Brett Lee and Indians, the doubts resurface

Cricket has lived through Bodyline and Rebel tours. It is now suffering its way through match fixing and betting. But wait, an age old, ugly monster has reared its head again. This is the monster that chucks.

Cricket lore is littered with bowlers being called for throwing the ball. More than those who were actually called for throwing by umpires, there is a long list of people who have in the eyes of the people and media been deemed 'chuckers'.

Where in all this would Brett Lee fit in? When he walked out onto the hallowed turf of the Melbourne Cricket Ground on Boxing Day 1999, the Indians knew that this lad was going to make waves. Bowling with a high arm action, Lee clearly generated more pace than the jaded Indians could deal with. Testing the mark set by Pakistani speedster Shoaib Akhtar, Lee notched up figures of 5/47 and 2/31, and powered Australia to a 180-run victory. Almost immediately, it was rumoured that the Indians suspected Lee of chucking. An article that appeared in The Telegraph, Calcutta suggested that Indian coach Kapil Dev would raise doubts about the legality of Lee's action. As it turned out, Kapil Dev did no such thing. However, the bitter aftertaste of controversy lingered long after the excitement had died down.

Whenever the issue of chucking comes up, everyone has an opinion. Editorials spring up in every newspaper and website. One thing that hardly ever gets on the dissection table is what, in all likelihood, has been the spring of all the controversy. Flicking through the pages of a withered copy of a book titled 'The Laws of Cricket' one finds Law 24, sub section 2, note (a) "Definition of a throw: A ball shall be deemed to have been thrown if, in opinion of either umpire, the process of straightening of the bowling arm, whether it be partial or complete, takes place during that part of the delivery swing which directly precedes the ball leaving the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from the use of wrist in the delivery swing." Phew. A sentence of that length and ambiguity would not get past most sub editors. And yet, it is the basis on which a delivery shall be deemed as thrown.

After a delivery is deemed as such, what is meant to happen? The umpire would have to call the ball a no ball. Is that what happens in world cricket today? Certainly not. When Daryll Hair no balled Muthiah Muralitharan for throwing, an international controversy broke out. Everyone from the match referee in the concerned match, the cricket boards of the countries involved and the International Cricket Council (ICC) got involved in a controversy. With the matter being referred back and forth, and the formation of many committees, the issue soon lost focus.

But as all things unresolved go, this dust too must raise itself from under the proverbial carpet.

It's once again Brett Lee and Indians who sparked off controversy. Only this time it was Lee who was at the receiving end. Standing in the first Test match of Australia's tour of New Zealand in March this year, Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan believed he saw something in Lee's action that suggested that all was not well. Two Tests later, umpire Arani Jayaprakash felt the same way. The two reported this belief to the match referee - Mike Denness. He in turn referred the matter to the ICC. The issue now rests with the ten man committee on illegal actions that was formed earlier precisely to deal with situations of this kind.

As soon as news of this report broke out, the usual suspects began speculating. A good many experts came to Lee's defence and no doubt a larger number chuckled quietly to themselves. Australian Cricket Board Chief Executive Officer Malcolm Speed has since said "Brett will be properly assessed by Dennis Lillee and his delivery analysed by a bio-mechanist to provide a thorough and expert analysis of his action."

It is likely that his action will be cleared when it comes up for examination.

Fortunately, the issue has not blown out into one of race or location. No one has publicly suggested that it was unusual for Lee's action to be queried by two Indian umpires although other umpires have raised no such suspicions.

When I spoke to Venkataraghavan at his residence in Chennai today, he declined from commenting, as was expected. Stating that he did not want to talk about the matter while it was still being debated by the ICC, the former Indian captain added that he would elaborate on the matter after the ICC reached its verdict.

Perhaps the time has come to review more than just the actions of various bowlers. In frustration it has been said before, that the law is an ass. With careers on the line and the goodwill of the game at stake, the ICC will soon be forced to take some tough decisions and make some fundamental changes.