The chucking controversy

With all the moaning, groaning, accusation and counter-accusation it is hard to get down and figure out the nitty gritty of the new chucking law. The first thing you should do is ignore all those who talk about how chucking "is now allowed" and that umpires "will have to get out their protractors" and coaches will start "teaching kids to chuck". The fact is, the existing law allows a degree of flexion and this law is far more complex than the new one - fast bowlers are currently allowed 10 degrees of flex, medium pacers 7.5 and spinners 5 degrees. So if umpires were going to have to use protractors and coaches were going to teach kids to bowl with bent arms, then that would already be happening.

The fact is the new law is a more sensible, streamlined version of the existing law and that existing law is far better than the punitive old law which meant bowlers were essentially expelled from the game with no way back if they were found to bend their arms at the point of delivery. The problem with this sensible, streamlined new law is that the degree of flexion allowed is too high. It is stated that any flexion below 15 degrees has no measurable impact on a delivery. But what does this say about Murali's doosra which he can only deliver with 14-15 degrees of flex? Surely if 15 degrees of flex has "no measurable effect" then Murali should be able to bowl the same delivery with 10 degrees of flex? The fact that he can't says to me that 15 degrees of flex does have a measurable impact.