Cricket: At least Emerson is able to sleep straight at night

In the first of a series of columns by guest cricket experts, former New Zealand left-arm spinner Stephen Boock comments on the controversy following umpire Ross Emerson's no-balling of Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing.

It all used to be so easy. Howzat? we'd ask, and the umpire would demur for all of a nanosecond before replying "not out". Or that's what I remember most of them saying.

Their purpose was to adjudicate, not get it right or wrong. Just as well too, because they often seemed to be getting it wrong. Or that's how it seemed from the bowler's end.

You learnt from an early age that the umpire was simply there to test your character. Most of them were blind, and - going by the things I used to say to them - often deaf as well.

It didn't really matter that they were inconsistent, as long as they were inconsistent from the first ball to the last, so everyone had an equal chance of plumbing their vagaries.

Still, some of them were extraordinarily deep in this regard and there were times when we suspected the local umpiring association of recruiting from nearby rest-homes.

"We're just taking Mr Archibald and Mr Scrimigour out for their walk, matron. Should have them back by stumps..., er, that is, dusk..."

"Very well, Mr Peterson, have you remembered their teeth?"

Whatever their shortcomings, though, umpires were necessary to the game and in time I learnt to concede (however grudgingly) that they were only human as well.
They've become good blokes now that I'm not playing. I can't understand why they've all changed so much.

Even so, I never expected to be moved to defend one, much less land a blow for the Noble Art of Finger Pointing itself. But it needs to be said that, when umpire Ross Emerson called Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing in Adelaide the other day, he did cricket and umpiring a great service.

The mystery to me is not MuraIitharan's action, but that there is any disagreement over the authenticity of it. I can see no reason for this. He clearly throws on most, if not all occasions, and the fact that 40 or so umpires have not called him previously is a complete irrelevance, albeit a disgrace.

I mean, how many didn't call Ian Meckiff before Col Egar stuck his neck out?

Like it or not, there is a greater future in not calling a "chucker" than in calling one. Emerson knowingly prejudiced his own career by making the call, and, although the Australian Cricket Board are doing their level best to undermine him, his actions can only help to protect the integrity of the game. Not to mention the sanctity of umpiring.

The fatuous suggestion that Muralitharan shouldn't be no-balled because an International Cricket Council committee have found nothing amiss should be treated with the disdain it deserves.

Bowlers submit their action for scrutiny every time they arrive at the bowling crease, every ball they bowl (or throw, as may be the case). No-one can be cleared of throwing the next ball.

And with something as nonsensical as a blanket clearance, it would only be a matter of time until someone attempted to profit from the protection. Maybe throw a little bit, or just now and then.

That's why the umpires have to retain the power to make a decision on the spot.

There was a time when I used to think that technology would take over, but Emerson again showed us in Adelaide why we need to have the umpire making the decisions.

The alternative seems to have a team walking off the field, making a cellphone call to the other side of the planet, and arranging a quick committee meeting with the ICC match referee in the next room.

Ian Botham's criticisms on television at the time were disgraceful. His assessment of umpire Emerson - suggesting he wanted his "moment of glory" - was unbelievably superficial, even for Botham.

He was another to float the bizarre theory that, if an ICC committee had cleared Muralitharan, he shouldn't be called for throwing. Wouldn't that be just great for the little Sri Lankan off-spinner? Carte-blanche to biff into the next millenium.

The great shame now is that, at a time when most of the ACB executive, the Channel Nine commentary panel and an apparently eminent ICC committee should be being exposed as a bunch of plonkers, the little guy - Emerson - is being set to take the rap.

At least he can sleep straight at night.

*Now living in Christchurch, Boock played 30 tests between 1978 and 1988, taking 74 wickets, including seven for 87 against Pakistan at Hyderbad in 84-85.