Tempting fate

Weaker men would have folded under the pressure of it all, but Muttiah Muralitharan, the greatest sportsman to emerge from Sri Lanka's teardrop island, appears remarkably unfazed by the debate that rages throughout the cricketing world over the legality of his bowling action. He stubbornly refused to ditch his controversial doosra during the first Test, and gleefully sped past Courtney Walsh to become the highest wicket-taker in Test history.

The biomechanical boffins at the University of Western University have concluded that he should be allowed to continue bowling the doosra - at least until the completion of further research into spin bowling - but their assessments have also shown that the delivery is illegal according current ICC guidelines. Muralitharan's arm flexes by 10.2 degrees - after five days of remedial action reduced the bend down from 14 degrees - while the ICC permits only five degrees of tolerance for spinners.

However, Muralitharan continues to bowl it freely and effectively, creating mayhem among Zimbabwe's batsmen, in defiance of top-level Sri Lanka Cricket officials and some trusted friends, who have advised him to shelve the delivery until the tolerance levels are reviewed and possibly increased when the ICC next reviews the issue. But Muralitharan is strong-willed and stubborn, and he refuses to listen.

His decision to continue bowling the doosra, though, is high-risk madness. The ICC has made it crystal clear in a recent media release that the rules, set in October 2002 after significant research, are not about to be instantaneously relaxed to accommodate one man. For cricket's mandarins the issue remains black and white: anything above five degrees is not kosher for a slow bowler. The rules may well be changed in the future, but, for the time being, this particular delivery is illegal.

Muralitharan, though, feels victimised after enduring the fourth scientific analysis of his action and contends that others in world cricket blatantly flout the ICC's tolerance levels. He has been privy to raw data of other assessments at the University of Western Australia and he has spent more time than most talking to the experts - he knows that the bend of his elbow is modest in comparison to some other high-profile cricketers. He also knows that the case for a rule change is strong.

But while such reasoning raises valid issues of fairness - issues that can only be resolved when the actions of other international bowlers are analysed more closely - it remains an irrational and dangerous argument in the rule-based system, risking anarchy and free-falling standards. The legality of one bowler's action cannot be justified by the illegality of another. Bruce Elliott's team may have highlighted shortcomings in the current regulations, but the unavoidable reality is that Muralitharan's doosra is currently illegal.

The ICC has circulated the UWA report on Muralitharan's doosra and every match referee knows both the objective data and the subjective conclusions. This means that Mike Procter, the match referee in this Zimbabwe series, has now been placed in an unenviable position by Muralitharan's stubborn refusal to temporarily retire the doosra. Procter, an ICC referee who has previously picked no bones with his action, is faced with a difficult choice: does he overlook the use of the doosra, accepting the conclusions of the UWA report and arguing that there is no point in escalating the controversy if the rules are about to be changed? Or does he feel duty bound as an upholder of cricketing law, knowing fully well that the doosra is illegal, to report him for a second time?

Both courses of action open Procter up to possible criticism. If he ignores the statistical results of the tests and takes sides with the scientists, then he - and the ICC - risk being pillared for favoritism and political temerity. Should he decide that he has no option but to uphold the strict letter of the law then he will face an emotional backlash from Sri Lanka, especially from the many Muralitharan supporters who fervently believe that a conspiracy has been cooked up to tarnish the reputation of their hero.

If Muralitharan is reported again, an ICC-appointed Bowling Review Group will meet and hold a hearing within 28 days to determine the legality of the action. All available evidence will be considered, including submissions from professional biomechanics, before the panel decides Muralitharan's fate on the basis of a simple majority vote. Alarmist suggestions that Muralitharan may be banned for 12 months may be wide of the mark, because the likeliest scenario is that they will blackball only his doosra, but the fact remains that they panel would have significant reputation-threatening powers.

Muralitharan will hope that they accept the admittedly persuasive conclusions of Bruce Elliott, backed up by the recent studies of sports scientist Marc Portus, who recommends that limits for fast bowlers be increased to 15 degrees, would be sufficient to sway a verdict in his favour. But why does he need to escalate the situation and tempt fate? Muralitharan is a phenomenal offspinner and the doosra, although bamboozling for lesser batsman, is of dubious benefit against the crème de la crème, as Australia's batsman recently showed. Muralitharan is playing a third-strength and thoroughly mediocre Zimbabwe team - why rock the boat and raise the stakes?

The ICC is due to meet in Dubai on May 13 and 14 and tolerance levels have already been penciled into the agenda. But, contrary to the hopes and expectations of many, it is becoming increasingly clear that no revision in the ICC guidelines will be implemented until after research has been completed during the ICC Champions Trophy in England this September. The ICC - who fiercely reject the accusation that the current level have been arbitrarily set without recourse to proper science - accept the need for further research, especially in the field of slow bowling, but a change to the guidelines remains months away.

The evidence unearthed by both Bruce Elliott and Portus will produce, it seems, a very convincing case for significant modifications to the permitted levels of flexion, changes that may well clear Muralitharan for good. Both have hinted at levels being increased to around 15 degrees. But, for the time being, Muralitharan remains a lawbreaker if he perseveres with the doosra. During the course of the next six months he will play under a variety of match referees - including Chris Broad in Australia in June and July - and the risks of being reported again are substantial. Why Muralitharan is willing to take such a gamble is unclear.

There are some worrying (and scarcely believable) signs that Sri Lanka's management team do not fully understand the ICC's new streamlined two-stage process for dealing with illegal actions. Recent comments, attributed to the management, suggest that there exists the misguided perception that the ICC would have officially advised Muralitharan to not bowl the delivery if they had concluded that there was a problem. But the ICC is not supposed to make any decisions during stage one. That is the responsibility of the home board (which in this case has been ignored). Only during stage two does the ICC become directly involved.

The more likely explanation is that Muralitharan is now sailing his own course. He is no longer an impressionable and timid youngster. He has been through the mill and emerged a phenomenally resilient and iron-willed individual - a key ingredient in his success. Over the years he has learnt to trust few cricket officials in Sri Lanka and their advice now carries little weight. He has bowled over 5000 overs in Test cricket and he fervently believes that his action is clean. He will not stop bowling a delivery he has spent seven years perfecting unless forced to do so. It's a massive gamble.