Muralitharan - a case of fair trading?

What is, perhaps, not so well known is that the messengers were not fired off by angry Sri Lankan spectators, or even rowdy (English) Barmy Army cohorts, demanding the immediate expulsion of the said umpire for his lack of competence. Nothing that simple. It was from a public annoyed at information leaked that Emerson had asked for a spot of leave from the Ministry of Fair Trading in Western Australia.

Not ordinary leave, however, but sick leave due to stress. Whether this was before his decision to call the Sri Lankan off-spinner, ignore the run out of Mahela Jayawardena and Roshan Mahanama's shoulder charge which took the wind out of Darren Gough, is not clear.

What Pat Walker for the Department of Fair Trading said while spluttering into his locally brewed larger was even more intriguing. Umpiring would, according to the doctor's certificate, be ``helpful and with his (Emerson's) capabilities.'' Interesting that.

By Sunday noon we had 18 million Sri Lankans ready to launch a lynch mob and 100-million Indians (correct 100-million) with Sri Lankan sympathies crying foul as well what do Emerson's bosses come up with? A convenient medical certificate, an escape hatch for the umpire and an embarrassed ACB, who stood him down for tomorrow's game in Perth.

Fair Trading all right. And which had nothing at all to do with Law 3 and all the notes from 1 to 14, or laws 37 and 42. It had more to do whether Emerson's application for sick leave due to stress had anything at all to do with decision that he would go ahead and call Muralitharan; a letter written to the ACB some weeks ago had suggested as much.

Anyone who has been an umpire would immediately support Emerson. Under the laws of the game he has every right to apply the laws as he sees fit. That's what he is there for. But there are ways of umpiring a game and Emerson seemed a little arrogant about the way he handled the proceedings. Sorry, but far too much has been made of Muralitharan being ``humiliated'' and Arjuna Ranatunga being the disciple of fair play. Now seeking lawyers advice how to wriggle out of charges of bringing the game into disrepute by ICC match referee Peter van der Merwe, Ranatunga is well-known for his tactics which involve a certain amount of gamesmanship. He is a smart one all right.

The ICC had a couple of years ago cleared Muralitharan of throwing. And his action is regularly monitored. It is, however, not a carte blanche decision. So, if an umpire feels the action is infringing note two of Law 24, he has a right to call. But why only the once?

Emerson might have been making a case that the ICC ruling needs to be reexamined. And perhaps the ICC need to exert a little more muscle and have a panel of travelling umpires for limited-overs internationals as well as tests. It may go some way to solving the tricky issue. Either that of write the law in such away it is clear to all, including arm-chair critics guzzling their sixth frostie.