Muralitharan unfair victim of an umpire on a crusade (25 January 1999)

25 January 1999

Muralitharan unfair victim of an umpire on a crusade

By Mark Nicholas

WHATEVER the Sri Lankan cricket management may say now, and the hours since the humiliation of Muttiah Muralitharan have softened their anger and their hurt, there is no doubt that they were always concerned by the appointment of the umpires for their game against England in Adelaide on Saturday.

Ross Emerson and Tony McQuillan were two of the three umpires - the other was Darrell Hair - who called Muralitharan for throwing three years ago. Most probably, though wisely they have not admitted as much, they feared the worst.

When the worst came, 18 overs into the match, the shock rooted everyone to the spot, mouths open, hearts pumping. For the last month a witch hunt has followed Muralitharan around Australia. Suggestions that official reports about the fairness or otherwise of his bowling action have been filed are rife. Crowds have heckled him and newspapers have put him in the dock. Australia has appointed itself as judge and jury. The hostility to an innocent, gentle man who possesses an intriguing cricket talent, whatever its legality, has been extraordinary.

After the fourth ball of the 18th over, the second over bowled by Muralitharan, Emerson chose to reopen the issue. Arjuna Ranatunga, Sri Lanka's shrewd but volatile captain, took the law into his own hands by confronting Emerson, pointing accusingly at his chest and then by leading his team to the boundary edge where he was met by Sri Lankan officials and the match referee, Peter van der Merwe.

Possibly Ranatunga had his first move pre-planned. Certainly he was responding on behalf of his nation as he has always done, by refusing to yield. Arguably he did right for Sri Lanka. The heat of the moment needed to cool and the captain needed advice on whether to continue the match. For a short time the tour was in jeopardy and the cricketing relationship between Sri Lanka and Australia was on a knife edge.

Now it is Ranatunga who is in jeopardy. Tomorrow he will face a hearing with van der Merwe because he took the code of conduct beyond its limit. Rudeness has no place in cricket and ideally he would have looked to work with umpire Emerson then, and later when he ordered Emerson to stand closer to the stumps for Muralitharan's bowling, rather than work against him.

In all, play stopped for 15 minutes while debate continued. The delay seemed twice as long. The whole business was appalling and did cricket no service.

Later Ranjit Fernando, the Sri Lanka manager, said that "Muralitharan has been tainted because someone decided to play God", which was heavy stuff but pretty much what happened. The incident could have been avoided if Emerson had not been so full of himself. Here was a man on a crusade. This was not a response to a sudden whim, and it came from a perceived lack of support for the Australian umpires in general over the Muralitharan affair. A cricketer was publicly demeaned and discredited, which is unforgivable and should have been avoided.

Instead of no-balling Muralitharan, Emerson should have warned the match referee of his intention and asked that Muralitharan be filmed and subsequently studied again by the International Cricket Council's sub-committee on throwing. This would not have given Emerson the limelight but it would have earned him respect. In this technological age of camera angles and super slow motion replays there is no need to victimise a man in public, particularly as the man has previously been cleared of bowling unfairly.

Muralitharan has a difficult bowling action to analyse. He has a double-jointed elbow which hyper-extends and a unique rubber-like wrist which helps the fingers to impart fantastic spin on the ball. By exact interpretation of the law Muralitharan may be guilty but then so are many other bowlers who are bound, at times, to partially straighten their arm at the point of delivery. Even upon the closest possible examination there is not enough evidence to convict Murali, as against other bowlers, of throwing. He is a freak, if you like, who is managing something that no one has seen before and malicious people are speaking darkly of his achievements. Right now his achievements mean nothing. After 200 Test match wickets he is back in the dock. How many times can a man be tried?

Muralitharan was first called for throwing by Hair in Melbourne on Boxing Day 1995. There were questions then about the timing of Hair's action. Why Boxing Day, the biggest day in the Australian cricketing calendar? Why not Sydney five days earlier in a limited-overs match? Why call him from the bowler's end and not from square leg where the view is so much clearer?

Then, a short time later in Brisbane, Emerson and McQuillan did the same, though from square leg. Emerson got it so wrong that he continued to call Muralitharan when he switched to bowl leg-breaks in an orthodox manner.

After these incidents the ICC investigated the bowler and, after careful analysis, exonerated him. They have not studied him for two years since, during which time he has cleaned up Test teams all around the world. There have been whispers in the corridors of the cricket fraternity who are puzzled by his gift but there has not been a murmur of administrative doubt. The finest umpires in the world have watched, they may have wondered but they have not complained.

To Sri Lankans and to Muralitharan specifically, this silence indicates support. He has not been asked to change a thing and therefore he is vindicated. Now, if the process of analysis must begin again, it is imperative that the ICC give a clear lead.

If Muralitharan is judged once more to have a fair bowling action umpires must be instructed to leave him alone. The authorities can continue to monitor him, as they should any bowler about whom there is a whisper, but umpires must not be allowed to prosecute on the field of play or the game will be dragged even further through the mud in which it presently finds itself.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)