What the Chuck!

If the International Cricket Council''s findings are accepted at face value, one arrives at the following conclusion: Muralitharan appears to throw even though he is not actually doing any such horrendous thing while almost everybody else appears to bowl cleanly even though they are really chucking.
No wonder the entire cricket world is horrified and up in arms. It would have required probably someone as ingenious as Dalmiya to turn the entire controversy on its head like this; but the ICC has played it safe and opted for three bio-mechanists and a few high-speed cameras to prove that their latest villain is actually a saint.
To understand the real implications of this new twist, though, one merely has to address two questions: Are all the bowlers, including the Imran Khans and Richard Hadlees, really throwers? And, will the recommended 15 degrees'' leeway see our fair world of cricket being inundated by chuckers of all hues, colours and sizes?
The answer to the first question is tricky while for the second it''s an emphatic no. To begin with, the ICC had to standardise its chucking rules instead of setting different tolerance levels for spinners, medium-pacers and fast bowlers. It has arrived at 15 degrees because the experts claim that the human eye can detect any straightening only beyond this level.
It would be silly to imagine that a bowler with a wicked bent would spend hours honing his chucking skills within the prescribed limit; instead, if he were to spend his energy and time on improving his bowling itself, he might achieve more success. Anyway, how will he know without the help of all the gadgets whether he''s touching five degrees, seven or more?
Coming to the first question, one must understand that the three musketeers are merely claiming that every bowler straightens his arm at the time of delivery (or just before or after that). But they quickly add that the naked eye can''t see it as the act of bowling is a complex chain of movements and usually gives the illusion of a bent arm (which is the crux for a legal delivery).
In other words, the ICC is reducing the art of chucking to one simple phenomenon: illusion. Don''t always believe what you see, it is saying.
The bio-mechanics used old footage and recently taped videos to prove their point. Top players like Michael Holding, Aravinda de Silva, Tony Lewis, Tim May, Angus Fraser and Dave Richardson have seen the evidence and found it compelling and convincing. So why is there so much anguish and opprobrium among players?
A rule is a rule is a rule, after all. If it''s broken, that act becomes illegal. Whether you see it with the naked eye or not doesn''t really matter. You can''t punish a bowler because he appears to be chucking and not punish another who is not appearing to do so.
The ICC would have made life simpler and more acceptable for everybody if it had used this opportunity to make a fundamental distinction between chucking and a faulty action. If a bowler flouts the prescribed rule every time he bowls (wittingly or not), he is not gaining any unfair advantage really: yes, he might come 5-10 miles faster at you or might get more turn than others. But the batsmen can cope with that; they invariably learn to do so.
It''s the bowler who slips in a mean one, or consciously breaks the rule, who is not only more dangerous but is also actually cheating. ICC must aim to catch such bowlers; all others should be sent to a correction school. And the umpires can surely do that job.