Controversy of bowling action Muttiah Muralitharan

1 controversy of bowling action

1.1 first throwing citation , testing
1.2 second citation , testing
1.3 third citation , testing
1.4 university of south australia study
1.5 fourth round of testing
1.6 bowling arm brace
1.7 critics , converts

controversy of bowling action

throughout of international career, muralitharan s action suspected of contravening laws of game straightening of bowling arm during delivery. although cited 3 times, subsequent biomechanical testing led icc clear him of charge , permit him continue bowling.

biomechanical testing conducted on 4 occasions fueled debate whether action in fact illegal or illusion created allegedly unique ability generate movement both @ shoulder wrist, enables him bowl doosra without straightening elbow.

first throwing citation , testing

muttiah muralitharan bowling in scg icc world xi

initial concerns whether muralitharan s action contravened laws of game straightening bowling arm during delivery broke open controversy after australian umpire darrell hair called no ball illegal action 7 times during boxing day test match in melbourne, australia, in 1995. australian sir donald bradman, universally regarded greatest batsman in history, later quoted saying worst example of umpiring [he had] witnessed, , against game stands for. murali not throw ball .

ten days later, on 5 january 1996, sri lanka played west indies in seventh odi of triangular world series competition, in brisbane. umpire ross emerson officiating in debut international match, no-balled muralitharan 3 times in first over, twice in second , twice in third. identical tally called hair on boxing day , (like hair) emerson made calls bowler s end while partner stood silent. main difference several no-balls leg-breaks instead of bowler s normal off-breaks.

in february 1996, before world cup, muralitharan underwent biomechanical analysis @ hong kong university of science , technology under supervision of prof. ravindra goonetilleke, declared action legal in conditions tested, citing congenital defect in muralitharan s arm makes him incapable of straightening arm gives appearance of straightening it. although under original laws bowler s arm did not have straightened illegal delivery, concluded action created optical illusion of throwing . based on evidence, icc gave clearance muralitharan continue bowling.

second citation , testing

doubts muralitharan s action persisted, however. on 1998–99 tour australia once again called throwing ross emerson during 1 day international against england @ adelaide oval in australia. sri lankan team abandoned match, after instructions president of board of control cricket in sri lanka, game resumed. sri lankan captain @ time arjuna ranatunga, later fined , given suspended ban game result. later emerged @ time of match emerson on sick leave non-cricket job due stress-related illness , stood down rest of series. muralitharan sent further tests in perth , england , cleared again. @ no stage muralitharan requested change or remodel action, icc. point in career (1999) muralitharan bowled 2 types of deliveries, namely off-break , topspinner. had not yet mastered doosra.

third citation , testing

muralitharan continued bowling, taking 500th test wicket in second test against australia in kandy on 16 march 2004. @ end of series doosra delivery officially called question match referee chris broad. @ university of western australia (department of human movement , exercise science), three-dimensional kinematic measurements of muttiah muralitharan s bowling arm taken using optical motion capture system while bowled doosra. muralitharan s mean elbow extension angle doosra delivery 14°, subsequently reduced mean of 10.2° after remedial training @ university. findings reported icc university of western australia s study muralitharan s doosra contravened established icc elbow extension limit of 5° spinners.

under original throwing laws of cricket, umpires officiating under obligation call no-ball delivery not entirely happy absolutely fair. law gave umpires absolutely no discretion. in 2000, laws changed put allowable figure of straightening of 5° spinners, 7.5° medium pacers , 10° fast bowlers in attempt more define legal. these figures proved difficult enforce due umpires being unable discern actual amounts of straightening , differentiation between 3 different allowable figures. testing in test match conditions not possible when identification of elbow , shoulder joint centres in on-field data collection, shirt worn, involves large errors. in match ability differentiate anatomical movements such elbow extension digitising segment end-points, particularly if have segment rotations, extremely difficult , prone error. case spin bowlers. therefore not surprising laboratory testing preferred, particularly spin bowlers, appropriate pitch length , run-up can structured. way test players, data able withstand scientific , therefore legal scrutiny.

an extensive icc study, results of released in november 2004, conducted investigate chucking issue . laboratory kinematic analysis of 42 non-test playing bowlers done ferdinands , kersting (2004) established 5° limit slow , spin bowlers particularly impractical.

due overwhelming scientific findings, researchers recommended flat rate of 15° tolerable elbow extension used define preliminary demarcation point between bowling , throwing. panel of former test players consisting of aravinda de silva, angus fraser, michael holding, tony lewis, tim may , icc s dave richardson, assistance of several biomechanical experts, stated 99% of bowlers in history of cricket straighten arms when bowling. 1 player tested (part-time bowler ramnaresh sarwan) reportedly did not transgress pre 2000 rules. many of these reports have controversially not been published , such, 99% figure stated has yet proved. in fact, muralitharan stirred controversy when said during interview melbourne radio station jason gillespie, glenn mcgrath , brett lee flexed arms 12, 13 , 14–15 degrees respectively, although unclear muralitharan quoted these figures from. muralitharan censured sri lankan cricket board these comments.

the icc executive asked ratify panel s recommendations @ icc s annual general meeting in february 2005. based on recommendations icc issued new guideline (which effective 1 march 2005) allowing extensions or hyperextensions of 15 degrees types of bowlers, deeming muralitharan s doosra legal.

explaining why maximum level of 15 degrees arrived at, panel member angus fraser stated number biomechanics says (straightening) becomes visible. difficult naked eye see less 15 degrees in bowler s action. found when biceps reached shoulder amount of bend around 165 degrees. few bowlers can 180 degrees because joint doesn t allow that. ... once go further 15 degrees area starting give unfair advantage , breaking law .

university of south australia study

the original decision of disallowing doosra bowling action hailed justifiable on account of being scientifically based. hence, team of australian scientists representing university of south australia conducted independent research, in line modern artificial intelligence , biomechanics in order solve controversial issue arise doosra. university of south australia s study, founded prof. mahinda pathegama, , contributed prof. ozdemir gol, prof. j. mazumdar, prof. tony worsley , prof. lakmi jain has analyzed previous studies close scrutiny since techniques in fields of expertise employed in course of assessment basis decision-making. findings based on scientific study overwhelming , dave richardson, general manager icc stated icc reviewing law on throwing , icc regulations , study done prof. mahinda pathegama unisa scientists valuable source of information in regard. team of australian scientists including sri lankan-born australian scientist, prof. mahinda pathegama reporting findings, in line muralitharan test icc, has analyzed in-depth various issues, such pitfalls in image interpretation when using 2d images 3d modeling associates compared modern techniques in artificial intelligence , biomechanics, , biomechanics assessment doosra bowling action, etc. pathegama @ al. (2004) further reports on disagreement of expression on measurement accuracy in murali report, analysis of motion tracking system used murali report, , discussing cognitive aspects, evidence of errors in anthropometric assessment , movement tracking, lateral inhibition in response tracking, psycho-physiological aspect on post-assessments, angular measurement errors, skin marker induced errors, geometrics-and physics-based 3d modeling , approach on-field assessment, etc.

the muralitharan report produced university of western australia s study has considered richards study done in 1999 evaluate error margin. university of south australia s study done prof. mahinda pathegama argued richards study presented university of western australia s study has used rigid aluminium bar rotated in horizontal plane introduce such error margin. pathegama s report stated in view of system used in test yielding considerable error rigid aluminum bar (an accuracy level of approximately 4 degrees stated in murali report), stands reason error margin considerably larger when tracking skin markers on spin bowler s moving upper limb same system .

vincent barnes in interview argues bruce elliott, uwa professor icc biomechanist, had made interesting discovery in dealings finger spinners. said had found lot of bowlers subcontinent bowl doosra legally, not caucasian bowlers.

fourth round of testing

on 2 february 2006, muralitharan underwent fourth round of biomechanical testing @ university of western australia. there had been criticism previous round of tests in july 2004 did not replicate match conditions due slower bowling speed in laboratory tests. results showed average elbow extension while bowling doosra delivery 12.2 degrees, @ average of 53.75 mph (86.50 km/h). average off-break 12.9 degrees @ 59.03 mph (95.00 km/h).

bowling arm brace

in july 2004 muralitharan filmed in england, bowling arm brace on. film shown on britain s channel 4 during test against england on 22 july 2004.

initially, muralitharan bowled 3 balls – off-spinner, top-spinner , doosra – in match. bowled same 3 balls brace made steel bars, set strong resin. brace has been moulded right arm, approximately 46 centimetres long , weighs under 1 kilogram.

tv presenter mark nicholas tried brace himself, confirmed there no way arm can bent, or flexed, when in brace. 3 balls reacted in same way when bowled without brace. not bowled quite fast because weight of brace restricts speed of muralitharan s shoulder rotation, spin still there.

with brace on, there still appeared jerk in action. when studying film @ varying speeds, still appeared if straightened arm, though brace makes impossible so. unique shoulder rotation , amazing wrist action seem create illusion straightens arm.

the off-spinner said exercise convince sceptical public rather sway icc investigation bowling actions launched after reported match referee chris broad doosra delivery in march 2004, third time action taken on bowling. in interview august 2004 edition of wisden asia cricket, muralitharan stated think prove point had said physically impossible bowl ball turned other way. proved possible bowl doosra without bending arm.

in 2004 @ r premadasa stadium in colombo, muralitharan voluntarily performed series of tests live video cameras. michael slater , ravi shastri witnessed unfold. muralitharan once again showed bowl deliveries including doosra arm brace prevents straightening of elbow. orthopediatrician dr mandeep dillon stated muralitharan s unusual ability generate movement both @ shoulder wrist enables him bowl doosra without straightening elbow.

critics , converts

two vocal critics of muralitharan s action have been former test cricketers, australian dean jones , bishan bedi, former indian captain. dean jones later admitted being wrong in assessment of murali when witnessed first hand murali bowling arm-brace on.

michael holding, former west indian fast bowler critic of muralitharan, withdrew criticisms under light of tests carried out. holding had been quoted being in 110% agreement bedi, likened murali s action javelin throw , more recently, compared shot putter . following icc study, member of panel conducted study, holding stated, scientific evidence overwhelming ... when bowlers naked eye have pure actions thoroughly analysed sophisticated technology in place, shown straightening arm 11 , in cases 12 degrees. under strict interpretation of law, these players breaking rules. game needs deal reality , make judgment how accommodates fact.

in may 2002, adam gilchrist, speaking @ carlton (australian) football club luncheon, claimed muralitharan s action not comply laws of cricket. melbourne-based age newspaper quoted gilchrist saying. yeah, think (chuck), , because, if read laws of game, there s no doubt in mind , many others, throughout cricket history have. these comments made before doosra controversy, in spite of muralitharan s action having been cleared icc in both 1996 , 1999. comment gilchrist reprimanded australian cricket board (acb) , found guilty of being in breach of acb rules concerned detrimental public comment .

during 2006 tour of new zealand muralitharan critic, former new zealand captain , cricket commentator martin crowe, called muralitharan s doosra monitored more closely, asserting action seemed deteriorate during match. earlier year when delivering cowdrey lecture @ lords martin crowe had demanded 0 tolerance instead of 15 degrees throwing , branded muttiah muralitharan chucker. in response crowe s criticism icc general manager dave richardson stated scientific evidence presented biomechanists professor bruce elliot, dr paul hurrion , mr marc portuswith overwhelming , clarified bowlers, not suspected of having flawed actions, found straightening arms 11 or 12 degrees. , @ same time, bowlers may appear throwing may hyper-extending or bowl permanently bent elbows. under strict interpretation of law, breaking rules – if ruled out every bowler did there no bowlers left.