Sri Lanka has two major religions. Buddhism and cricket. Not necessarily in that order either. So when the leader of one, refuses to bow down and yield to an obviously wrong decision, affecting the career of arguably the best off spin bowler in the world, one could imagine that some 17 million devotees will be staunchly behind him, as he does so. Nonetheless, whether revered as a saint, or reviled as a sinner, one thing is sure. To most of the laid back islanders in this otherwise troubled nation, he is king of their world.
Think about it. Sri Lankans cling to cricket as the drowing man to the proverbial straw. In 50 years of independence, we have gained nothing, except a world cup. It represents more than cricket. It represents everything that is right about the nation.
This is certain. In the eyes of the public, Arjuna, rightly or wrongly, was the man who stood up and said enough was enough. A nation long subjected to sledging and intimidation throughout its cricketing career, somewhere in 1995 during the controversial Aussie tour, the Lankans who always enjoy their game, came of age. Called the nuggety Sri Lankans and looked down upon as a poverty stricken team who couldn't afford their hotel laundry bills, the team soon realised that psywar had a lot to do with the game.
And nobody known more about psywar than Murali. A man who can single-handedly wipe out whole teams. Now number 1 in the CEAT rankings; late last year he devastated a shocked English side which frugally played only a one off test with the Lankans. In 42 matches, he has bagged 203 test wickets. He has claimed five wickets in an innings 16 times, and 10 or more in a match twice. The first occasion against Zimbabwe in Kandy last year.
In 1996, with the world cup under his belt. Arjuna made two earth shattering comments in an authoritative kind of way. The cricketing world could not quite stomach it. Shane Warne is a product of media hype and over-rated, he said. Fair enough. The leg spinner was hit for over 60 runs in the cup final and could not get a wicket. Asked who he thought was the best bowler in the world, he said, "undoubtedly Murali".
This year in Perth, Australia, on January 28 (Thursday) the unabashedly unafraid Sri Lankan captain was given a suspended punishment despite being found guilty of violating the International Cricket Council (ICC) code of conduct. Sri Lankans who knew that however grave the provocation, he should not have acted that way on the field, breathed a collective sigh of relief. Arjuna who was picked up on the stump mic at one point , challenging umpire Emerson with, "Why not, why not" and then indicating where Emerson should stand by markedly creasing the ground behind the stump with his foot, was also heard to say, "I'm in charge of the ground," and when Umpire Emerson attempted a brave snigger, continued I'm in charge of the ground, you are in charge here". (Indicating the wicket). These statements were no doubt said under not only sudden provocation, but built up provocation over the previous weeks. Nonetheless, let's face it, these are dangerous precedents and could lead to mayhem on the field. There is no substitute for discipline as much as there is no substitute for fairplay.
ICC match referee, Peter Van der Merwe of South Africa, imposed a maximum six one-day international matches suspension and a maximum fine of 75 percent of his match payment on Ranatunga, but then suspended both penalties for a year. A tougher punishment was widely expected, with some, like the former Australian test umpire Lou Rowan even calling for a life ban.
"He may be king in his country but he does not amount to too much here," he's reported to have said. Many were shocked at Ranatunga's action in the one day match against England in Adelaide last Saturday, calling it at best extraordinary.
Certainly, the lenient penalty is expected to whip up a media storm in the coming weeks in Australia. The Lankan team has had a tough tour. Five months before, the local cricket board made representations to its counterpart ACB, that that likes of Darrel Hair should not officiate at matches involving the team. Darrel in a hair-raising book, categorically dismissed Murali as a chucker and stated he will call him again for suspect action despite an ICC ruling that his action is legitimate. The Aussie media were quite to rake up old muck and the public were no better. It only took a stressed out Emerson no balling Murali at random, to have the already angry team crack up.
Ranatunga who was seen during the controversial match wiggling his index finger both at Emerson and Van der Merwe originally faced six charges which included conduct unbecoming of an international player, intimidating an umpire, using abusive language and breaching the ICC code of conduct. On a technicality pointed out by his lawyers, five of the charges were later dropped. Van der Merwe found Ranatunga guilty of violating the code of conduct by not at all times maintaining the spirit of the game, as well as the laws of the game, when he led his players to the boundary during the clash with England. The match was held up for 12 minutes.
What shocked international commentators like Ian Botham and other experts was why Emerson thought it fit to call a man who has been cleared by not only the highest cricketing authority but also many times over by scientists in Australia and Hong Kong. It is not disputed that the ICC cannot totally clear a bowler from future suspect action. But when an action cannot be detected by the naked eye, there is a procedure that should have been adopted. Publicly humiliating a young bowler who has done nothing all his life but play the game to the best of his ability, was appalling.
In 1996 Murali underwent three days of rigorous testing at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, conducted by Prof. Ravi Goonetilleke; adopting scientifically proven instrumentation. Goonetilleke submitted a final report to the BCCSL. According to Goonetilleke, the test involved objective measurements using a state-of-the-art electro-goniometer for measuring the elbow angle and a force sensing resistor on the spinning finger to determine the actual point of ball release. All information was stored in a data-logger and subjected to computer analyses subsequently. Split-view video recordings (back view and side view were also made).
During the height of the controversy two years ago, Buddy Reid, a well known Melbourne based surgeon, after a thorough examination, diagnosed Murali to have a fixed deformity of 32 degrees at the elbow on his right arm and 26 degrees on the left elbow, at birth. His analysis also reported that as Muralitharan's shoulder rotates the arm, and the arm continues forwards, and downwards, the forearm then becomes straight in line with the arm, giving an impression of a straightening of the elbow although no actual straightening occurs. The only unfortunate points in this argument was (which some Australians were quick to point out) that the measurements were taken in a clinical setting in static conditions and therefore unable to support the impression of a straightening. However the method used subsequently in Hong Kong put this argument to rest, as the elbow angle was tested in a dynamic situation which critically determined if the Lankan spinner has a chucking action.
Ironically, nature stops Murali from being a chucker. He cannot straighten his arm even if he wanted to. This is a physical condition prevalent in his family. If he is to be kept out of the game because of a deformity, and one which certainly does not give him an unfair advantage in the game, then surely this is a breach of the fundamental laws of equal opportunity.
In 1991, Bruce Yardley trained Murali and has said there is nothing wrong with his delivery. From July 1995 up until the world cup Davenall Whatmore filmed him from several angles and confirmed his action legitimate.
Hair may have found something objectionable on boxing day in 1995 in seven deliveries out of a massive 228 bowled by the spinner; yet 40 world class umpires since then, have been perfectly satisfied with his action and so has the specially appointed ICC panel.
Allan Border, during the '96 furore was amongst many others who admitted Murali was unorthodox, but not illegal. The much respected Peter Roebuch over ABC radio was wondering if Sri Lanka had been easy meat, compared to other nations when placed in similar situations. Ian Chappell is on record saying he does not believe Muttiah Muralitharan gains any unfair advantage from his action (electronic telegraph January 24, 1999) and former Aussie Captain Allan Border says Murali is "actually a wrist spinner".
Doug Insole, the England representative on the advisory panel and a spectator at Adelaide last Saturday said, "When we looked at Muralitharan in 1997 it was felt that his action was legitimate". (Electronic telegraph January 24, 1999).
During last year's highly successful tour of England, English coach David Lloyd was summoned by the ECB to explain his criticism of Sri Lankan off- spinner Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action. Lloyd had words with Geoff Boycott, a former England captain, after the team's disastrous loss, when he reacted to the pundit's comment that "England should get a coach who keeps his mouth shut".
Sri Lanka demanded an explanation and Thilanga Sumathipala, president of the BCCSL said the "remarks were highly uncalled for. We are very disappointed and if the England coach was so concerned, he should have gone to the match referee and not to the media."
"... We are particularly concerned at the possible impact in Australia of Lloyd's remarks, which have been widely published there. We shall be taking part in the triangular one-day tournament there in the new year with England. Muralitharan experienced problems there before and we don't want any repetition." This of course could not be avoided.
Meanwhile Goonetilleke says that Murali's action should never be evaluated on the field, but only through scientific methods. The back view of the bowler appears to show a fully straightened arm. But the side view shows a bent arm. This is the visual illusion that takes place since he has a flexion deformity (arm cannot fully straighten). So, unless you are superhuman, such an action should never be evaluated (judged) on the field. "I think he may be the first bowler in the history of cricket with such an arm. So, it is not surprising that it looks different, and will alarm many not so familiar with the throwing laws of cricket. If a human being wants to evaluate him on the field, then there should be two eyes in the bowler's end umpire position (for stereo viewing to get depth information) and another two eyes in the square leg's umpire's position (again to get depth information), and the 4 eyes linked to an artificial brain."
For now, Emerson is not umpiring ant matches, on medical grounds, after it was revealed he has been on sick leave form his job with the Ministry of Fair Trade in Western Australia for at least a month. Aussie Radio reports said that it was believed the illness was stress-related, and that he has applied for workers compensation. The chief executive officer of the ministry aid he was surprised that Emerson was incapable of work while performing umpiring duties. It is understood that the Australian Cricket Board was unaware of Emerson's sick leave until last Saturday. This may be so. But for the world's best off spinner, the saga seems far from over.
The test
The initial test was an investigation of Muralitharan's bowling (right)
arm. Angular measurements at the elbow were taken in four positions using
a goniometer:
1. In a fully relaxed state, with arm hanging down close to the body.
2. With external force applied at the elbow joint and arm hanging close to the body.
3. Arm raised in an overhead position.
4. Arm in a fully flexed position.
The values obtained were compared with data published by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.
Equipment & Methodology
The equipment used in the study were:
1. Twin axis electro-goniometer
2. Paper thin electronic force sensor (15 mm in diameter and weighing no more than paper of the same size) also known as a force or load switch.
3. Data Logger
4. Portable 486 computer
5. Video cameras
Even though the electro-goniometer (EG) was able to simultaneously measure angles at two planes, only one plug was used to measure the elbow angle in the sagittal plane. The lightweight (19 gms) EG required minimal operating force. It was unobtrusive permitting elbow angles to be displayed or recorded while allowing the subject freedom of movement. The EG consists of two end blocks connected by a protective spring (see figure 3) Between the two end blocks inside the protective is a composite wire which has a series of strain gauges mounted around the circumference. As the angle between the two ends vary, the change in strain along the length of the wire is measured and this is translated to elbow angle. (See figure 4)
The data logger weighed 160 gms and was 100x25 mm in size powered by a 9V DC battery.
Operation
The goniometer was attached to the arm using two kinds of speciality tape. Firstly double sided tape was attached to the underside of the EG endblocks. These were stuck to Murali's arm, ensuring allowance for the telescoping of the goniometer. The two end block were than pressed on to the arm. To ensure firm attachment, tegaderm tape was applied on top of each end block. To minimize the effects of pronation and supination, the endblocks were attached to the arm in pre-determined positions based on the researcher's experience. The cable and connector leaving the goniometer were also secured using tegaderm and micropore tape to avoid unnecessary strain on the EG unit. The cable was connected to the data logger.
The force sensor was attached to the index finger for the off spin and to the ring finger for the leg spin, using micropore tape. The cable from the sensor was attached to the data logger through as load measuring interface (LMI). The data logger and LMI were placed in a leather pouch which was mounted on an elastic, velcro band and strapped to the waist of the spinner.
The data logger was first programmed to record data. For most trials, the data logger was programmed to record at 500 samples/second or 1000 samples/second. The rate of 500 samples/second indicated that 500 data points of force and elbow angles were recorded each second. After the data on the finger forces and the elbow angles were recorded, the data logger was disconnected from the belt and then connected to the portable computer to down load the recorded data for processing and further analysis.
The report also states that after installation of all equipment within a short time of usage, Murali was able to bowl without any hindrance or knowledge of the equipment attached to him. This observation becomes important in the event a decision is made to use the equipment under match conditions. In fact the importance of this test is that it could be used in a dynamic situation under match conditions.
Measurement conditions
The completely objective test was conducted over a period of three days. During the first day, Murali was instrumented and allowed to bowl for long spells to get accustomed to the equipment. The second day involved over five hours of continuous testing. The third day involved checking all possible variations in his style of bowling, there types of deliveries were monitored and evaluated. They were
1. Off spin 2. Leg spin 3. ball
These deliveries were evaluated under variations in trajectory, bowling over the wicket, bowling round the wicket, delivering close to and away from the wickets.
Compiled for the World Wide Web by:
Information Laboratories (Pvt.)
Ltd.
69/7A, Attidiya Road, Ratmalana, Sri Lanka.
Tel: +94-1-61-1061
Email: webmaster@infolabs.is.lk