By Anil, 19 August 2003
August 20 2003

Why does James Kirtley, who turned in an impressive 6-wicket haul for England vs SA on a minefield of a pitch in Trent Bridge and even won a man of the match award for his efforts after he helped England win the match narrowly, not get due credit from most neutral cricket fans? James Kirtley has unwittingly come to symbolize the inconsistent attitude of the ICC's elite umpires towards bowlers who are suspected of chucking.

Only a few short months back, David Shepherd had reported Jermaine Lawson of the West Indies for chucking after he ripped through the Aussie lineup on a lively Antigua pitch with a 7-wicket haul in their first innings. So much for the persistent whining in some quarters about how the umpires have had all their power taken away by a toothless ICC unconcerned about illegal bowling actions! A lingering question remained on why the same umpire, Shepherd, had not reported Lawson when he debuted against India and with the very same action took the wickets of two of the world's best batsmen, Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid, with successive deliveries on a slow pitch, or on any of the several occasions when Shepherd officiated in games in which Lawson bowled. Questions were asked whether the 7-wicket haul against the Aussies played a role in that umpire's decision to report Lawson.

Both Brett Lee and Shoaib Akhtar have been reported by umpires for throwing, but interestingly, Lee was reported only by Indian umpires Venkat and Jayaprakash whereas Akhtar was reported by Australian, English and New Zealand umpires (Hair, Willey, Dunne, Cowie). Aren't umpires supposed to be neutral these days? Even former Australian pace bowler Dennis Lillee admitted late last year that Lee's bowling needs to be monitored on a continuous basis.

However, after Shepherd reported Lawson and the latter was removed from the Windies team immediately, there was hope that chucking could be contained. Sri Lankan paceman Ruchira Perera, after he had a successful match against England at Lord's last year, was attacked by English media, commentators, TV Channel 4 which repeatedly emphasized his bowling action with replays, and even their players when Mark Butcher accused the Lankan of throwing! Umpire Harper of Australia reported Perera after the match, who never again played for Sri Lanka.

The case against Murali, considered the world's best Test bowler, was even more controversial. Australian umpire Hair not only reported him multiple times, but even no-balled the bowler on the spot in New Zealand against ICC rules. Australian player Adam Gilchrist had accused Murali of throwing in comments to the media, as Butcher did in the case of Perera - public comments that were against ICC rules. Murali's bowling action was investigated and found be legal according to ICC rules. Hair, who contravened ICC laws with his various judgments as well as a book in which he subsequently wrote about Murali's "diabolical action", managed to find a way into the ICC elite umpire panel as the third Aussie umpire in that august body.

Umpires Shepherd, Koertzen, and Davis reported Bangladeshi Sanwar Hossain for throwing last month in Australia, triggering corrective action against the spin bowler based on "one delivery when he flicks the ball with a back-handed motion", and he is now in phase 1 of the ICC's process for dealing with suspect actions.

The case of James Kirtley is curious. In his one-day debut, Zimbabwean umpires Robinson and Tiffin refused to report him for a suspect action, although it looked dicey to most observers. It was left to the match referee, Pakistani Naushad Ali, to report Kirtley to the ICC for suspected chucking and the referee came under attack immediately by English media for his "slur" against their bowler. Once again, it was left to a subcontinental official to report Kirtley.

When James Kirtley came back into the England side last week with a bowling action that looked as ragged as ever, cricket fans across the world assumed that neutral umpires from Australia, Harper and Hair, who officiated in the match and were both involved in reporting bowlers from the subcontinent, would take measures in Kirtley's case. After all, no on-field umpires had ever reported Kirtley. Viewers were also justified in expecting that Channel 4 would, as in the case of Perera, replay the suspect action several times for viewers to judge for themselves, while English commentators such as Botham and Atherton, so vocal in attacking Lankan bowler Perera, would make similar comments in this case.

None of the above happened,as TV and commentators developed a strange case of blind spot, as did umpires Harper and Hair. Focus on his action was conspicuous by its absence from these champions of fair bowling actions. Instead, Kirtley got a man-of-the-match award as English media and experts lauded him as a hero even though, to the rest of the cricketing world, their careful ignoring of his controversial action stuck out like a sore thumb.

While a bowler like Brett Lee can continue to bowl unquestioned with suspect action after being passed as legal by the ICC without having to undergo any corrective procedure at all, the latest news is that Jermaine Lawson has suffered a further setback in the review of his bowling action in ICC's phase 1, when a British expert assigned to examine his action said that after corrective work undergone by the bowler, his action remains suspect.

Is it any wonder that England don't get credit for their victory, and cricket continues to be divided along the same fault lines as the ICC itself? Given this, is the composition of ICC's 11-member elite umpire panel a fair one, given the above evidence on specific officials that have reported specific bowlers to date? Let's get a level playing field in place, folks!