At first glance, this rear view shot of Muttiah Muralitharan’s bowling action (right) looks much the same as one of those infamous photographs of ‘chuckers’ locked away in the archives of international cricket’s Black Museum.
There appears to be no difference between this portrait of the Sri Lankan off-spin wizard and pictures of Geoff Griffin of South Africa, Australian Ian Meckiff, Charlie Griffith of West Indies and England’s Tony Lock and Geoff Cope, all of whom were condemned at various stages of their careers for contravening Law 24.2 governing throwing.
But pictures sometimes fail to convey the truth. As Sir Don Bradman explained once so memorably in a debate on this controversial subject: ‘It is not always a matter of fact, but of opinion and interpretation.’
A jury inspecting this evidence could be forgiven for finding him guilty as umpire Emerson did twice and Darrell Hair and Tony McQuillan had done before. But to leave him with his career facing ruin is to betray the findings of a scientific study on his action carried out by the Hong Kong Univ-ersity of Science and Technology which is gathering dust in the ICC offices.
Two years ago an ICC panel cleared his action, yet he is still hounded with the real fear that an umpire will disfigure the 1999 World Cup by calling him again. I obtained a rare copy of Hong Kong University’s Final Report on the Bowling Action of Muttiah Muralitharan, which should, surely, be essential reading for any ICC National Grid panel umpire chosen to stand in matches involving the Sri Lankan.
The legitimacy of his action was tested in 1996 by a research team led by Dr Ravindra Goonetilleke. They wired him up with an electro-goniometer to examine any straightening of the arm at the point of delivery; applied force sensors to his spinning finger to time the speed of ball-release; trained two video cameras on his delivery to monitor back and side views; and downloaded data-logger information for final analysis.
The tests were conducted over three days, hundreds of overs and every type of delivery: off-break, arm ball and leg-spin; high, low and normal trajectories; and all variations of pace and spin in his repertoire. The most significant discovery of a static testing exercise revealed that with his right arm raised to an overhead position, the ‘fully extended position is not straight and is equivalent to an elbow bend or flexion angle of 20 degrees’.
The video analysis concentrates on freeze-frame shots showing, in nearly all cases, that ‘the bend that exists here is about the maximum straightening that Muralitharan has on his bowling arm’. The arm abduction in del-ivery ‘makes the arm appear to be straightening, when in fact it is only an abduction, making the plane on which the bend exists in line with the back-camera view’.
Dynamic tests involving the electro-gonio-meter and force sensors reveal ‘absolutely no straightening of the arm. This pattern is consistent throughout the three days of his bowling’. The 28-page document concludes: ‘The computerised data analysis shows beyond any reasonable doubt that Muttiah Muralitha-ran’s bowling action is legitimate.’
Another study by the University of West-ern Australia photographed Murali’s action at 1,000 frames per second from six different angles, concluding: ‘From certain angles he does look suspect but from other angles there was not a problem.’ The ‘throwing’ was a mere ‘optical illusion’, the report said.
The Sri Lankan Board’s chief executive, Dammika Ranatunga, is outraged by the treatment of Murali since the research was sent to ICC. ‘The panel appointed by the ICC to look into Muralitharan’s action has cleared him. Yet some umpires continue to call him. We don’t know which way to turn anymore. It’s most difficult for Muralitharan. Frankly, it’s not fair on him.’
The spinner, who considered quitting after Hair no-balled him seven times on Boxing Day 1995, has three brothers, all born with a bent-arm deformity. ‘I can’t help it. I was born with it and it has been medically proved,’ he says. Attempts to discuss this issue with ICC failed. Meanwhile the men in wigs hover, wondering if they might resolve another major cricket issue in the law courts, with cricket, as always, the loser.
