Australian Test spinner Matthew Kuhnemann was recently at the center of a controversy when his bowling action came under scrutiny. The International Cricket Council (ICC) tested Kuhnemann at the National Cricket Centre in Brisbane after reports suggested he might have a suspect bowling action. These tests ultimately cleared him, allowing Kuhnemann to continue playing international cricket without any restrictions. The procedure and its outcome have brought the issue of bowling actions back into the spotlight, raising questions about the testing process and its implications for the sport.
The Pakistan Cricket Board originally reported Kuhnemann's bowling action in 2001, although the ICC did not release this report, adhering to their standard policy. Instead, it was the Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science at the University of Western Australia that conducted the analysis. This department has a history of dealing with similar cases, having tested renowned Sri Lankan off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan in 2004. Muralitharan’s case significantly influenced the ICC's decision to amend its illegal delivery law that same year.
The testing process employed by the University of Western Australia involves rigorous analysis. Emeritus Professor Bruce Elliott, an expert in biomechanics, conducted Kuhnemann's tests. Elliott advocates for transparency in these procedures, suggesting that sharing basic data could benefit the sport and its players by dispelling doubts about a bowler’s technique.
"It didn't ever seem any problem with us talking about the actual data that was collected or how the data was collected during each of the bowling episodes, so we were able to say what we did, how we controlled the environment and what results were determined from the test," said Bruce Elliott.
A crucial component in these assessments is the 15-degree rule. This guideline emerged from research by Rene Ferdinands after the ICC revised its illegal delivery law in 2004. The rule determines whether a bowler's action is legal by evaluating the angle of elbow extension during delivery. This regulation aims to maintain fairness in cricket while accommodating natural physiological differences among players.
The implications of being accused of an illegal action are significant for any bowler. Such accusations can jeopardize a career, as seen in the early 1960s with Ian Meckiff, whose career effectively ended following allegations of an illegal bowling action. For Kuhnemann, passing this scrutiny was crucial to continuing his burgeoning cricket career.
Professor Elliott believes that greater transparency in how tests are conducted could enhance trust in the process. He argues that explaining how testing occurs and how elbow angles are assessed can reassure stakeholders that bowlers are performing as they would in actual matches.
"Number one you should be able to talk about how the testing took place, and that would convince people that in actual fact the bowler was doing what he would do in a match. And secondly, how the elbow angles were assessed and what elbow were determined," Elliott explained.
"It's to the advantage of the game," he added, emphasizing the benefits of transparency.
The issue of suspect bowling actions has been a contentious topic within cricket for decades. It often sparks debates about fairness, sportsmanship, and the evolution of bowling techniques. With each high-profile case, such as that of Muttiah Muralitharan or Matthew Kuhnemann, the cricketing community is reminded of these ongoing challenges.
Clearing Kuhnemann not only preserves his career but also highlights the importance of continuous dialogue and research into bowling actions. By embracing transparency and scientific rigour, cricket authorities can ensure that players are judged fairly and that cricket remains a sport where talent and skill triumph over controversy.
"You almost put this to bed for all people and that's why I think it's better for the game — it's better for the player that people know what the case is," concluded Bruce Elliott.
