Matthew Kuhnemann was cleared of his bowling action, but questions about the testing remain

The International Cricket Council's (ICC) verdict on Australian left-arm orthodox spinner Matthew Kuhnemann has raised as many questions as it has answered. Kuhnemann's bowling action was questioned and reported by match officials during the recent two-Test series against Sri Lanka.

He was cleared this week after undergoing testing at the National Cricket Centre in Brisbane. Cricket Australia released a statement saying he was free to continue playing international cricket. Kuhnemann himself expressed understandable relief, stating he never doubted his bowling action.

Allegations of an illegal bowling action can ruin a bowler's career, as was the case with Ian Meckiff in the early 1960s, so the stakes in this case were extremely high. While there is no reason to doubt the legality of Kuhnemann's action, given that he passed the test, the entire process has raised some questions.

The ICC conducted the testing at the National Cricket Centre in Brisbane but has refused to release the report or any basic facts about Kuhnemann's bowling action. In response to questions from ABC Sport, an ICC spokesperson stated, "We don't release videos and detailed reports," adding that this was standard policy. Clearly, confidentiality is important, but without explaining how the testing process was conducted and what the results were, the public and the cricket community are left in the dark.

Consequently, some legitimate questions arise: What was the degree of Kuhnemann's elbow extension? What were his mechanics? Was the testing conducted under match conditions and at match speed? These questions are relevant not only to Kuhnemann's future but also to other bowlers and their coaches. Transparency is vital for legitimacy, as without data, misinformed critics may still harbor doubts about Kuhnemann's action.

In the absence of information, unsubstantiated speculation has emerged, along with sweeping criticism of the way Kuhnemann was initially reported. This criticism has been directed primarily at the umpires and match officials who made the initial report, which may be completely unfounded. If the testing showed that Kuhnemann did flex his elbow, but the degree of flex was within the permitted 15 degrees, this would not only vindicate him but also the match officials who took the risk of reporting him. Reporting a bowler's action as suspect does not mean that his or her action is necessarily illegal.

There have been instances where bowlers' testing data has been released previously. In 2001, the Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science at the University of Western Australia released a report on Pakistani fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar, and the Pakistan Cricket Board made the report public. In 2004, the same department tested Sri Lankan off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan, whose action was one of the underlying reasons the ICC modified the rules on illegal bowling actions to allow for up to 15 degrees of elbow extension. At the time, the team also tested India's Harbhajan Singh and South Africa's Johan Botha, being the ICC's sole testing center in Australia.

Bruce Elliott, an emeritus professor at the University of Western Australia, was one of the scientists who tested those bowlers. Elliott said that while his reports were submitted to the ICC, he was free to speak to journalists about his findings and testing methodology (if asked). He said, "There didn't seem to be any problem with us talking about the actual data that was collected or how we collected data in each of the bowling performances, so we could say what we did, how we controlled the environment, and what outcomes were determined from the testing."

He stated that releasing this information was in the bowler's best interest. "They're the ones being put under the microscope, if you like," he said. "Firstly, you should be able to talk about how the testing was done, which would give people confidence that, in fact, the bowler is doing what he would do in a match. Secondly, how the elbow angles were assessed and what elbow angles were determined." He said, "People will look at the test that's been completed recently (Kuhnemann's test) and say: 'We want to know.'" Elliott said releasing the basic data from the test "is good for the game."

"It's good for the bowler to be able to say that in X number of balls that he bowled, he bowled under the supervision of cricket coaches who would declare that those balls were legitimate and what the level of bowling was," he said. He stated that after a bowler has been reported, tested, and found to be within the laws, releasing this information can remove any lingering doubts about the bowler's action in the minds of the average observer. "You can almost put the matter to rest once and for all, which is why I think it's better for the game — it's better for the player because people know what the situation is," he said.

ABC Sport put a series of questions to the ICC asking why it did not reveal data about bowling tests and the specifics of the Kuhnemann case but has not received a response. Matthew Kuhnemann has been tested and found to have a legal bowling action, which is a relief not only for the bowler himself but also for the entire Australian cricket community. Releasing some of the data and methodology about how he was cleared would remove any lingering and unsubstantiated stigma for both the bowler and the match officials who reported him.