Trust science, not your eyes

The smell of coffee beans is strong, and we are awake. That's the thing about science - it forces us to redefine our notions about reality. All these years we thought that chucking was a cut-and-dried issue, that either you threw or you didn't, that one could tell by looking carefully. Now it has been proved, conclusively, without a doubt, that the truth is different. Most bowlers, as this news report indicates, chuck. Now we must think about this again, and start at the beginning.

What is a fair delivery? This is an important question, and a difficult one. If chucking up to 10 or 12 degrees is common, we clearly cannot enforce a ban on that, because the game would have no bowlers left. But where does "unfair" begin? The 15-degree limit that the ICC is considering is an arbitary one. Is a ball a chuck when it poses a threat to a batsman? Is it a chuck when it goes beyond the bowler's control and becomes deliberate rather than involuntary? Is it a chuck when it goes beyond a certain level across which most bowlers' involuntary straightening does not take them?

These are tough philosophical questions, and we are in an early stage of grappling with them. Angus Fraser writes in an excellent piece in The Independent today that most bowlers do not merely straighten their arm, but they also hyper-extend, adduct and abduct. Fraser explains: "These are involuntary movements, caused by the force of the arm as it comes over, and suspending a player for something like this - even though it gives him an advantage - would be hard to defend if the player took legal action." It would be hard to police as well, as it is unlikely that the best available technology can measure all these things in match conditions.

It is becoming increasingly clear, with every revelation, that the world has been unduly harsh in dealing with Muttiah Muralitharan. I had blogged earlier ("Murali's redemption, and our arrogance") about how the documentary in which Murali had bowled with a brace around his arm to prove he didn't chuck was significant - not because it proved that he did not throw in match conditions, but because it demonstrated that there was an optical illusion involved in his bowling. He had appeared to chuck, blatantly so, even with the brace on, although that was clearly not possible. This proved that the evidence of our eyes was misleading when it came to an issue like this - and there is no other evidence against Murali. Even the 14 degrees of his doosra would now be legal under the new limits the ICC is considering.

The most important aspect of these new developments is that we now know that we cannot trust our eyes. Glenn McGrath and Shaun Pollock appeared to have lovely clean actions, but look what the studies tell us. Murali appeared to chuck with a brace on, when he clearly couldn't have been doing so, so our eyes were wrong again. We need to get over the arrogance of believing that what we see is how things are - a mistake people make regarding another crucial area of cricket, umpires and technology. Reality is more complex than what our eyes tell us, and we need science to guide us, and technology to help us.