A week ago, as England faced an embarrassing defeat at The Oval, their coach, David Lloyd began grumbling into his pint of ale about the legality of Sri Lanka off-spinner Mutthia Muralitharan's action.
While he was in a froth when talking to the British media over the ``does he or doesn't he? throw bit, which perhaps had taste of sour grapes about it hence the ascorbic comment, the 26-year-old Kandy-born Tamil shrugged it off with an engaging smile.
The off-spinner felt he had proved his point with the sort of emphasis last displayed by the late Jim Laker in 1956 when he bagged 19 Australian wickets at Old Trafford.
Muralitharan's 16 wickets at The Oval did much to unstitch England's confidence after their 2-1 series win over South Africa. It also demolished a record which had stood at The Oval for 116 years: the great Fred Spofforth's 14 wickets in the Test which led to the birth of The Ashes and equalled only by West Indian Michael Holding in 1976.
Ironically Holding is now a member of, along with South Africa's director of umpiring, Brian Basson, the International Cricket Council (ICC) technical committee. They view video tapes of those bowlers whose suspect actions are reported by ICC match referees and umpires and are constantly reviewed.
Lloyd is no stranger to controversy. Two summers ago in Bulawayo he uttered the crass ``we murdered 'em'' comment despite the first test against Zimbabwe being drawn. Muralitharan's action on the fourth day of The Oval match drew the view ``I have certain opinions about his action''.
Although Muralitharan was no-balled 14 times for throwing in Australia three years ago, several times in the Melbourne test by Darrell Hair. His action was later cleared by the ICC after they looked at from every angle. They even ran wire tests on the ``offending double-jointed elbow''.
A medical report says that a permanent deformity in his right arm which he cannot straighten gives the impression he throws, but repeated photographing of his double-jointed wrist action has led to the conclusion that the apparent throwing is an optical illusion.
New medical evidence has since backed the ICC decision by proving his bent arm is a family trait which prevents him straightening his elbow. In the 40 summers since the modern throwing controversy surfaced the debate of what constitutes a legal bowling action and what does not has rubbed shoulders uneasily with the wording of the law dealing with fair and unfair play.
Jack Fingleton, a former Australian opening batsman who was a journalist, stirred the already murky depths of what was then Law 26 in a book ``Four Chukkas To Australia'' when reviewing the 1958-59 MCC tour of Australia. Fingleton posed serious questions over the legality of the actions of Ian Meckiff and Gordon Rorke, although Meckiff's bowling during the previous summer in South Africa had not gone unquestioned. South Africa's umpires were undisturbed by the query of some pressmen. Later, Jackie McGlew confirmed he wrote a letter to the then South African Cricket Association about Meckiff's action as there were times when, like Sylvester Clarke, the ball would ``rocket through as if jet-propelled''.
It was the firm opinion of my late dear friend that Meckiff threw.
About the same time Meckiff was whipping Peter May's side there were also suspicions in South Africa of Geoff Griffin's action while a young Tamil working in the lush, picturesque surrounds of the ancient former capital, Kandy, in then far off Ceylon, read of the events with some interest. He does not give interviews, yet is not mystified by events.
Muralitharan (senior) was also thought to have a dubious action in his playing days and smiled sadly when he rolled up his sleeve to show off the bent elbow he could not straighten.
In 1960, during the tour of England, South Africa's captain Jackie McGlew was far from happy. Tugged in all directions as the team's manger, Dudley Nourse, declined to shoulder his managerial responsibilities, McGlew faced the cold reality of an MCC/ICC move to eliminate from the game any bowler whose action ``was slightly suspicious''.
Called to Lord's for a meeting in the middle of a county match, McGlew argued for a revision of the ``no ball law as it was then''.
England's defeat during the 1958/59 tour of Australia still rankled deeply within the MCC establishment led by Gubby Allen, later Sir George Allen. He warned Nourse (captain of the 1951 South African team in England) and McGlew that playing Griffin in any of the tests ``would establish a highly dangerous precedent in which action will be taken''.
The legality of the 21-year-old Griffin's action as was that of Meckiff, and to an extent Rorke and Harold Rhodes, the Derbyshire fast bowler, was that the bowlers ``jerked and did not bowl the ball as required'' by the throwing portion of Law 26 in 1960. (The term jerked had been part of the law to distinguish the throw in its various guises since 1816 when efforts were first made to legislate against straight arm - or round arm - bowling).
While removal of the words ``or jerked'' several months later may have to an extent aided Griffin, they did not help Meckiff. Although he played occasional Sheffield Shield matches, the tall, likeable Victorian's action was not scrutinised until he was recalled as a Test bowler.
It was at the Gabba, in Brisbane, during the 1963/64 Australian tour of Trevor Goddard's South African side when the rephrased wording of Law 26 finally caught up with Meckiff's action.
In the aftermath of the Griffin debacle and suspicion over Meckiff a special MCC committee sat for some weeks before agreement on an experiment to the throwing portion of the law.
Before the South African tour of 1960 the wording read: ``or a delivery to be fair a ball must be bowled, not thrown or jerked; if either umpire be not entirely satisfied of the absolute fairness of a delivery in this respect, he shall call and signal 'no ball' instantly upon delivery.''
The MCC Law Committee's experiment said: ``A ball shall be deemed to have been thrown if, in the opinion of the umpire, there has been a sudden straightening of the bowler's arm, whether partial or complete immediately prior to the delivery of the ball.'' Less ambiguous perhaps, but it allowed for an uneasy truce which has hang like a metaphor in conjunction with the wording in Section 4 of Law 46 (1959 experiment to the 1947 code) which said the umpires are the sole judges of fair or unfair play.''
In the 1980 Code of the laws, the no ball law (now 24) has been made clearer, but still contains elements of the 1961 experiment: ``For a delivery to be fair the ball must be bowled, not thrown. If either umpire is not entirely satisfied there has been a sudden straightening of the arm, whether partial or complete immediately prior to the delivery of the ball 'no ball' shall be called ... ``
Reference is made to Note A which further defines the throw: ``A ball shall be deemed to have been thrown if, in the opinion of either umpire, the straightening of the bowling arm, whether partial or complete, takes place during that part of the delivery swing which directly precedes the ball leaving the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from the use of the wrist in the delivery swing.'' Does Muralitharan throw? Perhaps, as the 1960 wording which outlawed Griffin's action might draw a response. The ICC panel says he does not. But first sight of him during the Sri Lanka under-24 tour in 1992-93 raised immediate doubts and these still remain, even after this past summer's series against South Africa.