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 laborato