Archives

By Dr. Ajith C. S. Perera

Muttiah Muralitharan is a national asset Sri Lanka has. He and Shane Warne from Australia are not only the world's two greatest spinners from the same generation who have produced many fascinating duels, but also the top wicket-takers in the game today.

'Murali' lost the race to 500 to Warne, but standing at 513 mark and with the two match test series against Zimbabwe about to start, he is now on the verge of making history, in soon becoming not only the first to outset former West Indian fast bowler Courtney Walsh's all-time record of 519 test wickets, but also becomes the quickest bowler to reach this landmark.

But, the manner of the recent-most off-the-field happenings in the international cricket arena, casts doubts in the minds of millions world over whether there is a sinister move afoot to prevent the Asian eclipsing Courtney Walsh ahead of Shane Warne. It also throws what promises to be possibly the greatest test match bowling career ever, in to a spin. Rather naively perhaps very many of us in this part of the world, never anticipate such enmity.

Major road blocks

Saga seems far from over for Muralitharan. The two barricades now thrown across his way to the top are:

(A). ICC imposed 'level of tolerance' for elbow straightening, prior to release of the ball.

(B). Pre-conceived Bias.

This article, elucidates some of the related matters concerning the first aspect (A), as more than any other factor it is the one that will adversely affect not merely Muralitharan but most of the (off) spinners, and above all, the game 'cricket' and its much treasured spirit.

(A). Level of tolerance

The fact is, the rules have to be set somewhere (but not somehow) and make certain no players are permitted to gain an unfair advantage by playing outside the rules.

Furthermore, once they are established and laid down, they should not be bent nor exceptions permitted. In almost all the Laws that govern Cricket, except the Law 24.3, this poses no major problem. I have always accepted the above principle and as such, until ten days ago wholeheartedly supported the views expressed by Mr. Malcolm Speed of the ICC, when he said:

(A). "The current levels of tolerance (set for elbow straightening for the bowlers as per Law 24.3); reflect the reality that most bowlers straighten their arm to some degree when bowling. These current levels of tolerance are based on expert advice that suggests beyond a certain level, bowlers will gain an unfair advantage".

(B). "As recently as 2003 September only, at its meeting of Board Chief Executives in India, the ICC reviewed these tolerance levels and all countries were in agreement that the current standards should remain in place".

(C). "It's a little bit strange that they're now talking about bending some of the rules again. I don't really understand how that works."

On paper these appear as very fair comments. My curiosity on the subject than lead me to an in depth study, of course with an unbiased open mind adapting an analytical approach. To my amazement and disbelief, five facts I would share below with all cricket enthusiast readers, have then come to light.

Before I touch on them, let me outline two significant aspects. (Reference: ICC Standard Bio-Mechanical Analysis Protocol now enforced and titled, "Process for Review of Bowlers reported with Suspected Illegal Bowling Actions").

(i). Until two years ago, bowlers were not allowed to straighten their arm at all. But new scientific research concluded that partial straightening by bowlers is so common and natural that it could not simply be outlawed.

This evidence then made the ICC change the MCC Cricket Law 24.3 introducing a "Tolerance Level" for Elbow Straightening prior to release of the ball, where different amounts of arm flex are allowed for (vaguely defined) different classes of bowlers based on 'Release Speed of the Ball': Section 6 specify the enforced Tolerance Limits as follows: "For release speeds exceeding 80 mph = 10 degrees of flex; For release speeds (65-80) mph = 7.5 degrees; For Spinners (Finger/Wrist) = 5 degrees". (Remark: How could such tight minor differences be practically measurable at the time of release during a match and enforced? Apparently, the human eye is physically incapable of discerning any change in arm angle of less than 15 degrees.)

(ii). Ideal thing should be that each ball should be judged on the pitch itself based on this criteria (and others) as it is bowled, (and called if required, accordingly). But since this is not practical, ICC further recommends a two stage process. Six of the essential requirements the ICC stresses to follow with their Standard Operating System that are also relevant here, include the following:

(a). The ICC shall appoint on annual basis, a panel of 'Human Movement (Bio-Mechanic) Specialist', who shall have prior experience of dealing with assessment and review of Bowlers reported with suspected illegal bowling action. (Section: A2). The Home Board shall work with one member of this ICC Panel of Specialists to complete an assessment base on ICC Standard Analysis Protocol (SAP) and submit a report to the ICC within 6-weeks of reporting. (Section: C).

(b). Some of the requirements that all assessments carried out should meet, (Ref: ICC's SAP Section 4) are: A minimum of two synchronised high-speed cameras operating at (200-250) frames per second and shutter speed not less than 1000Hz must be used. The Cameras and Computer to be operated and positioned in appropriate positions to facilitate a subsequent 3-Dimentional Analysis of the Shoulder, Elbow, Wrist and the Ball.

(c). Prior to analysis and data collection, calibration and validation processes must be undertaken.

(d). The Bowler to have no clothing on the torso, (with reflective markers on their arms and torso), in order to enable manual digitisation of the joint centres during the data collection periods.

(e). Ensure that the Bowler in bowling, at a speed representing match conditions. IF NOT, the DATA IS INVALID. (Mr. Gilchrist, please note this pre-requisite ).

(f). Four deliveries of each spin variation, must be recorded and a summary of the results of each delivery, should be given.

Of course the ICC and its panel of technical experts must be congratulated for placing such a sound and excellent system.

Facts identified:

(i). The issue of flawed bowling actions have always been an emotional-laden hot topic. No other rule in the rulebook has such a devastating effect on the career of any player than the Law 24.3. The interpretation of this Law literally meant life or death to a bowler's cricketing future.

The Law 24.3 deals with a bowler's bowling actions. It defines the action of the arm for a fair delivery. The interpretation of this Law has always been subjective. Controversy therefore, became part and parcel of every ruling made under this Law. It is no exception this time either.

It is essential that all concerns are addressed in a clear and sincere manner that protects the interests of the bowlers, batsmen and above all the spirit of the game. The recently revised ICC system provides a sensible way of dealing with such issues concerning the legitimacy of suspected deliver actions. BUT......

(ii). Although there has been considerable research into this issue in relation to fast bowling, hardly anything worthwhile known has yet not been done in this area with spinners' bowling actions.

Hence it has not been possible to determine any meaningful real values for the tolerance limit on Spinners (and perhaps medium pacies too) based on any actual practical on or off the field scientific analysis, testing or studies done. Hence the current 5-degree cut-off mark imposed on Spinners is totally based only on a theoretical hypothetical (false) assumption, which has now been proved to be baseless.

Let's see what Professor Bruce Elliot from the University of Western Australia, a Member of the ICC approved panel of Biomechanic experts, (See (ii) (a) above) have already confirmed on my above observation.

His own words are: "The five degrees tolerance (rule) ICC has imposed on Spin Bowlers, is based on illogical data because they've only just tested fast bowlers and then 'assumed' that there is some relationship between fast bowlers and spin bowlers." In addition, Daryl Foster the reputed former Western Australian Cricket Coach has also said in the report published by India's Hindu last Thursday that there has not been any proper research undertaken into spin bowlers.

(iii). In dealing with scientific work, we all know that the accepted tolerance limits of the final result as well as accuracies and precision of all measurements, depend on the type of equipment used, the type of procedures adopted, and many other factors.

The numerical limits to these crucial end-results hence, can and must be determined and set, only by the technical experts themselves who are competent on the subject and its testing.

For example, we all know that in relation to medical laboratory diagnostic testing, for all the critical tests at least, each laboratory although they may follow a universally accepted procedure and protocols, still gives its own specified ranges to the final test results determined, going on this scientific thinking.

But on this occasion, the voice of the experts at the Western Australian University, were not given any concern at all to establish meaningful tolerance levels for the highly scientific testing they have done on a Spinner. The inconclusiveness to the ultimate findings and their final appropriate recommendations can only be understood truly by scientifically trained and technically inclined minds only. There is certainly no bias or back soft peddling in that report, as falsely projected by few lay people.

(iv). Hence the ICC Chief's claim (see (A),). "The current levels of tolerance reflect the reality", is incorrect as far as the Spinners are concerned. Without any valid data on hand, how can this be so? Also his remark. "These current levels of tolerance are based on expert advice" (see (C)), is once again not true. The real experts who are competent to advise the ICC and the Cricketing World on this topic, are the very own people the ICC have approved as Human Movement Specialists.

These real experts' views concerning the spinners are totally different to what the ICC is trying to enforce. In fact none of these experts have advice the ICC or agreed of a 5-degree level for the Spinners.

Then he also argues that it was only in last September all Countries agreed to these levels. Who attended this meeting? It's the Chief Executive, who possess expertise on administration and experienced in management aspects.

To what extent, this forum gathered had the knowledge and competence to review and assess a highly technical matter of this origin? Has this Tolerance Limit of 5 degrees concerning the Spinners (and perhaps 7.5 on medium pacies) been ratified and agreed by any of the Human Movement Specialists of the ICC panel?

(v). Any conclusions drawn and enforced that are not at all backed by valid scientific reasoning and supported by accumulated valid data from appropriate sampling, especially on such a crucial topic as Law 24.3 enforcement (For reasons, please see (i) above), becomes injurious to the game and above all to its Spirit we talk so highly of with such pride.

After this critical shortcoming has been pointed out 'by the experts', let us be humble and honest to our conscious to accept this fact in the best interest of Cricket, and see how best we could put all our heads together and act swiftly, to remedy that in the name of fairplay. Taking the remedial action to rectify this critical shortcoming that could easily put the cricketing lives of some of the spinners world over on the guillotine, is not trying to bend the (wrongly determined) detrimental rule again or bending the rule for the sake of any particular one blower. Hence. Mr. Speed's speedily made remark ((C) above), is also inappropriate.

Cricket has progressed far enough where modern technology backed by scientific evidence provides definitive results with highest possible accuracy where the human binocular vision has been in doubt.

Unless we so become realistic with our tolerance level setting on this issue, not only Muralitharan's Doosra, but every Off Spinner's "Wrong'un" will thus see an untimely death! This is because I fear that hardly any off-spinner may be able to bowl his Wrong'un without extending the elbow more than 5 degrees in rotating the wrist to come over the top of the ball.

Three pertinent questions

(1). Would any Court of Law uphold a 'level of tolerance' set and enforced at 5 degrees arbitrarily for 'Spin Bowers' without any valid data to justify that claim based on studies or analysis performed on any pre-approved scientific basis for elbow straightening of them prior to release of the ball, especially for the 'Wrong'uns of off spinners, being used, to deny the opportunity a sportsman of engaging in this professional sport and in earning him a living from that?

(2). Professor Bruce Elliot is one of the members of a panel of Human Movement Specialists the ICC themselves have appointed possessing prior experience of dealing with assessment and review of Bowlers reported with suspected illegal bowling action.

Why is that the ICC is not prepared at this hour of time to listen and accept the views and suggestions given by their own expert, even after these experts have clearly highlighted the very serious lapse the ICC have made in implementing this arbitrary value and the consequences it could have in enforcing that??

(3). What if a pace bowler, who normally bowls over 80 mph with less than 10 degrees of flex, say around 9 deg, drops in the occasional deliberate slow off cutter at a speed blow 65 mph; will his bowling rhythm and action permit him to suddenly restrict his arm flex to no more than 5 degrees?.

If not where does he stand? i.e. deliberately slowing down but bowling a delivery outside the tolerance guide? Same way, what about the slower bolwers, in bowling their faster deliveries? Then what is the norm for bowlers like Andrew Symonds, who bowls medium pace in test matches but slow spin in the ODIs? Hence this enforced guideline in the first place is inopportune and, somewhat insane. What have you to say on this aspect?

Conclusion:

From these facts and views of the 'real' experts on this subject, it is so imminent and inevitable that at first, we must soon establish a realistic 'level of tolerance' for elbow straightening of the spin bowlers and thereafter adhere to its strict implementation. In the interim period until that is truly established, the only sensible way is to follow the advice given by the ICC's own Human Movement Specialists, the real experts who have all the required expertise and know all about on this subject.

Instead of acting promptly in this direction but continuing to say. "The ICC will soon be conducting meaningful research into the actions of spinners; The current 5 Degree level of tolerance should then be reviewed and a revision will be considered if there is evidence to support a change to that;" this is not good enough way to address this crucial issue.

Worse to the game and its much talked Spirit would be: Taking into hand the authority the ICC has and in spite of seeing its proven absurdity, still going ahead to force and implement the ruling that "all Spin Bowlers will have to accept and continue to follow the currently enforced 5 degree tolerance level".

In doing so they are not only ignoring and going against the views and suggestions of their very own Human Movement Experts like Professor Elliot, but run the risk of inviting yet unforeseen much harm to the game and bringing its esteemed body (ICC) into disrepute.

Such an act could best be described by the famous saying, "Even the hardest piece of Iron gets destroyed, not by anything else but by the rust formed from its own within".

www.Pathmaconstruction.com

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.ppilk.com

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager