Throw The Offenders Out Or Chuck It In (16 Jan 1996)

Tuesday 16, January 1996

Throw the offenders out or chuck it in

THE WORDS of Sir Donald Bradman were recorded in 1960 after what was an historic meeting of the International Cricket Council at which the subject was throwing. They were black times for the game. Allegations of throwing were levelled against many, but few were called. The controversy was allowed to fester and relations between countries rapidly soured.

Events this past week at the MCG remind us that nothing much seems to have changed for Bradman`s ``two men`` ... umpires Hair and Dunne had different views on the action of the Sri Lankan off-spinner Muttiah Muralidharan.

There`s a quaint theory doing the rounds that umpire Darrell Hair is the bad boy of world cricket because he made a tough call on Muttiah in front of 55,000 people. Muttiah is only a young lad, the argument goes, bowls gentle spin, not ferocious pace, and hails from an emerging cricketing nation rather than one of the big boppers. He only chucks the odd one, so why ruin his career?

In the enlightened `90s this is The Tolerance Factor at work, comrades. You know, the person who breaks the law is actually the victim.

There were expressions of astonishment because Hair dared to call Muttiah from the bowler`s end, not the traditional vantage point of square-leg.

Former Aussie off-spinner Bruce Yardley, once no-balled for throwing at Sabina Park in 1978 (when most of us present assumed the fierce Jamaican sun must have got to square-leg umpire Sang Hue), championed Muttiah`s cause with this: ``If they can`t tell from square-leg whether his arm is straight or not he can`t be called a chucker.``

Why not? Plenty of the best still-photographic evidence of suspect bowlers has been gathered from cameras in the general area of mid-off (behind the bowler`s arm) or fine-leg (in front).

Some might see one or two similarities between these early stages of the Muttiah case and that of Geoff Griffin, a young South African fast bowler who toured England in 1960. Griffin had an accident at school which left him with a distinct crook in the right elbow and he was unable to straighten the arm naturally.

Sri Lankan coach Dav Whatmore tells us Muttiah also has a ``deformity`` in his bowling arm which prevents him straightening it.

In the South African season before the tour of England, Griffin took the most wickets in the domestic Currie Cup - but there were rumblings about his action. And, as we know, there were rumblings about Muttiah`s action before this tour.

South Africa chose Griffin for the second Test at Lord`s in 1960, despite that he`d been called for throwing 17 times in three lead-up matches, by six umpires. Selection macho, masterstroke, or recipe for mayhem? You be the judge.

He took a hat-trick, the first by a South African in a Test, and the first by anyone in a Lord`s Test. He was also called 11 times for throwing, yet still sent down 30 overs, a situation not unlike that which enveloped Muttiah at the MCG. So any accusations that Hair`s selective judgement was unprecedented are way off the mark.

Despite Griffin`s hat-trick the test finished early, in England`s favour, so an exhibition match was played to allow the teams their traditional meeting with the Queen, who arrived in time to see Griffin bowl his only over in the match. It consisted of 11 balls.

Umpire Sid Buller at square-leg called him for throwing four balls out of five. Griffin finished the over bowling underarm, but not before he was no-balled again, this time at the bowler`s end, for failing to notify the batsman that he was changing to underarm! Now that`s a tough call.

Justice, rough or otherwise, sooner or later weeds out of the game those bowlers with suspect actions. At the end of the last century, English county Lancashire insisted on fielding two notable chuckers named Crossland and Nash - until opponents stopped merely dropping hints for their banishment and began dropping matches with Lancashire from their itinerary.

Some may see a parallel with that and Sri Lanka and Muttiah. We know that as long ago as 1993 ICC match referees had been expressing concern about Muttiah`s action to Sri Lankan cricket authorities. We know the ICC even sent them video tapes. Now that`s a hint: for the sake of the player and for the sake of the game, get your house in order.

Griffin went back to Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and played on - as a batsman. Who knows what the future holds for Muttiah? It`s possible we`ll keelhaul the umpire and cannonise the player. Or it`s possible some legal eagle might think there are grounds to go to court to support his former coach Bruce Yardley`s theory about Muttiah`s no-balling; that ``it`s a tragedy because this young bloke should be treated as a celebration. He`s so different.``

But before any cricket official thinks of letting the lawyers loose he might consider another point made on the throwing issue at that 1960 ICC conference. It should still hold good today, and is the crux of the argument against allowing any bowler with a suspect action to survive in the game:

``It is hoped that all those who may be concerned with the future of cricket will do all in their power to assist those whose admittedly difficult task it is to adjudicate on this problem.``

Think how this mess could have been short-circuited if A) before this tour Sri Lanka had accepted the ICC`s generous and patient invitation to engage in a bit of self-regulation and sent Muttiah out of Test cricket and back to a bowling coach; and if B) in the MCG Test Sri Lankan captain Arjuna Ranatunga had simply removed Muttiah permanently from the attack - as Australia`s Richie Benaud did with Ian Meckiff when he was called back in 1963.

Umpire Darrell Hair did the game of cricket the favour that Sri Lanka could have, but chose not to.

Source:: Lake House/Lanka Internet Services