Arjuna slams referee

Sri Lanka Cricket Captain Arjuna Ranatunga has accused match referee Peter van der Merwe of being biased and trying to act as accuser, prosecutor and judge all-in-one regarding the controversy at last Saturday's Sri Lanka-England match in Adelaide.

In written submissions made by his lawyers, Mr. Ranatunga has also charged that the match referee had not followed a fair or proper procedure according to International Cricket Council regulations and is therefore not competent to inquire into incidents that took place after Sri Lanka's star blower Muttiah Muralitheran was called for throwing by umpire Ross Emerson.

The Sunday Times has obtained a copy of the submissions made by Ranatunga's lawyers, asking that the charges be dismissed and the case be withdrawn.

These submissions are made on behalf of Mr. Ranatunga in response to disciplinary charges purportedly brought against him in relation to incidents which took place during a one-day international cricket match between Sri Lanka and England on January 23.

The player was summoned by Match Referee Peter van der Merwe to appear before him. Notice to attend a hearing was given to the player verbally at about 1.00 p.m. on January 24. At this time, the referee handed to the player and Manager Ranjith Fernando two ICC Forms titled ''International Cricket Council- Confidential - Breach of Code of Conduct''. The form handed to the Manager is apparently from R. A. Emerson and J. McQuillan the Umpires and the other, which was handed to the player, is from the referee. The referee scheduled the hearing originally for 8.30 a.m. on January 25. Following a written application for an extension, the referee re-scheduled the hearing for 8.30 a.m. on January 26.

These submissions do not deal with the merits or substance of the case which will be the subject of separate submissions.

The charges (if any) against the player should be dismissed, alternatively withdrawn, due to:

* a lack of procedural fairness;

* a failure by the Referee to observe and apply the principles of natural justice;

* a failure by the Referee to observe the procedures set out in the Regulations of the ICC;

* a failure by the umpire to observe the procedures set out in the regulations;

* the bias of the referee.

Clause 7 of the Code of Conduct (which forms part of the Regulations) (the Code) clearly reveals the intention of the ICC that all alleged breaches of the Code are to be dealt with in confidence. This is to encourage the fair and expeditious resolution of matters within the strict time frames set out in the regulations.

Plainly, this matter has become the subject of intense media scrutiny. Such scrutiny, in the mind of the reasonable observer, seriously compromises the referee's capacity to make an unfettered decision in this matter.

Coupled with the flagrant failure to comply with the requirements of natural justice particularised below, it is submitted that the lack of confidence in this matter, denies the player procedural fairness.

Natural justice

There is no doubt that the principles of natural justice apply in this case. Those rules are imported into the Regulations by Regulation 4 (b) (iv) and a precis of the rules are contained in the Appendix to the Regulations. Therefore, the failure to observe the principles of natural justice in this case also constitutes a failure to observe the procedures in the Regulations.

In this case the player has not been given adequate notice of the matters to be dealt with by the referee. There has been no notice to the player setting out:

* any particulars of the matters with which he is being charged;

* the time and place of the hearing;

* any regulations which it is alleged the player may have breached;

* the manner in which the hearing is to be conducted;

* details of any evidence against the player (including evidence in the mind of the referee);

* the consequences of a finding adverse to the Player.

See Forbes, ''The Law of Domestic or Private Tribunals'' p 119.....

In law there is no hearing unless the person charged is given sufficient information to enable him to present his whole defence to the complaint or complaints against him. Adequate time is useless without adequate information.''

It is submitted that the lack of any notice of the matters with which the player is to be charged is fatal to the case against him and must lead to the termination of the matter. It may be that, at some time in the future, these procedural inadequacies may be remedied. This will doubtless give rise to other arguments but the hearing, as presently founded, cannot proceed.

Failure by Umpires to observe regulations

Procedures for dealing with disciplinary matters are set out in Regulation 4. Regulation 4(a) deals with ''Reports" (an undefined term) and confirms that a "Report'' may be lodged by, amongst others, the Referee and/ or the Umpires. Regulations 4 (a) (ii) A deals with ''On-Field Reports" by Umpires and provides":

"Should an umpire (or umpires) decide to report a player for an alleged breach of the Code or other offence, he (or they) must inform the player's Captain or Manager and the referee of his (their) intention at the earliest opportunity and complete a Report form and hand it to the referee not later than one hour after the close of the day's play."

A note to Regulation 4 (a) provides:

"If a Captain is the reported player, the Vice Captain will be responsible for all relevant matters assigned to the Captain."

In breach of Regulation 4 (a) (ii) A. the Umpire did not ''at the earliest opportunity'' (or ever) inform either the player, the Manager or the Vice Captain of their intention, despite numerous opportunities to do so.

Failure by Referee to observe regulations

Oddly, while Regulation 4 gives the referee eligibility to make a ''Report'', it does not set out any procedures for him to do so. It is however notable that in all cases other than a Report by an Umpire, it is the duty of the Referee to inform ''the Captain or Manager of the reported player of receipt of a Report as soon as possible.'' It is submitted that, in view of the short time limits set out in the Regulations in relation to hearings, there is a duty on the referee to make particulars of the matter known to the player concerned as soon as possible.

In breach of the duty refered to in the immediate preceding paragraph, the referee did not inform the player that he was making a Report as soon as possible. He only did so at 1.00 pm on January 24. This notice cannot be considered as reasonable, given that the Code contemplates that the referee should adjudicate on a matter ''no later than twenty-four hours after an incident''.

Bias

It is an essential element of natural justice that a person charged is entitled to be judged by an unbiased person. If the person adjudicating on the matter has made up his mind before the hearing, or is predisposed against the accused, that person is ineligible to make the decision. A tribunal will be tainted by bias when ''it is so affected by preconceived ideas, feelings of prejudice, or ''involvement'' as a virtual prosecutor and judge that the result is a foregone conclusion (Forbes op.cit. p175).

It is not objectionable per se that the Referee is acting as both accuser and judge. However, in these circumstances it is incumbent on the referee to ensure that the highest standards of procedural fairness are observed.

These matters are also contained in the Appendix to the Regulations. The Appendix, while conceding that the referee may act as both accuser and judge, makes it clear that, if he does so, ''the referee must be able to show that, having reported an incident, he has then conducted a full inquiry into the circumstances involved before making his decision.'' 

It is submitted that the referee cannot in the present circumstances, satisfy these standards.

Particulars of bias include:

* failure to give any or adequate notice of the charges to the player;

* failure to give particulars of evidence or investigations carried out by the referee;

* the initial failure of the referee to give the player adequate time to prepare his case;

* failure by the referee to observe his obligations of confidentiality under the Regulations;

* failure by the referee to report other incidents in this match;

* the fact that the referee has been the subject of a complaint to the ICC by the Board of Control for Cricket of Sri Lanka in relation to a previous incident. 

Sports Minister's statement panics VB sponsoring firm

By Namal Pathirage and Ravi Nagahawatte

The new policy of the government has affected the function of many major sports associations of the country.

The result of the minister's statement has given rise to an alarming situation in the sport of volleyball where the official sponsor, Ceylon Breweries, has withheld the sponsorship.It is aware that the sport had benefited a lot even though the sponsorship contract was signed just six months ago.

Presently the granting of funds by the company has stopped till the minister's statement which was carried in newspapers is made clear.This statement has also brought about a halt to the much looked forward to Beach Volleyball Tournament which was to be worked off in Negombo.Many fear that there could be a cancellation of the major tournaments which are lined up if this situation continues.

The secretary of the Volleyball Federation of Sri Lanka, K.A.Wijepala speaking to "The Sunday Times" stated that the federation has made arrangements to meet the minister and bring about a settlement to this situation . He further added that if this matter regarding the sponsorship is cleared the postponed Beach Volleyball Tournament will be held in February 27 and 28.But he also made it clear that if their attempts to get back the sponsorship fails, the federation will be compelled to look for another sponsor.

It is quite sad to notice the minister's current stance regarding the sponsorship from certain companies whom he had earlier stated that their involvement to uplift sports was necessary.

Ceylon Breweries and Ceylon Tobacco were prominent sponsoring companies among many others.Past records reveal that the Volleyball Federation had been blessed with the sponsorship of yet another big company, John Keels Ltd., which sponsored the sport for three years .That attractive sponsorship package had given the federation Rs. 350,000 each year.

Looking into the current sponsorship package which has brought new life into the federation, saw the sponsors putting on offer big prize money at tournaments.Ceylon Breweries is known to have given adequate publicity to the sport by sponsoring a live television coverage of the nationals.The company should be commended for settling for little publicity for their own product as the advertising laws of the country have put forward restrictions when creating commercials which involves liquor or tobacco products.The company had also during a match given away valuable equipment worth Rs. 50,000 to representatives of clubs, which also has contributed towards the spectator interest of the sport.

It is also a well known fact that the Breweries Company had plans to construct four indoor stadiums in the country .It's develop- ment projects also included finding of jobs to national players.However with the current situation being not favourable to the sport it is likely that these opportunities will be lost for our volleyball players.An alarmed official of the federation, while pouring out his heart in utter desperation, said that they will be left to seek funds from the ministry if the current ban on the sponsor and the search for a new sponsor in the future does not bring a remedy to the problem.

However what's interesting to note is the bold stance taken by the Football Federation regarding its sponsor ,Ceylon Tobacco, in the midst of this problem.The football federation's president has made it aware to the sporting world and minister that his sports body will go ahead with the sponsorship deal recieved by Ceylon Tobacco. Does this decision taken by the Football Federation pose a challenge to the minister's directive which has made it clear sports associations should not link themselves to sponsorship deals with companies manufacturing tobacco or liquor products?

The Brand Manager of Ceylon Tobacco, Herman Fereira , expressed great concern over the minster's stance saying that it was not at all fair in terms of the sponsoring company .

"If the minister's statement, which was published in the newspaper, is correct it will mean that we will have to pack our bags and leave. Is this the way to work with a sponsor ?.After all what we want to do is to make the sport better," said Fereira.

Meanwhile, it is aware that the federation had failed in their attempts to contact the minister who had not been available for comment due to the recent elections.

Winston to play club cricket

By H.P.P. Perera 

He will turn out for the Kalutara Town Club. 

Last September he came to Sri Lanka as a member of the Sussex University, which toured the island. 

He is an off-spinner and an out-standing right-hand batsman.

He is the only overseas player to play for the forthcoming season in Sri Lanka. 

In December last year he played for the Kalutara District inter- club Sir Cyril de Soyza Trophy cricket tournament.

He captured seven wickets in three matches. 

He will be in Sri Lanka until April 99.

I acted for the pride of my country - Arjuna

Mr. Ranatunga said that as a veteran captain and player he was well aware of the laws and acted well within them even in the face of what he saw as "naked discrimination" against Sri Lanka's top bowler.

Mr. Ranatunga said:

"I am the Captain of the Sri Lankan cricket team, a position I have held from 1989-90 and 1991 upto today. I have played in over 80 Test Matches and more than 250 One-Day Internationals. I have captained Sri Lanka in about 50 Test Matches and 150 One-Day Internationals.

Around 1.00 p.m. on January 24 I was summoned by Peter van der Merwe, to attend a meeting with him in the Umpires Room at the Adelaide Oval. I attended the meeting with Manager Ranjit Fernando. I was handed an ICC Breach of Code of Conduct form signed by the referee. The Manager was provided with a similar form apparently authorised (but not signed) by the two umpires. This was the first time I was aware of any suggestion that I had breached the Code. No umpire spoke to me about the matter on the day of the match, nor was I advised by an umpire that I had been reported.

Both forms refer to alleged breaches of the ICC Code of Conduct on my part during the match. The form under the name of the Umpires refers to alleged conduct on my part during the match which I strenuously deny. Both forms state that it is alleged, that I have breached the ICC Code of Conduct, although it is not clear from the forms in what way. As an experienced international cricketer and captain, I am familiar with the provisions of that Code. I strenuously deny that I breached any of those provisions in any way.

The 18th Over

I won the toss before the match and elected to field.

In the 16th over of the English innings, I introduced Muttiah Muralitheran into the attack. I also asked Murali to bowl the 18th over of the innings.

After Murali bowled the fourth ball of the 18th over, whilst I was fielding at short third man, I heard Umpire Emerson call "no ball" from the square leg position. I looked towards Emerson and saw him signal no-ball, point to his elbow and signal with one finger to Murali. Emerson then said, "first throwing ball" to Murali.

"As Emerson was doing this, he was walking towards me as he was adjusting his position due to English batsman, Nick Knight, a left hander, having scored a single off the delivery. I asked Emerson, "what's wrong?" He said, "throwing".

"The no-balling of Murali was a matter which I felt would not happen during the Australian tour. It was a matter which had been the subject of intense scrutiny and attention by the ICC and the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka. I was hopeful it would be resolved at that level. However, I was under very clear instructions to consult the team management should Murali be no-balled. This was due to its potential, political and diplomatic implications as well as changes in the playing conditions since Murali had been no-balled when Sri Lanka last toured Australia. Those new playing conditions could involve Murali being removed from the attack should he be called on three occasions. I was very anxious to comply with the directions of management.

"I asked Emerson whether he was prepared to repeat that Murali had thrown in front of Umpire McQuillan, and my Vice Captain, Sanath Jayasuriya. The reason for this was that I was under clear instructions from team management to have the statement repeated in the presence of witnesses if Murali was no-balled. I understand this instruction was due to legal advice the Board had received.

"When McQuillan and Jayasuriya joined Emerson and I asked Emerson, "are you saying Murali was chucking?" Emerson responded "Law 24.2", an answer which I did not comprehend. I repeated my question on a number of occasions with some frustration. Emerson answered the question in the same manner on all occasions. Finally, Emerson said, "throwing", and I asked McQuillan whether he heard that. McQuillan said he did. Jayasuriya was present throughout these discussions.

I then approached the English batsman, Graham Hick, and said to him that I was under clear instructions to consult with team management in the event that Murali was no-balled. I also said that this may "take a while". I did not mention this to either umpire.

"I then walked towards the pavilion to attract the attention of the Manager and Saliya Ahangama, the Secretary to the Board. I did this by waving to both when I was some 20 metres from the boundary. I also motioned to the players as to what I was doing and asked them to gather and wait on the ground adjacent to the pavilion.

"I acted on behalf of my team in view of what I perceived to be naked discrimination against one of my teammates and above all for the pride of my country. However, I do accept the laws of the game are paramount and override the indiscretions of players whoever they may be."

Captain acted as Board told him to, says Manager

In submissions to the inquiry on the January 23 incidents in Adelaide, Mr. Fernando said the local Board was aware that the no-balling of Murali could cause diplomatic and political repercussions beyond the playing field. Thus it had directed Mr. Ranatunga to consult the Management in the event of a crisis and that was exactly what he did.

Mr. Fernando said:

"Around 1.00 p.m. on January 24, I was summoned by Peter van der Merwe, to attend a meeting with him in the Umpires' Room at the Adelaide Oval. I attended the meeting with Mr. Ranatunga. I was handed a sealed envelope in which was enclosed an ICC Breach of Code of Conduct form apparently authorised (but not signed) by the two umpires who officiated at the Match. The player was handed a similar form signed by the referee. This was the first time I was made aware by the referee or, indeed, any other person that any breach of the Code of Conduct was alleged arising from the match. Neither of the umpires had on the day of the match suggested anything warranting the laying of charges.

The "No Balling" of "Murali"

"In the 18th over Muttiah Muralitharan was no-balled by Umpire Emerson for 'throwing'."

"Whilst it was hoped by the Board that this would not occur during the tour, the Board could not rule out the possibility. The no-balling of Murali had been the subject of intense media scrutiny and attention by the Board and the ICC. The Board understood the sensitive nature of the issue and, in particular, its potential political and diplomatic implications. It was an issue which potentially could carry implications beyond the responsibility of the player.

"Accordingly, through myself the Board had issued very clear instructions to the player to seek the direction of management in the event of Murali being no-balled during the tour. The player did this upon Murali being no-balled.

"I spoke briefly to the player in the playing area when he sought my guidance. I instructed him to play on, which he immediately set out to do. The Board is satisfied that at all times the player acted in accordance with the reasonable directions of the Board and, the terms of the playing contract between the Board and the player.

Keep foreign players out

During the year under review Sri Lanka played in the Group 'B' at the ASIAD and did well to defeat the new comers China by 43 points to 5 points and Malaysia by 44 points to 3 points. But in the finals of Group 'B' was surprisingly beaten by Singapore by 25 points to 13 points.

Again in the Commonwealth Games Sri Lanka fared miserably when they were trounced by New Zealand 80 points to nil, defeated by Australia 70 points to 5 points, beaten by Papua New Guinea 47 points to nil and overcome by Malaysia 35 points to 26 points and finally in the Plate Championship was again beaten by Papua New Guinea by 40 points to 17.

Participating in the annual Hong Kong International Seven 'A' Side Tournament Sri Lanka was beaten by Australia by 59 points to nil and Japan by 28 points to 5 points and made an early exit.

Competing for the first time in the Asian Games held in Bangkok, Thailand, in the 7-a-side Rugby Tournament Sri Lanka lost to Taiwan 28-12, unheard of Kazakstan 17-14, South Korea 29- nil and in the finals to Chinese Taipei 38-20.

In the 15-A-Side Tournament in the same Asian Games, Sri Lanka was crushed by Japan 116 pts. to nil, and South Korea by 90 points to 3 points, but managed to beat Thailand 18 points (6 penalties) to 6 points and lost the Bronze medal to Taiwan.

This dismal record of Sri Lankan rugby makes one feel that our rugby is on the down- ward trend. Inspite of foreign players participating in our domestic tournaments. Very rightly many feel that the local players have become dependent on foreign players to deliver the goods for the clubs and in so doing are neglecting their individual skills and as a result when the foreign players do not play alongside them their performance becomes poor.

Recently, very rightly, the majority of our clubs at a tournament committee meeting voted against playing foreign players for clubs in our local tournaments. Many feel that this is a very wise move in the correct direction as playing foreign players have not benefited Sri Lankan rugby and has ruined our local players standards. They are today technically not well equipped as the players of yesteryear.

It is high time that our administrators get down some highly qualified foreign coaches like Ray William's, Ian Beer, Larry Lamb, Jeff Matheson and Chris Padfield who were brought down to Sri Lanka to inculcate into our rugby players the correct rudiments of rugby.

Good life softens one-day champions

By Robert Craddock

They played for pride and peanuts, but they didn't care. 

In Hobart that year coach Dav Whatmore had to cancel a team dinner because half the side could not afford the $30 buffet. 

When he arrived in Perth, batsman Hashan Tillekeratne sent his washing to the home of a local Sri Lankan journalist whose wife washed it and rushed it back before play the next day. He couldn't afford to have it done at the team hotel (mind you, neither can most of us). 

Angered at being branded ball-tamperers and chuckers, they came at Australia in the one-dayers that summer like few teams had come at Australia before. Even their decision not to shake hands with Australia after a rough-house one day final in Sydney was a sign of unity and strength, however unsporting.

Toe-to-toe

Players who had spent their cricketing lives on the breadline were set for life overnight. 

At home there were dinners for them everywhere, sponsors falling off their coat-tails.

The Sri Lankan government gave them prime blocks of land in Colombo, a collection around the country gave the 14 members in the squad at least $40,000 each, big money in Sri Lanka. And the money kept coming. 

Tillekeratne, who works for the Singer Company, recently bought a large plantation outside Colombo. He lives in a palatial house in his suburb of Piliyandala, and has built his parents a house next door. 

Arjuna Ranatunga has three cars, including a Mercedes Benz. Sanath Jayasuriya became the face of Pepsi, and a Sri Lankan bank even named a savings account in his honour. 

When Ranatunga raised the World Cup he was Sri Lanka's Sir Edmund Hillary, planting a flag on top of Mt. Everest. He was John Bertrand winning the America's Cup. 

Sri Lankan cricket had its heart's desire and the generation of players who did it would never be as hungry again. 

When coach Whatmore tried to get them to regroup and set new goals after the Cup, he found they weren't as hungry and their commitment to training had wavered. 

For a while he was angry and frustrated. Eventually he quit. 

Faded?

For the Sri Lankans, no peak is higher than the World Cup. 

Between the World Cups they drift around the world playing unfulfilling two and three-Test series, mostly against India, Pakistan and New Zealand.

The West Indies have played them just three times, England six and Australia 10, and they have no big historical series like the Ashes. 

The Sri Lankan team are not the first group to find, they simply cannot re-climb the mountain. 

It happens all the time. 

Swimmers like Jon Sieben and Duncan Armstrong won Olympic Gold medals when they were youngsters, their lives revolving around the black line at the bottom of the pool. 

But life changes with success. The 5 am starts become 5.30 a.m. starts.

The rest sessions in the afternoons become punctuated with corporate golf days. 

The early nights get lost with the function that you'd prefer to miss, but thought you had better attend. 

Your focus becomes your life rather than your sport, and with each moment of recognition you secretly say: "This is what I've worked for."

The senior core of this Sri Lankan team - Ranatunga, Jayasuriya, Mahanama and Tillekeratne - deserve all they get from the game. They came together a decade ago after Sri Lankan selectors pensioned off about half the side and decided to go young.

They taught the world a new exhilarating way of playing the game, and if the World Cup is played for 100 more years we may never see a winning team as dominant as Sri Lanka was in the 1996 tournament. 

But dynasties don't last forever. The fat lady is gargling out the back.

After this year's World Cup, a few more senior players will drift, into retirement and Sri Lanka will be taken back to the years when they had a group of angry young pups ready to take on the world.

- Courtesy Herald Sun 

Thrown into disarray

By Simon Wilde

Ross Emerson's decision to again no-ball Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing — Emerson was one of four officials who took action against the off-spinner in Australia three years ago and Tony McQuillan, who stood with him yesterday, was another — had been so well flagged that Arjuna Ranatunga, that master strategist, had no trouble in painting him into a most uncomfortable corner. For no sound reason, Sri Lanka's captain brought the one-day international with England to a standstill for nearly 15 minutes.

So badly did he lose control of the game after no-balling Muralitharan's tenth delivery of the day, that Emerson — not to mention high officials in the world game, including the International Cricket Council, who may have led him to believe he would be supported in any steps he took — may now regret his action at leisure.

He appeared thoroughly rattled by Ranatunga's finger-wagging at himself and McQuillan, as he did by Ranatunga's insistence on taking his team to the edge of the field while he called for Peter van der Merwe, the match referee. Lengthy discussions followed before Ranatunga was prepared to let the game continue. ICC regulations allow for a 45-minute cooling-off period to resolve an on-field dispute.

In fact, Muralitharan went on to bowl seven overs in all conceding 46 runs as he, like several others, paid grievously for the short square boundaries. Ranatunga brought him back at Emerson' s end — Emerson no-balled him from square leg — but that only led to further trouble as Emerson refused several requests from Murali to stand closer to the stumps. Umpires normally stand wherever bowlers ask, but Emerson may have suspected that Murali was asking him to stand in a position where his view of his bowling arm would be obscured.

Emerson subsequently made a serious error in failing to refer a run-out decision to the third umpire; television replays showed Mahela Jayawardene out of his ground. Emerson gave him not out and Jayawardene, only called into the tournament when Aravinda de Silva was injured; scored a brilliantly measured run-a-ball century that turned the match in Sri Lanka's favour.

Thanks to superb unbeaten innings of 126 from Graeme Hick and 78 from Neil Fairbrother, England had set an imposing target of 303 on a sublime batting surface, but Sri Lanka scraped home by one wicket with two balls to spare, with Muralitharan hitting the winning run.

Sadly, the cricket received little of the attention, because Emerson was at the centre of further controversy in the 47th over of the Sri Lankan innings when Roshan Mahanama appeared to barge into Darren Gough as the England bowler bore down on the ball in a run-out attempt. Gough, clearly angered, appealed for obstruction, a legitimate dismissal under Law 37, but was turned down. The decision led Ian Botham, commentating on television, to issue a withering summary of Emerson's day: "He doesn't know the rules on obstruction, on run-outs, or on throwing. It makes you wonder what he is doing here."

Alec Stewart compounded an unhappy personal day — Ranatunga outwitted him by having him caught at short midwicket for the second time in a row — by apparently taking retaliatory action at the end of the over, walking into Mahanama as he switched ends.

The chief blame may lay with Mahanama, who was omitted from last summer's tour of England for disciplinary reasons, but this was improper conduct for an England captain. Two overs later, Mahanama jeopardised his team's chances by needlessly running himself out with five runs wanted, but the last pair took their side home, courtesy of four singles and a wide in Vince Wells's last over.

The Sri Lankans will plead they are the victims of an Australian conspiracy; indeed, they were doing so even before the match was over, but their pleas must be examined closely. 

They have long claimed that Murali has only had trouble in Australia, and only with Australian umpires. The first claim is plainly not true. Murali has been the subject of complaints all round the world, at home in Sri Lanka, in New Zealand, Sharjah and, only last summer, in England, when David Lloyd spoke out. And they have no way of knowing whether the second is true for not because the mechanism for umpires dealing with suspect actions dictates that they initially express their reservations to the authorities in private. 

This is precisely what Darell Hair did before he no- balled Murali in a Test in Melbourne three years ago. He has felt let down by the lack of support he has received from the game's officials, which was one reason for the outpoken nature of his autobiography, published two months ago, in which he described Murali's action as diabolical. 

Under pressure from the Australian board, Hair was obliged to withdraw from standing in Sri Lanka's matches on their present tour and now faces a charge of breaching the ICC's code of conduct, but he, if not many others, will be grateful for what Emerson did in the 18th over of yesterday's match.

The position has now reached a dangerous impasse, with a group of umpires believing Murali's action unacceptable,while the Sri Lankans argue that no modifications are necessary in a unique action that has brought more than 200 Test wickets. Further explosive situations lie in store and the World Cup looms. After that, Murali is contracted to play for Lancashire.

Ranjit Fernando, the Sri Lanka manager, later tried to explain Ranatunga's action: "When it [the call] happened there was a bit of desperation that set in and, one might say, confusion. Arjuna walked out with his team merely to get clarification as to how to proceed. We decided that Arjuna should continue and Muralitharan should continue to bowl and probably revert to bowling leg-breaks. We were on the phone to Board officials. There was no question as to whether the match was to be called off." England's defeat leaves the Carlton and United series open and their own position vulnerable. Defeat would have almost killed off Sri Lanka but, led by an explosive cameo from Sanath Jayasuriya, they showed their fighting qualities again.

- Courtesy The Sunday Times, London

Mar. 1993: England express doubts during Test in Colombo.

Mar. 1995: New Zealand protest to match referee during Test in Napier. ICC study videotape. 

Oct. 1995: umpire Darrell Hair informs ICC of doubts after Sharjah tournament. 

Nov. 1995: Umpires Tony McQuillan and Martin Whitby refer to 'suspect' action in report after tour match in Queensland. Australian board studies film. 

Dec. 1995: Hair no-balls him seven times in Melboune Test. ICC divulge that umpires, via match referees, had expressed doubts for more than two years. Sri Lankans maintain deformity creates 'visual illusion' of throw. 

Jan. 1996: McQuillan and Ross Emerson no-ball him during one-day international in Brisbane. He does not play again on tour but ICC later clears him.

Mar. 1996: Member of World Cup-winning team. 

Aug. 1998: David Lloyd, England coach, says during a Test at The Oval that he has made his views known to authorities about Muralitharan, who has fifth-best return in Test history. Lloyd rebuked by ECB.

Nov. 1998: Hair publishes autobiography, in which he describes Muralitharan's action as 'diabolical'. 

Under pressure from Australian board, Hair withdraws from Sri Lanka's tour matches.

Jan. 1999: Emerson no-balls him in Adelaide.

More Sports

Return to Sports Contents Page