Catching out the throwers

It is a relief that India hasn't worked itself into a state of paroxysm over Harbhajan Singh's doosra being reported as suspect. It is perhaps indicative of two things. One, chucking is no longer such a big deal and thus less emotive as an issue. Two, there is a quiet recognition across the land about the dodginess of the doosra, the ball that has been called into question.

Chucking is simply the most pernicious problem confronting cricket since match-fixing, and infinitely more complex. At one level, technology has helped us to understand the problem, but on another, it has made it even more muddled. Amazingly, very few cricketers understand the issue themselves. When it was revealed that a number of great bowlers of the past might have been offenders in the strictest sense of the law, there was widespread disbelief. For years, the authorities simply haven't known what to do with the problem.

In the old days, there was a simple solution to it. The umpires called a no-ball if, in their naked-eye judgment, they found a bowler to be throwing. Some suggest a return to those days. The approach to no-balling for throwing, they say, should be similar to the foot rule: the umpire calls every time he detects a transgression and the penalty stays the same - an extra run to the batting side and no dismissal save the run out permitted off that ball, but nothing further. A bowler isn't banned for bowling three such no-balls in an innings.

The matter, of course, isn't as simple as that. The foot no-ball is an involuntary transgression, whereas throwing implies a deliberate breaking of the rules. The stigma can't be removed merely by removing the penalty, because every no-ball call for throwing amounts to calling a bowler a cheat. Umpires make plenty of mistakes in calling foot no-balls, but at the most it can cost a wicket to the batting team. When it comes to no-balling a throw, however, reputations are at stake. And unlike the foot no-ball, where it is a clear line decision, detection of a throw requires a subjective judgment from the umpire, and that is simply not an option any more in the aftermath of the Muralitharan episode - in the light of what high-speed cameras have revealed. Apparently, nothing is what it seems.

Given the nature of the task, it is difficult to fault the ICC's latest approach to the problem. There is simply no viable solution in sight. It isn't perfect, but finally there seems to be a method to it. Scientific surveys have now shown that bowling within the prescribed norms is nearly a biomechanical impossibility. Every bowler in the history of the game is said to have straightened his arm to some degree. It has also been established that, barring physical peculiarities such as Murali's which create an illusion of exaggerated straightening, a flex under 15 degrees isn't visible to the naked eye.

Armed with this knowledge, the ICC filmed over 20 bowlers at the Champions Trophy held in England last September, with two high-speed cameras shooting 250 pictures a second with a shutter speed of a thousandth of a second to avoid blurred images. In layman's terms, these cameras were five times faster than standard TV cameras. One of them was positioned behind the bowler's arm, and the other square of the wicket. The footage was then combined and converted by a software program to create a three-dimensional image of the action, from which the elbow angle and absolute speed of the ball, wrist, elbow and shoulder could be determined.

The results haven't been made public, because the ICC isn't 100% sure about their absolute accuracy vis a vis the tests carried out in the laboratory of the University of Western Australia, where electrodes are strapped on to the bare torso of bowlers to detect the movement of the arm. But they were revealing nonetheless. The biomechanical analyses showed that a number of current bowlers were exceeding the 15-degree mark, and by some distance.

Though this report has not been officially circulated, match referees have been quietly shown the results, and it is inconceivable that the information has not percolated down to the umpires. Empowered by this knowledge, more and more umpires will now be willing to trust their eyes and report suspect actions. The recent reporting of two bowlers - Shoaib Malik and Harbhajan - is no coincidence.

The loophole, and it's a big one, with this system is that the bowlers, after they undergo corrective measures, are tested in lab situations before they are passed. There is nothing to prevent a wilful chucker from modifying his action in the lab and then going back to flouting the norms once again while playing.

Could it be that the day isn't far off when bowlers under the spotlight are asked to wear sensors while bowling on the field?

Let us know what you think

Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo in India and of Wisden Asia Cricket magazine.