Not a cheat: KKR's Sunil Narine is master of his craft and victim of cricket's confusing laws

It has been on the cards for a while. Ever since the chucking crackdown started in India back in 2009 we have been heading for this. Sunil Narine, the foreign bowler that has the most to thank the Indian Premier League for, was always going to get caught up in it. He sat out the World Cup because he was worried that it would happen. Now he has been called for chucking and has been told he can no longer bowl his off spinner – his stock delivery. As we saw with Saeed Ajmal, this is not good news for his career. Ajmal has worked for months on remodelling his action and upon his return he is nowhere near as effective. The fizz is gone, the extra revolutions that he got on the ball that made it bounce extravagantly have disappeared. In his first game back he bowled 10 wicketless overs for 74 runs against Bangladesh. There is every chance he will never be the same again. This could well be the future that Narine is facing. Some would argue that this is a good thing. Ajmal was contravening the laws of the game and as a result any sanction is entirely justified. The playing conditions state that the most an arm elbow can bend is 15 degrees. More than that level of flex and you are breaking the rules. [caption id=“attachment_2219060” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Sunil Narine in KKR colours. BCCI[/caption] Here is the problem. Cricket is about entertainment. Whatever you think about the rights and wrongs of bent elbows, players like Narine and Ajmal are the lifeblood of the sport. When Narine bowled a wicket maiden in a super over in the Caribbean Premier League it was absolutely remarkable. When Ajmal has run through sides for fun in every format of the game you cannot take your eyes off it. People will say this is in some way unfair, but it is not as if these bowlers have ridiculous records that aren’t comparable with others. It is possible to score runs against them, not to say that it is easy. For the whole of the recent cricket World Cup we had wringing of hands with people concerned about the game becoming too easy for batsmen. We are told that pitches are too flat, bats too big and boundaries too small. At the same time we have shorn sides of some of their most potent weapons by saying spinners are not allowed an increased allowance of flex when bowling. Cricket has constantly evolved. In the last 100 years or so we have had the advent of overarm bowling, front foot no balls, covered pitches and the like. To suggest that the law governing chucking is sacrosanct is ridiculous. Ultimately the game is about innovation and competitiveness. Bowlers like Sunil Narine give you that. Away from talk of entertainment there are two arguments to consider when discussing chucking. The first is whether the laws as they stand are fit for purpose. The second is whether chucking is some awful crime that is worthy or derision and censure. Those that argue against a relaxation of the regulations surrounding chucking will use all sorts of false equivalencies to tie themselves in logical knots. They will ask where it will all end, as if allowing spinners like Narine and Ajmal to ply their trade will result in tigers being released on to the outfield during PowerPlays (although that would be quite good fun). They will talk of bowlers delivering the ball off 18 yards or baseball style pitching from the popping crease. This is not what is being suggested. Rather it is looking to change the way the laws relate to spin bowlers. They are pretty easy to define with only a few exceptions where there is some confusion over what type of bowler someone is. Allowing spinners an increased degree of flex (to be determined after discussion, although I was comfortable with Ajmal’s 40 degree plus extension of elbow) only makes the game a more interesting spectacle, it doesn’t detract from it. The other issue is whether Narine is some awful creature whose removal from the game should be celebrated. The word that is used most often when discussing spinners throwing the ball is cheating. In a further foray into false equivalence people will compare Narine’s elbow extension to Lance Armstrong’s systematic doping in cycling or similar serious crimes in sport. This is clearly not the case. There is no difference between a bowler getting as close as possible to the agreed limit of flex to generate the most revolutions on the ball and him getting as close as he can to the popping crease with his front foot without overstepping. As far as the laws are concerned they are both the same offence – a no ball. The problem has arisen from one being straight forward to spot and the other not. A front foot no ball is very clear cut, the degree by which an elbow bends is not. It was for this reason that the testing of bowling actions was instituted and umpires stopped calling chucking on field. The political storm created by Muttiah Muralitharan’s treatment in Australia is causing waves even today. Even if we decide the laws as they stand are fine, and there is strong arguments on either side of that divide, Sunil Narine is not a cheat. That kind of pejorative term has no place when discussing a simple contravention of the laws of the game. Ultimately the game is poorer without these characters. For as much as people will argue that anyone could become a world class spinner if throwing was allowed, there is little evidence to suggest this. These are masters of their craft and once they are gone they will be missed.