The wording is deceptively simple. Its interpretation however, can be deadly. It has claimed its victims before and would have in the future too. No one knew for certain whether the decisions made were correct or not. However, every time, these decisions were enveloped in controversy. It was not surprising either, as every time, the cricketing career of a promising player was at stake. No other rule in the rulebook has such a devastating effect on the career of any player than law 24.2. The interpretation of this rule literally meant life or death to a bowler's cricketing future. That was before a very modest and soft-spoken Sri Lankan scientist decided to do something about it.
Educated at St. Joseph's College Colombo, he graduated from the University of Moratuwa obtaining a First Class B.Sc. (Hons) degree in Mechanical Engineering. Proceeding to the United States of America for his post graduate studies as a Fulbright Scholar, he obtained his Ph.D. and Master's degrees in Human Factors Engineering and a Master's degree in Aerospace Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Today, he is a Lecturer and Head of the Ergonomics/Human Factor Engineering Division of the Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST). He is Dr. Ravindra S. Goonetilleke, a specialist in the way "equipment" and humans interact. Prior to joining HKUST, he was a consultant for a leading Ergonomics consulting firm in the US and thereafter the Manager of the Human Factors Research group at the NIKE Sports Research Lab in Oregon, USA. As a sports enthusiast, his research work revolves around sports biomechanics and occupational injuries.
Law 24.2, deals with a bowler's bowling action. It defines the action of throwing while delivering the ball and makes it illegal to do so. The interpretation of this law has always been subjective. Controversy therefore, became part and parcel of every ruling made under this law. It was no exception this time either. The career of Sri Lanka's budding strike bowler "Murali" was at stake. Umpire Darrell Hair had subjectively assessed and ruled that Murali was throwing the ball.
In order to assess that a bowler is indeed throwing within the meaning of law 24.2, an umpire must establish two things.
a) The point in time, of the release of the ball from the hand.
b) That the elbow of the bowling arm straightened, even slightly, just before releasing the ball.
Dr. Goonetilleke's investigation of throwing revealed the following facts.
1. The significant time period available for an umpire to assess that Murali was indeed throwing within the meaning of law 24.2 is 0.08 seconds (2/25).
2. A bent arm, pivoting about the shoulder, can give the illusion of straightening, when viewed only from one direction, without the actual straightening occurring.
3. Even a super slow motion camera recording the bowler's action from the position occupied by the Umpire (Umpire's view) will fail to positively detect any throwing action unless supported by additional measurements.
To understand item 2 above, let us perform the following experiment.
Make an Archer's bow using a stick about 2.5 ft long and suitable string. Ask a friend to hold it by one end, allowing it to hang down freely. Stand at a distance (equal to the distance an umpire would normally use at the bowling end) from the bow. Ask your friend to slowly rotate the bow until you can see the bend clearly. Now ask him to rotate the bow sharply by 90 degrees. You should see the illusion of the bent stick suddenly straightening. This is exactly what happens in Murali's case. He has a permanently bent arm at the elbow joint of 24 degrees, similar to the bow.
Murali is a slow bowler and the time the umpire has is 2/25 of a second (this is like looking through a slow speed camera shutter). If so, how much time would an umpire have, to judge a fast bowler? Indeed, any of the world's top fast bowlers would escape detection, even if they were throwing, simply because of the high angular velocity of their bowling arm. Consider the above experiment with the bow. Here we rotated the bow only on one axis, the axis of the string which was kept vertical. How much more complicated would it be, to separate illusion from fact, if we rotated the bow simultaneously in two axes (about the string and about the top end of the bow), which is the actual dynamic situation when Murali bowls? If differentiating a thrown ball from a legal ball, of a slow bowler with a deformed arm (as Murali's) is so difficult to the naked eye, how can it be ever accomplished when the bowler is a fast bowler with a similar deformity?
Cricket is a gentleman's game. This implies that fairness pervades its laws. The majority of these laws were made when cricket was played at non-professional level. In the context of today's highly competitive professional cricket, some of these laws would be found wanting. A mistake in interpreting a law may cost a player his livelihood and the cricketing world a promising player. The human faculty of vision has been found wanting to properly interpret law 24.2. Though Umpire Hair would have thought that he was positively correct, just and fair in no balling Murali, subsequent scientific investigations have proved beyond reasonable doubt that Murali was indeed bowling legally. What Mr. Hair experienced is the illusion illustrated by the bow experiment.
Murali is today acclaimed as one of the worlds greatest off spinners (if not the greatest). He can afford to ignore comments from even top coaches like Lloyd and play confidently at international level because he, and those who matter, know for certain, that his bowling action, stood and passed rigorous scientific investigation which left no room for speculation. If not for Dr. Goonetilleke, Murali would have been history after that fateful day in Australia. The cricketing world would have lost a fine bowler. What would happen to other bowlers' accused of throwing, like Rajesh Chauhan? Can any umpire depend solely on his vision to make a ruling on throwing, given the above situation?
This article is not about Murali alone. It is also about the inability of unaided human faculties to make a ruling under law 24.2. In such a situation, before an umpire starts no balling a bowler, it appears to be prudent to carry out scientific testing of the suspect bowler on the lines established by Dr. Ravindra S. Goonetilleke. Alternatively, all international bowlers can be tested at random, using this technique, on similar lines to the drugs test carried out on athletes. This will completely eliminate all illegal-bowling actions from international cricket. Who knows "Chuckers" may turn up in surprising quarters.
The need to make an objective assessment, to lay to rest the controversy surrounding subjective assessments was recognised by Miss.Sonali Samarasinghe. Together with Dr. Goonetilleke she initiated what proved to be a landmark investigation in Ergonomics. According to reliable scientific sources, the evaluation technique, has been accepted by the International Ergonomics community, as a valid and accurate method, to evaluate the legitimacy of bowling actions and will be published in the British Journal of Ergonomics in the very near future.
Equipment used by Dr. Goonetilleke in his investigation consisted of a lightweight (19 gm) electro-goniometer requiring minimal operating force to measure elbow angle. Paper-thin, force sensor, placed on the index finger for off spin and the ring finger for leg spin to detect the point of release of the ball (the gripping force becomes zero). A data logger, sampling and recording both elbow angle and finger force at 500 samples per second, which means that elbow angle and finger force is, monitored every 0.002 sec (2/1000 sec, this frequency could also be increased to 1000 / sec). Two video cameras, a professional video mixer, a portable VCR and a computer.
This article contains copyright material (pictures and text) and should not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Dr Goonetilleke.