an intellectually suitable argument to support Mural’s action, and clearly neither does the “he’s a blatant chucker” belief of the detractors.

Alternatively, as the article (I believe) suggests, how about focusing on what logic can we use to close the distance between the polar beliefs? What will measuring past and present bowling flexions gain us? Should spinners be subjected to the same guidelines as fast bowlers? Should hyper extension be considered the same as intentional straightening?

To end the debate : - why can't murali bowl one entire test match with the brace on, and let the world see if he can still take wickets.

It is an amazingly insightful and a first hand report. I really like that photo of Tony Lock in action. If Murali is physically different (or impaired) than the "normal" ones like Warnes and Kumbles, and if that is giving him an unfairly advantage, as evident from the way he sweeps opposition, the question is, is it fair to view his records in the same light as the other "normal" ones? It is not fair to ask a person with an impaired vision to face Brett Lee or Shoib simply because of the obvious advantage to the bowler. This obvious reasoning can work the other way too. If a bowler, due to a unique physical condition gets an unfair advantage, then, is it still OK for a “normal” batsmen to face him? It is very hard to answer these questions and due to the lack of objectively defined rules in the game book, any answer would run the risk of ending up as a mere opinion. As far Murali and Cricket, they both are very sound and solid. Murali’s commitment to cricket is never questioned and cricket is “growing” and can only get better from here. If People like Bedi are concerned, then they should get to the bottom of the problem and showing resentment in public is certainly not the way to do it.

Dear Sir,

Many thanks for bringing my name up in all this latest hysteria!! My comments were made back in Dec 06 while watching Murali bowl into a 50 knot northerly in Wellington. 50% of the time he bowled the lethal doosra, 50% off-spinners. In commentary Tony Cozier mentioned Murali had been advised by the ICC in 2004 to NOT bowl the doosra, but Murali stated he never received the message. No further testing of Murali's doosra has been done since 2004.

My comments were that while Murali's offspinner is fine under the laws in which he plays, why shouldn't his doosra be checked every so often? This would be good for his sake and for the transperency of cricket's sake. I suggested the doosra (not the off-spinner) should be tested along with every other action that is NOT cleared.

The MCC World committee, which I sit on, asked the ICC, to consider doing more regular testing, and in particular, live testing during play by use of special camera technology that is available. This is now under review.

Finally, you will not hear another comment from me publicly as I am satisfied it is now going through the correct process of review by the ICC.

Regards Martin Crowe

Mukul, your article has really opened up the debate of “UNFAIR ADVANTAGE” and thank you very much for it. Perhaps what you intended and what has come out of this debate are at two different ends.

Isn’t UNFAIR ADVANTAGE the real subject in the Murali & Bedi case?

There are some solid points that the readers have pointed out such as

a) People with abnormal arms have unfair advantage (Murali, Akthar etc.)
b) People who are big and strong have unfair advantage (Symonds, Cairns etc.)
c) People who are extremely tall have unfair advantage (Tremlett, Garner, Ambros etc.)
d) People who are pretty short too have unfair advantage (Gavaskar, Sachin etc.)

If cricket was to be played as suggested by number of readers by so called normal people, the ICC will have to start running around with measuring tapes, scales and doctors to check out who fits in and eradicate persons with UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. All of the above mentioned and more could be termed as persons with UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.

One reader goes to the extent of seeing the future where bowlers do operations to have double joints etc. to use the rule but gain UNFAIR ADVANTAGE – how ridiculous, people are born with abnormalities or could be due to an unfortunate accident hence making a mockery of it is not cool.

The game of Cricket does take advantage of physical ability & abnormality; hence why toy around with just the greatest bowler of our time Murali.

People tend to argue that Murali was only lab tested to be cleared, WELL PEOPLE HIS BOWLING ACTIONS IN MATCHES WERE STUDIED TO CLEAR HIM; THE LAB TESTS WERE JUST TO DOUBLE CHECK PRIOR TO BEING CLEARED TO BOWL.

WHY DRAG THE ICC INTO THIS ?

THEY HAVE SET THE CORRECT RULE; HENCE WHY COAX THEM TO GO THRU THIS EXERCISE ALL OVER AGAIN AND COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.

Thanks for the opportunity to give my thoughts.

Murali is an unique bowler and he has never stated that he is the worrld's best bowler.However he rejects the calls of him being a chucker and a cheat.
I recall the first instance he was noballed in the Boxing Day test match in Melbourne.Now was it the right decision from Darrel Hair? Conventionally the Square Leg umpire is the one who adjudicates the bowlers arm, the reason being he is best positioned to observe.In this instance the square leg umpire (Steve Dunne) was completely satisfied with Murali's action.So Murali was the recepient of a dubious and inconsistent umpiring decision.Subsequently Ross Emerson... followed the same path and made matters worse for Murali.
The beauty of Murali is he did not give up and was more determined to perform better.Murali's achievements are the results of sheer hardwork and exceptional skills plus natural talents.Mud slinging, abuse and heckling is not going to impede his tremendous success.
So in a way Murali was severely disadvantaged by the earlier umpiring decisions to a large extent. The current view of the elite International umpires is that Murali DOES NOT violate the ICC rules.So there is no argument about the ON Field umpires, and by the way they are best positioned officials ie Square Leg.Incidently there judgement is supported by lab tests and biomechanics.So basically all angles are covered thus all doubts with regards to Murali's action are eliminated.
Now lastly the fact that batsmen struggle against Murali is their own fault. Unlike years gone by current batsmen use very little footwork when they play spin bowling.This is exactly what the spinners would love to see, especially a bowler of Murali's calibre.Murali will be adding many more scalps to his collection unless the batsmen improve their skills. GOOD LUCK MURALI

I haven't read all the comments so sorry if this is a repeat. I feel that the whole issue of chucking is far too emotive. I would hand it back to the umpires discretion to call a no-ball if he feels an arm has been bent/straightened but change the culture of the game so that an accidental throw is not seen as a slight on character but just a flaw in technique exposed when trying to get the maximum effort out of yourself (after all, when fast bowlers such as Lee et al overstep nobody accuses them of deliberately cheating or endangering the batsman).

Interesting article and insight.

My dearest Tom (Moody - ex Sri Lankan coach),

A few questions, (if I may before I drift into silence) to your last few words (in bold capitals):

Is drug testing done once and thats it for life? If a batsman is found guilty of using an oversized or an illegal bat is he charged once and left alone for life?
As technology improves why not make results of testing transparent to everyone?
What's wrong with sharing up to date stats on bowlers degree of flexion on an annual basis? (We all stats!)
Would it not educuate more and put a stop to the personal stuff that no one needs?
If what you say is true about Murali being tested in matches why haven't the rest of the world been told?
In all my research I have seen nothing regarding the clearing of Murali's doosra? I'd love to see it cleared and to what degree it flexes under the 15 degree rule?
Surely, then, the world could rest and acknowledge the record he is about to hold?

Sincerely Martin Crowe

NOTE: Again, readers should know that there's no way of verifying if this is, in fact, the former captain of New Zealand. Mukul Kesavan

Mukul, yes this is always a sensitive issue. As I see it the main argument you are making is that about the 15 degree limit that ICC imposed. But I think you may have missed the point of the current issue.
Take in to consideration the following text you have mentioned in the article:

"I asked Bedi what he thought of the finding that nearly everyone chucked, including bowlers who had never come close to being called like McGrath and Gillespie. Bedi dismissed the point. McGrath’s bowling action, he asserted, was pure (his word) and the only way you could judge the legality of a bowler’s delivery was relying on the human eye. McGrath looked legal, so he was legal."

How can that be??? I mean, long gone the days that you could could solely trust the umpires. A bowler can be cleared if he "LOOKS" alright? And if someone doesn't "LOOK" alright, then he's a chucker? That's a kind of a lame statement I heard for a long long time. If that is the case, why use a TV umpire in judging run outs? We could stick to the old system then. If someone "LOOKS" out, he is out and if someone doesn't "LOOK" out, he's not out...
So my point is, if we use technology to great extent on many things in Cricket, why not in a much sensitive thing as this?
Then, as the ICC conducted the above research, (according to ICC) almost every bowler bends their arm more than then-allowed limits. So only logical option is to change the limit to an acceptable limit. If everyone is exceeding the limit, nobody can be left out in new rules so they had to change it to 15 degrees.
Then Martin Crowe's argument seems a bit biased... Why should ONLY Murali be measured??? If everyone bends their arms, why only Murali should be measured from time to time? Then, every bowler should be measured from time to time, without them knowing. That would be a better option. Saying that only Murali should be measures is plainly targeting him.

And you gotta put yourself in Murali's shoes for once. Just think how would it be like to be taunted for the most part of his career like that? Murali sueing Bedi is showing us that he's had enough...

Tom Moddy's comments were very interesting and needs to take it very seriously as he was the coach and no one has first hand experience than a coach who sees him on a daily basis. A coach also will not put his reputation at risk coaching someone who is dubious and a cheat.

When Murali was first no balled in Melbourne I was present on the ground. No one knew why he was no balled and when Arjuna realised what has happened he changed the end to ball from other end where he was not no-balled. Then later Arjuna instructed Murali to ball leg-breaks and Umpire Hair surprisingly no bowled him again. A person who has played cricket and bowled knows that no one can chuck bowling leg breaks. This is where intelligent people started to question the reason behind umpire Hair's decision. What this shows is if one person sees it as illegal and other person sees it as legal in the same match who do you believe? Australian media and certain people joined the band wagon to label Murali a chucker and a cheat including Australian PM Howard. They all ignored the other umpires' view in the same match... Murali has played all over the world including county matches for Lancashire for many years without any incidents. So, how can we take only a handful of people's view seriously when majority approves his action as normal including three Australian coaches?

I sincerely hope people will start to think rationally and make decisions based on evidence produced before them rather than feelings or hearsay that has no evidence to support.

If we adopt Bedi's reasons, we should not use cameras for other decisions in cricket such as run-outs, catches etc. They also can be judged by the umpires or human eye as suggested by Bedi. Lets get on with life and appreciate that we cricket lovers are lucky to witness a genius at his best in our life time.

NOTE: I should clarify that there's no way of knowing if the comment signed Tom Moody, is from the Australian coach. Mukul Kesavan

To Martin Crowe

I hope that you read my previous blogs.As you know LBW decisions are made by the Head Umpire not the Leg Umpire.Similiarly throwing is the call of the Leg Umpire for obvious reasons.Head Umpires have several other things to look at such as the bowling crease, return crease etc.
Commentary Box, Corporate Boxes and Lounge rooms does not provide the same view of the Square Leg Umpire.So someone sitting there does not qualify to judge.Throughout Murali's career he was NOT called for throwing at all by the Square Leg Umpire. Is this not the basic cricket law?
So how does Martin forgets the basics?...

Mukul,

As per my email address it is me, former NZ Captain and now Executive Producer Sky TV, be assurred.

Well done on your article, and you can now delete me from the remaining list of 2 left as you refer.

MDC

According to the article it cites "Bedi again offered his basic position: how do we know that Murali, when bowling a doosra competitively without a brace does not flex it?"

So is Bedi criticizing Murali's action without actually knowing whether he is chucking or not?

The timing of this is interesting. Now that Murali is getting ready to go to Australia and break Warne's record, we have this old controversy awakened again. Reminds me of the time when Barry Bonds was getting closer to Babe Ruth's home run numbers. MLB which had so far done very little about performance enhancing drugs suddenly sprang into action. The public in general was much less forgiving to Bonds as compared to any other players who were known or suspected to have used steriods.

To me Bedi loses his credibility when he claims his total faith in human eyes. The reality of the matter is that human eyes have been proven to make mistakes and that fact itself caused ICC to change the bending rules. As for the arguement of match condition vs lab condition, the big question is this, why only Murali? Why not others?? At least Murali has been tested and has been cleared more than once. What about others?

Let's look at this logically. Personally, looking at Murali (who, incidentally, I admire) from a traditionallistic viewpoint, is a chucker.By the same token, I think Bedi is talking BS (I mean rubbish, not just Bhishen Singh). Here's why.
Cricket is a game, and like all games, its rules are contrived. Over the years, various important laws, such as those relating to the No Ball (front foot/back foot), LBW, underarm bowling,declarations, covering of pitches, fielding restrictions etc have been changed in such a way that umpiring decisions taken before the amendment would have been wrong under the new rules(how many LBWs did Bedi take which would not have been given until the law was changed to include those from balls piching outside off?) Historically, if the umpire thought you straightened your arm while delivering the ball, he called it "No ball". Now the ICC says that a spinner/fast bowler can flex his arm 5 or 15 degrees respectively. In reality this is eyewash because it is impossible to implement. Does Kumnble's faster ball make him a fast bowler? Was Sid Barnes a spinner (as he himself claimed?). How can we expect the square leg Umpire to "call" a bowler without a protractor, not just an ordinary one, but one that adjusts for the viewing angle as he is not standing side-on to the bowler?!! But that is the Law!! Ergo, Murali may be a chucker, but he is not bowling illegally.And BS Bedi is stuck in a time warp. Over to you, any right minded members of the ICC (We live in hope!).

Hi Mukul, interesting article to debate, I agree with Tom (Moody) that the issues are revolving around unfair advantage.

It has opened the eyes of many and opened a can of worms that could spark fierce debates in cricketing circles.

Murali is a wonderful bowler and a champion off spinner; whom we need to admire and cherish. He is destined to be the best among bowlers and we should appreciate his achievements. On going testing and involving the ICC on Murali’s issue is not fair to the bowler.

Tom has enlightened us on a few points; we as cricket lovers and guardians of the game need to ponder over the facts seriously.

Personally I DO NOT wish to discourage genuine talent with physical abnormalities. Cricket can only be enriched further with unique individuals appearing every now and again. Murali, Tremlett, Garner, Ambros, Akthar, Symonds & Sachin etc. are wonderful players and entertainers.

CRICKET TODAY WILL NOT BE WHAT IT IS WITHOUT UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS.

MODERN TECHNOLOGY IS USED TO IMPROVE THE GAME,

LET”S NOT STEP BACK TO THE STONE AGE.

Mukul,

this is one of the best pieces yet.I think it is high time the "degree of flexion" of Mr.Bishen Singh Bedi is studied and published...although as a youngster I have had the privilege of watching the sarda of spin casually ping a single stump at nets in ferozeshah kotla;i really do believe he has gone too far this time.He should have taken on the ICCinstead.

The truth is, the human eye is an insufficient tool to detect even 15 degrees of flexion; even I once thought Mc Grath's action looked suspect but kept it to myself; shoaib akhtars action also looked suspect.

The point is,if the ruling body has rendered tehm legal,then they are legal.
Mr.Bedi.You cant turn back the clock.Murali has not been protected to secure the Lankan Vote for the Asian Bloc.Or has he????

Dear Mr. Martic Crowe (if you are really who you're claiming to be...)

Sir, you say these words in an above post:

"I suggested the doosra (not the off-spinner) should be tested along with every other action that is NOT cleared."

First, I think doosra has been cleared. I refuse to believe you are not aware of the results of the research conducted by ICC during the 2004 ICC champions' trophy. Now, since it is cleared, why check for it again.
And if still you want to check it and measure it regularly, fine - I don't think Murali's got any objection at all about it - but let's measure all the bowler's actions, not just Murali. Why should he be a special case? Just because he doesn't 'SEEM' to be alright?

Besides, I think all these arguments are there because Murali's doing well. If he wasn't this successfull, would you believe he would have had any of these troubles? It's just as the case with the Aussies. Put behind everything, but still they're the best team in the world. I'm a Sri Lankan, but I'm not afraid to admit it (unlike you guys). Aussies are not the role model gentlemen in the game, but that just isn't the only reason most of the world doesn't like 'em. It's because they are SUCCESSFUL!

Now, tell me this. In the last Sri Lankan tour of NZ (in 2006), SL lost the first Test, and nobody (including you) had any problem with Murali's action. But in the second Test SL came back to win it with wonderful performance by Murali. And all of a sudden people have problems with Murali. You went on to say his action is suspicious... Isn't this being biased?

Regards,
Sachintha

The obvious fallacy of Bedi's article is shown by its absurdity when applied to a similar situation: if an umpire rules the batsmen not out, the bowler is not entitled to insist that the batsman is ushered off just because to him it "looked out". In the same way that the bowler has to abide by the bowler's decision, Bedi (an ex-bowler) should abide by the decision of the ICC and biomechanists, the umpires in this case. Then we can all move on.

Any rule in the sport has a meaning only when it can be implented in the field and not in laboratories. If justification for some action performed on the field should be done in laboratories, then that rule is absurd.

Cricket is a game which should have some legitimate rules for fair play. For some physical deformity if some one is unable to follow the rules, we can feel sorry for them, we cannot bend rules for them. At the end of day, to the paying public, the man of the match should show that he just not played magnificiently but fairly too.

Murali will go down history as the greatest bowler in the history of test cricket. No bowler has ever been so consistently prolific in taking wickets and by the end of the year should be the the highest wicket taker in the history of test cricket.

I can understand Bedi's plight. When Murali finishes his career he would make Bedi's career figures look nothing more than pedestrian.

Arjuna Ranatunga has called Bedi an Australia bootlicker. I leave that statement to be judged
by people who knows Bedi more than I do. However, I take into heart what great batsmen of the current era has to say about Murali. Kevin Pietersen considers Murali to be the most difficult bowler in world cricket. He even considers Murali to be harder to face than even the greatest Leg spinner in history Shane Warne who is Pietersen's team mate and captain at Hampshire and also his close friend.

Murali is simply awesome, he is to bowling almost what Bradman was to batting. In my all time greatest test team, I pencil him in my team just after the Don. Simple as that.

Dear Martin,
When someone is sad or angry there is no New Zealand sadness, Australian anger, Indian sadness etc. While we all are different in our appearance there are few basic facts which are unique for all of us. You and me, when we both born to this world, we aqure these unique things.
1. We all grow old. Whether you like it or not we all have to face it.
2. We all get sick- one time or the other. I am in health profession and seen and helped all kind of poeple with variety of sickness affecting all kind of poeple including some of the great cricketers too! None of us are going to be here for ever on this planet. You may like it- It never happend! When the time comes we all have depart and get back to basic molecules back on to earth! While it is necessary for us to have somesort of an identity to live and work and do our job to the society,in reallity there is not much of a difference between poeple whether they are from this country or that country.
I am sure your heart would agree very well- that Murali is the greatest baller alltime. Warnie is no different either. Most of us- normal human beings with no idiosyncracies and myths about poeple ( on the basis of where they were born and raised, appearance etc) have no problem appreciating that at all. I infact admire your abilities too. ( even now. Because, I know that fellow hukanbeings do behave in a silly way at times, we just need to forgive them for their ignorance). Just come out from your thick shell of grandiose delusions and hallucinations and enjoy the greatest baller of all time!
May you attain right thinking and right attitude before your brain cells get much older- before get to Bedi's age!

I think that Murali is correct when he says he is within the legal limits of chucking as per ICC rules. Bedi is also correct when he says according to him he consider's Murali's action similar to chucking.

There is no contradiction here as I will explain with an example. A person has parked his car regularly for last 10 years at acertain place. Today Police put up a "No Parking " board. What was legal until yesterday will now be illegal. Similarly, ICC by declaring a limit on arm bending has made Murali's action legal. Let's however allow Bedi to retain his stance based on human eye instead of the lab tests. I think Murali should not have sought legal action but rather ignored the comment of Bedi. Similarly no body has commented on Arjuna Ranatuga's response which is more defamatory than Bedi's statement.

Bishen Bedi is not the first name that comes to mind when one speaks of Captains and players who have played the game in the true spirit of sportsmanship. His record on and off the field is ample proof of this. Who then is he to talk about ethics, rules and such?

Bedi has always set out to make inflammatory and derogatory comments about Murali's action out of malice alone. Murali has taken the right decision to drag Bedi into court. On the other hand, does Bedi deserve this attention? There is no comparison between the two. Murali doesn't chuck, the ICC has made that ruling. On the other hand, Bedi could not have matched Murali's achievements even if he was granted a license to throw! BSB should quit Murali bashing. I can't remember him ever having said anything good about Sri Lankan Cricket. Perhaps it hurts his pride that the small Island nation on his doorstep has turned out champion cricketers.

How do we know when Murali bowled in the LAB with a brace.it turned?
...did it turn as much as it does in real test matches...did he have the same rip and flight as he is able to do in real games...and could he bowl the doosra with the same rip and turn.

i.e he went through the motions of bowling with a brace in a lab.....could he bowl the ripper off break and leg breaks that he picks up all the wkst with...can be proven only in MATCH conditons.

And for that Murali must bowl in a test matches with a brace...and show us he can still be effcetive and pick up wkts

Else he remains a chukker to me.

Appears to be a hot debate with Beefy (Ian), Tom and Martin joining the crowd; wonder who else would give their two cents worth.

As far as I am concerned, we have got set guidance from the ICC; one just needs to follow the rules and guidance and enjoy the magical game of cricket.

We need not knock on the ICC repeatedly on the Muralitharan issue. As Tom Moody has pointed out, Murali’s action was studied by watching the video clips’ of real matches; by a panel of ICC appointed judges. The lab test followed to confirm what the judges had concluded. What more can we ask for?

I am with Ian, with regard to the unfair advantage pointed out by Tom. It is a topic that would stir up serious debating within cricketing circles. Further Technology being used in cricket can only be good for the game and not otherwise.

I would like to conclude,

Cricket as it is does have legitimate rules for fair play. Physical deformity is a reality and rules can be changed to accommodate such issues, one cannot just feel sorry for them and leave them by the wayside. The world is evolving we need to evolve with it. Change is permanent we need to embrace it.

Murali is a living legend; all of us should enjoy watching this genius perform.

Bedi is correct in his interpretation of the game. However his language could have been milder. Murli might have bowled proper deliveries when he was under camera and got his action confirmed by ICC. At times his action does not meet the eye. The arm bends unusally and that may be because of the defect. One can not take advantage of physical defect and rewrite cricketing history. This has very serious consequences. Having said that no one on the earth believes that Murli is greater spinner than Share Warne, who memerizes the batsman and the crowd. I think even Kumble is better than Murli. This is not because Kumble belongs to India but because of late he has been taking wickets overseas too. He is not widely accepted clean bowler. We should appreciate him for his on field behaviour, his passion for the game and his country. However the problem is that this can not be at the cost of a batsman's wicket.

Tom Moody brings up an important point. As far as I know, one cannot compare mere variation in height, weight and strength to that of a physical/clinical deformity, unless of course the person in question is a dwarf (below 4 ft), or a giant (above 71/2 ft) etc. Each of these so-called "advantages" even out as they have their own baggage of disadvanatges like for example a tall bowler can release the ball from the second floor but cannot field as well. It takes lot more strides for a short person to reach the other end while he can dispose bouncers with ease. In these cases it is still the skill, training and hard work that comes into play rather than the advantage alone. So they are the accepted norms in any game. But a bent elbow is a different story altogether. I never doubted Murali's integrity. I almost feel sorry for his bent elbow. With his intensity, even without that bend, I am sure he would have been as effective. But however hard it is, we have to put that sentiment aside when it comes to fairness. I don't agree with Tom Moody's generalization and especially his definition of the word "physical deformity".

It is unfortunate to adversely criticise a grate bowler like Murali. I hope and pray that Mr Bedi will follow Mr. Crowe very soon.

Until the day ICC strips Australians from the 2007 world championship title, for using an object under a glove by Adam Ghilchrist that was not approved by ICC, all this is a joke.
If Adam Ghilchrist can have a squash ball inside his glove then Murali can bend his arm to 15 degrees if he likes to, who cares.
stop wining...

There are several things about Murali which is difficult for common people to understand. In the Delhi Test on one morning he was unplayable and on other days he was an ordinary spinner. Did his arm flexion increase when he was unplayable and flex less when he was an ordinary spinner. That particular test which India won by a massive margin on a turning Delhi wicket remains a mystery to me. Also, when you allow flexion based on degrees what is to prevent a bowler to flex more when his team is in trouble. Further in the case of Murali what was the speed at which he bowled in the lab tests? Does he bowl at the same speed in real conditions?

First and foremost we should get Mr. Bedi to bowl and test if he is straitening or bending his arm more than what was permitted before 2000. Then we should get his eye tested. If his eye test is ok and he can see all reflex perfectly without any error and his arm is not twisted to benefit the bowler then lets tell Mr. Murali you are not bowling in the legitimate way. If Mr. Bedi fails in any of these tests he is a man who is seeking publicity at another man’s expenses.

I also cannot understand how a bowler who is bowling doosra which is a leg spin can alter his hand to various proportions. Mr. Bedi please check with Chandra and let me know.

Mukul,
Have you ever analyzed the TIMING of any "Murali Bashing" by Bedi & others? The core issue can be entirely different. This can give a NEW dimension to your argument.
any "Murali Bashing" by Bedi & others.

We should get all bowlers tested on a periodical basis As Martin says this would improve the game and we could increase the flex from 15 to may be 20degree. This may be after finding another fastbowler is bending so much. We should also get past players who were bowelers to come forward and bowel to check their bending of arms. These may give idea of how things have changed from then to now. If the ICC rule was correct at that stage ect.

I agree with Mr. Bedi, Murli has been taking advantage of the situation. Icc should role out if some can not bowl according to the roles and regulation even of medical bases, they cant not bowl at all, there should be criteria set up and should follow the rules, no exceptions.

The original article is thoughtful and dense but the latter quality seems to take the argument further and further from clarity. The leader "Men in White" is apt as many of the arguments bring into focus the role of the umpires. It would appear that bio technicians under laboratory conditions are to pass judgement on a bowlers action, players can appeal against being dismissed, the match referees can decide hwen a match is to be abandoned. What exactly is the role of the umpire ? Is he only a ball counter and clothes horse ?. The tragedy of Muralis situation is that most true cricket fans know that he throws and consequently his achievements will never be truly acknowledges. The ICC must bear much of the responsibility for this situation as they should have acted more firmly in teh first place. Murali should have been required to modify his action or been banned until he did so.

To Martyn Crowe(if you really are)
>
First, Murali is not found guilty so you can't have test him often as you like. If he is found to have bent his arm, then you may require the ICC to check his action in every other match. I'm afraid you are a bit biased in this regard. Why'd target Murali alone? There're other bowlers like Brett Lee with not-so-right-action. I don't understand why you never raised this issue after the first match, which was won by NZ. But the third match, won by SL, lured you to think this way. I hope it's not jealousy.

>
Since his action is well within the rules, rest of the world have not been told. Umpires only call no-balls, they don't need to call all the good balls as good-ball.

I think Bedi is bold, brave and outspoken. He would never mince his words like Ranatunga and what Bedi said about Murali is nothing new and he is right in saying: "I am a free man and I have a right to express my opinion, I haven't said anything new." Thats right, there is nothing new that he has talked about. In retaliation, Arjuna Ranatunga speaking on the Indian TV channel, defended Murali and said: "He [Muttiah Muralitharan] should just think that when a dog bites, you don't go and bite the dog." So, who gives Ranatunga the right to call him (Bedi) a proverbial dog? Shouldn't Bedi go and sue him for this remark? I like Bedi's guts, 'coz after all that hoopla and the drama about Murali's chucking controversies, Bedi stood up to say that: "Murali will complete 1000 Test wickets but they would count as mere run-outs in my eyes." And, the reason he said is a valid one, because his doosra is a very dubious delivery and without which Murali is just plain and an ordinary bowler.

The reason Bedi feels it as dangerous for cricket is because, he thinks that some youngsters who idolize Murali are trying to emulate his bowling action and that is not good for cricket. And I agree with Bedi's views. As it is there are so many players these days whose action is questionable and imo it is due to the fact that, either they are trying to bowl very fast or, trying to come up with a doosra or a teesra (third one) and in doing so they are jerking their wrist and bowling an illegal delivery which often escapes the naked eye of the umpire or may be the umpire is reluctant to call it a no-ball. Because some of the bowlers have been baptized, legitimized and cleared by the experts at the bio-mechanics labs. These tests and the decision thereafter has certainly taken away the decision making and judgment qualities of the umpire, who cannot call it a no-ball because he does not want to become the victim of another controversy.

Therefore, if Bedi has raised this issue it should not be taken as a personal attack on Murali or against Sri Lanka, but in the overall interest and in the overall fairness of the game this issue must be settled now or else the new generation would be producing more and more chuckers!

To Sachintha,

Fair question. The truth about that test series in NZ last Dec is that for a test and a half I had no need or intention of saying anything negative about Murali, instead praising his amazing performance into the 50 knot wind (1st test he didn't bowl much after SL batted first on a green wicket and lost easily). But on day 3 of the 2nd test, Tony Cozier, a highly experienced and respected commentator and jounalist, mentioned the history of the doosra and the situation with the ICC in 2004 asking Murali to not bowl the doosra until it was cleared, which he ignored, and which Tony said, the doosra hasn't been tested or subsequently cleared since.

So I responded by suggesting that it should be tested and cleared along with every other bowler whose action hasn't been cleared. Since then the MCC have asked the ICC to police all actions, and esp those who have a past record, on a regular basis and by doing it with live testing at the grounds, which the players would have no idea of.

I have always concluded that this is for every bowler and every suspect action. In my Cowdrey lecture in 2006 at Lords, I did not single out Murali's name, although gave an example of being dismissed by him, but kept it very short and general that I am against all chucking in cricket. I have since then adjusted my thinking on the 15 degree rule and accept it as the rule for today.

But as yet I have not seen any clearance or degree of flexion ruling on Murali's doosra. If there is one, I think we would all love to see it. i.e what is it compared to say his off-spinner? Compared to other bowlers or types of delivery?

To answer your question about biased? No, I have enjoyed Murali's company a few times, closely examined his arm, watched him demonstrate and chatted for 2 hours about it all with him in the Novotel Hotel in Hamilton during the World XI tour in NZ in 2005, which he can verify.

I've read all the research and I know the history of the game. There are many bowlers out there who are retired or have passed away who would have given their right arm for a second chance to either fix their action or at least have a 15 degree rule in which to bowl under. Some of these bowlers lives were ruined by being thrown out of the game for chucking. In the old days, from what I've read, it was humiliating to be a chucker and in that way the game was naturally policed. 99% of bowlers therefore learnt to bowl, to the naked eye, correctly.

No, I'm not biased. I just live for the spirit of the game and the integrity of the game to be strong. Past, present and future. I believe in transparency and what I hear in private does not equate in the public arena. Sometimes you have to ask the hard question publicly knowing it won't please some. But getting personal is crazy, most likely born out of total frustration. I just seek whats fair for the game of cricket as a whole.

I hope that clarifies where I come from.

Regards, Martin Crowe

Thank you for a very thoughtful article.

I do not believe that two of the arguments of the points made by the anti-Murali lobby hold water. Firstly, attempts are made to discredit the significance of Murali's ability to bowl in an elbow brace by claiming that he could allow his action to deteriorate in a match situation. Well couldn't any bowler do the same?! Secondly, the argument that the majority of people are unable to deliver a straight-armed doosra is placed in context by the fact that the majority of people cannot bowl at 90mph plus etc.

Let us allow all bowlers to chuck,bowl underarm(remember Greg Chappel/Trevor Chappel??), overstep and not call no-balls,and do whatever they want. One should be even allowed to kick the ball rather than bowl or chcuk the ball at the batsmen. Let us give batsmen a wider bat,at least a dozen chances before declaring him out, make sure no fielders are on the ground and play without any umpires, and let there be NO RULES AT ALL. That should settle the issue

Hey Ram,
Ok, murali DOES have a physical deformity and bends his arm to a certain extent. Fine. But what about those others like McGrath who bent his arm more than allowed amount of degrees - without any physical deformity??? Then isn't he being gaining more 'unfair' advantage???

I feel sorry for people like you...

We have to face criticism be it from Bedi or Hair or anyone and cannot run to lawyers with every single voiced or written opinion - Just because Bedi spoke out his mind rather than fall in line with other so called experts who fall in line in order to be popular and earn off the TV stations it does not mean that he is must not have his say. Go on Bedi have your say and if it hurts some people hard luck - this is a democratic world (or we hope so).
I agree that the brace is a load of bull dust - if so Murali must wear the brace even during matches - he might not be able to move the elbow with the brace but who can guarantee that he does not move it without the brace ?? Maybe Arjuna Ranatunga will give us a guarantee as he is the original author of the 'Deformed Elbow/birth defect' fairy tale - There are Murali clones on every street corner and I hope the ICC and all its experts do not buy the theory that they are all with birth defects (if and when the clones come into International cricket).

Hi Mukul,

The earlier throwing rule was for the ON FIELD umpire to make a call from Square Leg position.However the offending bowler could change ends and continue merrily as long as the other umpire is happy with the action.In Murali's case Mr.Hair took the role of the Leg Umpire whilst being at the Head Umpire's position.That could be the only instance in a Test Match where a bowler is penalised in this manner.
ICC in fairness to all bowlers reviewed the process.The reporting system was modified from the 1996 method.
Currently if a bowler is reported he has to undergo rehab and subsequently get tested.This is an extensive process and how could one say this is to favour bowlers such as Murali? In fact it derails their careers and some bowlers may not come back.

Now Murali has cleared that hoop and he is very much in control of things.He DOES NOT CHUCK in the opinion of the Eilte International Panel of Umpires and the reputed ENGLISH COUNTY Umpires.SO why are the so called experts and pundits worried? Umpires verdict is clear let us respect that and move on.

If Sri Lanka was at the bottom of the list of cricketing nations, would this have been an issue?
Does anyone think Bedi would have cared?
What about those trying to imitate Murali?
What if Murali's physical deformity did not bring him the success he's enjoying today?
What if a sprinter with some form of a god given physical deformity can run faster than another well known sprinter? do we stop him from competing against the latter or will the latter accept the challange and try to excel further?
The list goes on, Eh! People!
We have no right to say people with physical deformations cannot or should not compete with the best in the world.
Only trying to see things in a different angle, and not involving the naked eye.

Between now and the time of Sri Lanka's Australian tour many old and new worms will be oozing out of the woodwork, you can bet on that.

I, and am sure the majority of not-so-jealous cricket lovers will applaud Murali when he breaks the world record. However I will always consider that Murali is the greatest offie cum all round spinner of them all while Warne is the greatest leggie of them all.

To those who say that Warne had more in is armoury do remember that his googly very rarely posed a threat. His version of it is no way near that of the man who I think should have been challenging him as the greatest leg spinner - Abdul Qadir. Had Qadir got 25% of the support Warne had from his teammates, supporters and of course the dear old media we would have been glowing about him. By the way, how many wickets did Warne get courtesy of the media. One huge example comes to mind - Darryl Cullinan. Surely one of the best batsman in the 90s he had one foot back in the pavilion whenever he played Warne as the media hounded his confidence crowing "Warne's bunny". And there were many such easy wickets for Warne due simply to,media pressure. No such luck for Murali or any other. The Aussie and English "experts" never do talk about this for quite obvious reasons.

The ICC is a pathetic inept organisation that has stumbled it's way from one catastrophe to another, ever since it's inception. The entire council needs to be sacked, and replaced with people who actually have some history in the sport, not just rich businessmen from Asia who would never have made the Zimbabwe 10th XI. It's a disgrace that they pretend to be about cricket when in reality they are clearly about putting money in their own pockets. Nasser Hussein knows this, and it's about time everyone else realised it. The world cup was an absolute disaster, the worst world cup ever. The ICC has clearly adjusted the rules to allow Murali because how can you ban a player after he has already taken 400 test wickets, which he had approximately at the time of testing, without looking like the incompetent joke of a sporting body that you are. The way they fine players for criticising anything to do with officialdom proves they have something to hide, otherwise they would have some kind of rebuttal for allegations. Instead they steal money off players to shut them up. The ICC didn't create cricket, it must go.

The whole testing process and 15 degree standard is another typical action by the ICC doing what they're best at- appearing to address a problem while actually doing nothing and hoping the problem will magically disappear.

Both MCC Law 24 and the ICC's Rules and Regulations give umpires a mandate to call any bowler for throwing, regardless of how far the arm is straightened, if, in the opinion of that umpire, the ball is thrown. All the ICC has done is loudly trumpet a 'standard' which appears to be fair and acceptable, but which is actually impractical, unenforcable and redundant- if a 14.9 degree flexion is undetectable anyway, why not just say that any straightening is illegal? Due to the ICC's negligence in the framing of its chucking policy, I see no reason why Bedi should not be allowed to comment on Murali's action (or that of any other bowler), which, according the laws, should be under scrutiny every ball.

The obvious solution is exactly what Bedi suggests- allow the umpires to do their job and call the game as they see it. This, however, will not happen under the current system, where the umpires are employed directly by the ICC, and any rocking of the boat will not be tolerated.

As for Murali suing Bedi, I think it's a completely unnecessary distraction from the game. The ICC must be very proud.

Dear Mr. Moody, With all due respect, typing in caps is the same as shouting (it's called nettiquete) and there is no need to raise your voice in this forum, everyone can hear you just fine!

Being big or strong or tall or short are merely variations of human stature... being double jointed is an abnormality... there is a clear distinction, so they shouldnt be discussed as the same things.

Secondly, there is nothing against people with abnormalities (born with or otherwise) playing cricket. I am all for it. As long as it doesn't provide them an unfair advantage. That is not being insensitive, that is just being rational!

Let us look at the spirit and intention of the 15degree rule... when a bowler delivers a ball, bending your arm too much allows you to add extra turn or speed to tbe ball, which is what the rule tries to prevent. By being double jointed, Murali is getting the same result, using different means. A rule is not about the rule itself, but about the result that it tries to achieve. In this case, that result is gaining extra spin or speed, and it should be illegal whether you do it by bending your elbow or your double-jointed wrist.

Murali is certainly not breaking the (current) rules of the game, but his action is against the spirit of fairness in cricket.

hi,
If Murali was an indian & played cricket for india all these years with 700 wickets under his belt, i wonder what Mr.Bedi would have had to say..! Murali is a genius with an extra oridinary action which can be one in a bilion. there are certain individuals who cannot accept his acheivements & look to underestimate him.. all this was started by the aussies who where threatend by the spin wizard & it was a well planned effort by Mr.Hair & some others to start off the anti-murali campaign which still continues with people like bedi joining in..! come on gentlemen, muralis action has been monitored & cleared by some of the best past cricketers of the world..! Let us put our hands together to the man whi will worlds highest wicket taker for a long long time..!

Bishan Bedi was an outspoken right throughout his playing career as well as court in many controversies before. No doubt that he was a tremendous player at his time but trying his level best to unchanged his controversial character. His comments on the Murali’s action is far too much and not fair but seems jealousy. I hope Murali will not get distracted by such adverse comments and hold the world record very soon. Best of Luck Murali.

Theres been too many things forgotten and too many assumptions made. For those who say that they should allow the umpires to make the decision right then and there about the legality of an action instead of being up-to-date with technology might also be thinking that the third umpire should go into early retirement as well then as they might want the umpires on the field to make those decisions as well! yes there were many instances in the past where bowlers have been called for throwing and their careers ending prematurely but that doesn't mean that these issues can't be rectified starting with the likes or Murali, Lee and Akthar. And to remind people on a fact that had been forgotten since the murali's last visit to the lab, his arm speed is that of a medium pacers. So that added on to his flexibility means that the action may look freakish but thas all it can be called!!! not illegal!! i frankly will be disappointed if murali does sue bedi as i believe that everyone has a right to air their opinions no matter how dumb they might seem! As for bedi and the rest who still deny his brilliance.............get off the history books and stay in with the times!

Dear Mukul,

I am disappointed at your lengthy article. you seem to justify what Mr Bedi said, just because you were part of the discussion. Let me add some points to the debate:
a) The spin trio including Bedi of that era, owe half their success to the fielding of Solkar at that new position of short square leg.
b) if Murali is today criticised for his disability, will you take off the credits of our own great Chandraskhar whose unusual leg spin was due to a disability of his wrist??.
c) Mr. Bedi is in my opinion not the greatest of spinners as you make it, there were better spinners and you know it. Further he was not a great cricketer with his awful batting and no fielding.
d) He is also not a very pleasant man, being publicity hungry but he gets very little of it and whenever he has opened his mouth in the past it was either utter nonsense or uttered to generate controversy and be in the limelight.
e) Lastly, Mr. Bedi has no business to criticise anyone in the language he so freely utters. He should be penalised for the same.

Partho

Wonderful article, and I agree with the conclusion that the ICC must present its evidence, not just its conclusion.
Bedi has every right to protect the integrity of the game, but has to be careful not to slip into defamation. To avoid this he should avoid using Murali as his illustrative example the whole time - there are others over whom a question mark hangs, as mentioned in the article.
At the same time, Murali would probably defend himself better by portraying Bedi as a crank, by laughing it off, rather than by threatening legal action. That's an overreaction I'm afraid rather typical of his society, where Howard's 'chucker' comments some 3 years back made front page news.

There have been a number of arguments for and against Murali's action,with both set of supporters raising some very valid points. Lets look at this problem from a different perspective. Murali has played 113 tests taking 700 wickets, and the bowling action controversy first erupted in 1996. Lets have a look at Murali's stats till 1996 -it read 23 test matches taking 81 wickets - hardly world class stats for a test bowler. Now in 1996 murali's stats read 2 tests @ 14 wickets and in the next 2 seasons murali's stats read 17 tests @ 108 wickets. All of a sudden in 1996, Murali had transformed from an average test bowler (21 matches for 83 wickets) to a potent test bowler.And it was in 1996 that murali's action first came under scrutiny, the exact point in Murali's career where he transformed from an ordinary bowler to a potent bowler. It surely raises a question, whether Murali has changed his action in 1996, which resulted in him being able to take wickets and as a result become better? The answer looks to be yes as it was 1996 when the entire "chucking" controversy came to the fore and as Ranatunga feared that he would loose a potent bowler, he came out in defense of his bowler. And this left the SL board and the Asian bloc with no other option than to arm twist the ICC. And as Asia is where the money comes from, the ICC had no choice but to conduct half baked tests (which have never been published in a comprehensive manner) to defend the change in the bowling rules. And while some ex- players are vocal about in public, it results in them being singled out as is the case with Mr. Bedi.However, the blame has to go to ICC for not being strong enough to deal with the issue of "chucking" and instead of solving the problem they have ensured that the problem always remains.

Mr. Martin Crowe,

You said above:

“Is drug testing done once and that’s it for life? If a batsman is found guilty of using an oversized or an illegal bat is he charged once and left alone for life?”

You speak of the chucking issue as if it is a deliberate ploy by a bowler to gain a huge advantage over the opposition. In quick bowlers it would be fair to say that they may gain a yard or two of pace but in slower bowlers I wonder if there exist and advantage as great as performance enhancing drugs. On many occasions the bowler's are innocent. An effort ball may cause the elbow to jerk.
During Sri Lanka's 2006 tour of New Zealand you raised an entirely different issue with Murali. You claimed that due to Murali’s bent elbow his release is closer to his eye, therefore he achieves amazing accuracy. We can sit here and pick reasons (or excuses) for this man’s greatness.
I agree that reports should be made public and transparent; I’m pretty darn sure that Murali has no issue with that either. None of the concerns you and Bedi bring up have anything to do with Murali, they have more to do with the ICC. Why then would anyone tarnish this man’s reputation and be on the ugliest side in cricket’s history? Mr. Crowe your lecture at Lord's at the sixth annual Cowdrey lecture was clearly defaming Murali. Bedi’s current remarks also fall into the same league.

Hilal

Murali is a strong fighter.He withstood the brunt of the australian bashing during his 95/96 tour down under.I am sure Mr.Bedi's comments will not affect him.And on Mr.Bedi's part if he criticses any body publicly he should be prepared to bare all the consequences which arises from his action.

Mukul,
why don't you ask Cricinfo to take the initiative on this debate.

1. Get them to post relevant videos of Murali (Channel 4) and other bowlers, along with the comments of bio-mechanical experts.
2. Get people like Bruce Elliott, Daryl Foster from the team who have studied Murali over the years, and others like Holding and Angus Fraser who were part of the ICC committee that made the new rules after studying the evidence to write on Cricinfo and answer questions.

They are the ones best placed to respond to those who say o.k. maybe there is an optical illusion with Murali's action but how do we know that he doesn't chuck in a match, and that the best person to decipher this optical illusion is the umpire who will spot that while worrying about the front foot for no balls and being alert to lbw etc!

On a related point: How many degrees to the vertical are you allowed to tilt your arm - Warne never delivers his leg-spinners with his arm vertical, its always round-armed (like Malinga). It often seems more horizontal than Malinga's action, but its never been questioned.

In response to Ram above may I simply point out that rules in cricket as in life itself need to be kept under constant review to ensure they are both sensible and realistic. It is extremely unlikely that Murali has EVER intentionally "thrown" a cricket ball whilst bowling even if he may just have involuntarily flexed more than the legal limit on occasion - although I think this is also unlikely as he has never reached or gone beyond 15 degrees in testing. Also numerous other current bowlers (Andrew Flintoff, Sajid Mahmood, Shaun Tait, Harbhajan Singh & many others) have natural bowling actions involving a small amount of flex that one can clearly discern with the naked eye. Should any of these other bowlers also be falsely accused of "chucking" I would defend them without hesitation and just as vigorously as I am now defending Murali!

I believe that the 15 degree flex limit is one of the best things that the ICC has ever introduced into cricket because a bowling action that involves a small amount of entirely unintentional flex will very rarely exceed 15 degrees whereas an intentional throw almost always will and by quite some distance too!

Hi Mukul

We had some comments from various people all over the cricketing world. Could I please add something interesting.

Murali plays a lot of County cricket and none of the English County umpires have had any issue with his bowling action.Similiarly the Elite International Panel of umpires too have had no doubts with his action.I am really surprised how Mr.Bedi & Mr.Crowe rejects the umpires verdict having played the GENTLEMENS game at various levels.

ICC cannot take the Wind Speeds, %of Doosras,Speed of Delivery ect into the equation at all times.All the above variables and different bowling types are covered in the current 15 deg flex allowed.Murali bowls within the allowed limits thro his accuracy,control and concentration.

During Bedi& Martin Crowe era I am not sure that we had Independent Umpires and ICC Pitch Inspectors.So things are drastically different from what they experienced (benefitted )in match conditions.Now the umpiring standards are high and fair play is extensively promoted.

Well Done ICC and Good Luck Murali.

Thanks

What an exhausting account of comments.It is strange that Bedi brought this matter in the wake of Murali approaching the record of Shane Warne.Undoubtadly both are legendary spinners of all time that none can dispute.I don't think Bedi should be taken seriously as a he self explains himself for his remarks.The important issue is how to setup borders and boundaries to safeguard bowlers and most importantly the spirit of this great game.There should be a fullstop to these baseless critiscisms and give someone a legal criteria to eliminate the non compliant bowlers.Since I am Sri Lankan my views on Murali ''can be'' biased.However with modern technology it is amazing that there is still room for such controversies.Recently I have seen some slow motion pictures of one of the specsaver ads in the England -India match.For gods sake why this technology cannot be used to scrutinse bowlers more closely.All what needed is finding a cohort of spin bowlers selected randomly and study their actions with high tech camera technology.This can be done prospectively and can be blinded from the player to catch the normal action in a match situation. That gives an idea of natural variation which cannot be percieved by the naked human eye.The mean and other statistical parameters of the degree of bending arm will provide the guidence to set up the legal limits.Analysis of the past bowlers and their comparison with present day ones may be questionable because of the image quality.whether it is ethically correct either...I don't know.For an instance if we find the great Dennis Lille's action is beyond the new legal limits(Just a speculation)what are we going to do about that??? This needs to be put to an end.It is derogatory for a bowler who has sacifized his whole life for cricket and when he is about to reach his landmark of all times to put under the spotlight of questionmark.It is grossly unfair by all means.Let him and his fans all over the world enjoy his success.I hope ICC would consider this issue more seriously and find a way to put a fullstop to the dillemas which are not healthy for the true spirit of the game.

Mukul,

You are looking for honest, timely action from ICC to ensure that there is fairplay on a cricket field with ICC managing the issue. You must be joking.

I have documented several instances of apparent discrimination from ICC's match referees & Umpires (Emails sent to Dave Richardson & Sheila Razdan of ICC through the ID Sheila gave me, enquiry@icc-cricket.com).
They have "noted" the incidents.

I have sent them several formal emails requesting clarification / action against erring ICC staff, no response at all from ICC.
ICC will only be seen moving in the direction of ethics if you find a way of ensuring that they get no money if they don't move.

Ref to Sir Ian Botham's & Tom Moody's comments on the subject.

Indeed, cricket will not be the same without these unique individuals. Hear, hear.

Unfair advantage. The points raised by Tom Moody just makes a mockery of this idea. Hear, hear again.

Only the strong change their minds when faced with the facts of the matter. The weak (because of their pride) will always stick to their views because of their bias. These ostriches with their head buried in the sands will always be their. The true lovers of the game will have to accept this and get on with it.

I do admire those who have changed their views on many of the players when faced with the actual facts.

Let us have more of these gentlmen who will administer this truly great "Game of Gentlemen".

Philip Gnana
New Malden
Surrey

Mukul, the article is very well written. I think
yur suggestion that ICC should study the actions of all major bowlers (past and present, fast and slow) and publish the result, is a very practical one. In fact, I feel, it is required. After all the matter needs to be settled, one way or the other. I would like to see your suggestion being accepted by the ICC.

We have in absence of any healthy cultural pastime as hitch-hiking , Mountaineering, vigorous sports, Swimming , or wrestling and Boxing , fallen to this demeaning mode of passivity to go looking days on the stupid spectacle of Two jokers hitting the leather Ball by a willow and the other Eleven running after it.

Can someone really explain to me how you can have a degree of straightness?
Straight is 180 degrees, if it's not 180 degrees, it's not straight
If you don't have a straight arm then you aren't bowling correctly

Elbow bending , 15degress flexion and all the other terminologies that ICC has broght in to make the game exciting and consistent is a whole load of hogwash. Man bowlers in the past with less dubious actions had their first class careers cut short. They never even ventured close to playing international cricket. Few decades back there was a bowler who answered to the name of GV Kumar (not to be confused with the legendary Vaman Kumar) who played a couple of matches for Karnataka if my memory serves me right. Had an amazing start but his action was called a few times in the state level competitions and off he went never to be spotted again. If he had the leniency that Murali is enjoying who knows how history would have been re-written.
Elbow braces and other means to check if there is a bend in the bowling arm etc is all fine. Does Murali retain the same level of 15 degree consistency that he showed in the lab and during tests even while playing for his country ?? your guess is as good as mine. Its just not humanly possible to get an umpire to spot the greater flexion with a naked eye.
But hey if he has a natural deformity then just like the sight less individuals have blind cricket and the people hard of hearing have tournaments for the deaf we could suggest to Subhas Chandra to try and start off some thing for the people with bent elbows. In the mood that he is in Subhash Chandra may be game to give it his best shot. If he can pay tons of money to people of the calibre of Imran Farhat , Tamil Kumaran, Stuart Binny and the long inconsequential list of people who have signed up for the ICL then Murali sure would be a prize catch. Hey any one got Kapil's mobile no.? would sure be a good idea to give him a buzz and suggest it to him !!!

You have started a good debate. Now it has reached a stage of needing concensus on whether things observed by the naked eye or proved by scientific evidence should be the law. However we must not forget the two facets of the game; spirit and law. I am not a cricketer but enjoy watching cricket. Therefore my first priority is the spirit of the game. We all started playing the game with throwing and later without coaching we learnt to "bowl" with cart wheel action. Those who were coached to become cricketers learnt the diffrence between bowling and chucking. The variations in bowling the lovely game of cricket has today are innovations by cricketers and whether it be an out-swinger, in-swinger, off-break, leg break, googly or a doosra, each needs different arm action whithin the accepted norm that is cartwheel action. Therefore allow us fans to enjoy the game in its spirit and leave the policy matters to ICC and respective national bodies. But if the ICC has decided on a policy governing the bowling action based on sceitific evidence, then Mr. Bishen Singh Bedi should accept it because we are now in 21st century not in the 20th century, the era in which he played his cricket based on the evidence observed by the naked eye.

What We have introduced, to make International Cricket more engaging, is making us confused. I played The Cricinfo 'Umpire' game yesterday. I did pretty good, but not good enough. In my opinion, the third umpire, should be asked not to officiate,in any match. The two umpires in the middle will never get all decisions right, neither will the third umpire. The charm of the game is to accept the decision of the umpire. That was the reason, I believe, why cricket was invented as a game. I have great respect for both Mr Bedi, and Mr Muralitharan.

I am an admirer of Mukul Kesavan's writing, but he's way off the mark on the question of Muralitharan's bowling action. To me, no camera has proved that the Sri Lankan off spinner's action is legal. Quite the contrary. It is perfectly possible to bowl, not chuck, with a congenital deformity such as Murali's, but Murali, unfortunately throws every ball, because he straightens the bent arm in delivery. Even in the photograph that appears here, it is obvious. And if ICC will have it, on the strength of so-called biomechanical expert opinion, that 15 degrees of flexion are the minimum required for the human eye to sight a thrown delivery, I see it every time Murali bowls. Obviously he doesn't pass the test.

What saddens me most is that Bedi's motives are questioned in this whole controversy. As a former cricketr, I know that his views are shared y many former and present international cricketers, only they won't go public with their views. I have heard former Test umpire S Venkataraghavan, for one, describe Muralitharan as a 'chuckah' in his inimitable forthright manner in private conversation. And I was not a lone member of the audience.

What Mukul has said is exactly right. Time and again Bedi has done it. It seems he has this habit of putting himself in the light by issuing such statements when and all focus seems to have gone away from him. And his favourite topic to speak out is Murali. Also, time to time he has shown marked disrespect to present day cricketers and modern cricket. If he thinks that in those so called good old days, people have to face a fast bowler without the helmet, then that was the norm and everybody played like that. But there was only skipper who cowardly didn't take the field when his players were injured on a trip to the West Indies. The modern day spectator often feels fed up by some of the comments of these expert old-timers, who think that the golden era was always in the past, when the played or a few decades before that. What they forget that with time the game changes and with the change comes new challenges. If himself was so good then why he had an average of less than four wickets per test, where as many modern as well as past greats have nearly five or more wickets per test, which according to me is the best statistics to judge a tes bowler. People like Bedi should learn to respect the present and if they feel that there is something wrong with a particular player or a particular rule then he should back his judgements by providing bare-bone facts and not vague statements like "as seen through the naked eyes....". In todays age of technology almost all things can be proved with the help of evidence and in case of sports through stats. So, if he has the courage then he must challenge the ICC to make public, the result of the studies conducted on the bowling actions of different bowlers form different eras. If the ICC fails, then he can launch his campaign against ICC and not a particular player, who on his part has readily undergone all the tests and scrutiny that he was asked to.

murali has proven him to be pure as any one else in the world. No doubt about that. He's by far the best bowler in the world and no one will ever come close.

I congratulate Bedi on his efforts to get attraction to himself, He has done this because he never got attraction because of his cricket.

Bedi may not realize it, but he's playing into a 'conspiracy' - perhaps not the appropriate word - to destroy once and for all the finger spinner. Can a pace bowler deliver a length ball and a bouncer with the same action?? No. In the same way, to bowl the one that really rips and rushes onto the batsman, the finger spinner must use the wrist and exert a 'jerk' to send the ball across 22 yards!! The leg spinner need do no such thing because the inverting of the arm in the delivery motion gives him the additional ounce of power he needs...so the off-spinner has to pay for a loophole in cricket's rules, eh?? Meanwhile, the batsmen can use marginally wider bats , bats with suspicious material and hide squash balls inside their gloves, because it's a batsman's game, after all!!! Is that really what Mr.Bedi wants??

The simple and acceptable solution is to ban anybody who outright throws - like Inzy who was called - and spare the rest. No arguments, no animosity, cricket can go on.