Murali's ammunition
Will Muttiah Muralitharan's battle to clear his name succeed
Charlie Austin
01-Aug-2004
Will Muttiah Muralitharan's battle to clear his name succeed? Well, if pushed into a corner, Murali could drag the ICC to court. Letters have already been exchanged between his legal team and the ICC. This is the summary of Murali's case:
No rational basis for fixing tolerance limits
The argument centres around the ICC's decision to impose varying degrees of tolerance limits based on speed: five degrees of arm straightening is permitted for spinners, as opposed to 10 for fast bowlers. This is based on the assumption that the rotation of the arm is directly related to the speed of the delivery.
The argument centres around the ICC's decision to impose varying degrees of tolerance limits based on speed: five degrees of arm straightening is permitted for spinners, as opposed to 10 for fast bowlers. This is based on the assumption that the rotation of the arm is directly related to the speed of the delivery.
Murali's case is that scientific tests have demonstrated that the speed of his arm rotation is as fast as that of a fast bowler and that the velocity of the ball is influenced by flight and the point in the rotation of the arm at which the ball is released. And once the association between speed of delivery and speed of rotation is shown to be wrong, the justification for the lower level of tolerance for a spin bowler becomes invalid. Based on this, Murali ought to be permitted the same degree of tolerance afforded to fast bowlers. There may be scientific justification for relaxing Law 24.3 but there is no scientific evidence to support the setting of tolerance levels on the basis of a delivery's speed.
Turn isn't dependent on straightening of the arm
This is what Murali tried to establish by bowling with a brace. When the ball is delivered from the back of the hand, like in Murali's case, it is clear that it is the wrist, and not the arm or elbow joint, which creates the spin.
This is what Murali tried to establish by bowling with a brace. When the ball is delivered from the back of the hand, like in Murali's case, it is clear that it is the wrist, and not the arm or elbow joint, which creates the spin.
No unfair advantage
Tolerance levels should be based on unfair advantage derived by the bowler and not on the biomechanical properties of the human arm. Professor Bruce Elliott has said in his report that "the relatively minor level of elbow extension following remediation over the period from arm horizontal to release" is not believed to give Muralitharan an unfair advantage over batsmen or other bowlers. The ICC should devise levels of tolerance with fairness uppermost in their minds. Since, according to the ICC, it is the stress placed on the arm which causes straightening, it follows that a bowler could avoid these stresses by bowling slower. A fast bowler gains an 'advantage' by being permitted to bowl at a speed which causes his arm to straighten during the bowling action but the ICC permits that advantage. The ICC can only permit it on the basis that it is not unfair.
Tolerance levels should be based on unfair advantage derived by the bowler and not on the biomechanical properties of the human arm. Professor Bruce Elliott has said in his report that "the relatively minor level of elbow extension following remediation over the period from arm horizontal to release" is not believed to give Muralitharan an unfair advantage over batsmen or other bowlers. The ICC should devise levels of tolerance with fairness uppermost in their minds. Since, according to the ICC, it is the stress placed on the arm which causes straightening, it follows that a bowler could avoid these stresses by bowling slower. A fast bowler gains an 'advantage' by being permitted to bowl at a speed which causes his arm to straighten during the bowling action but the ICC permits that advantage. The ICC can only permit it on the basis that it is not unfair.
Pre-judgement by the ICC
It is Murali's case that the ICC seems to have pre-judged his doosra as is evident from this statement: "On a strict interpretation of the laws, a Bowling Review Committee, armed with the report from Professor Elliot, will have little difficulty in finding Murali guilty of contravening Law 24.2 as read with Law 24.3."
It is Murali's case that the ICC seems to have pre-judged his doosra as is evident from this statement: "On a strict interpretation of the laws, a Bowling Review Committee, armed with the report from Professor Elliot, will have little difficulty in finding Murali guilty of contravening Law 24.2 as read with Law 24.3."
Going by the tolerance limits, the ICC has already decided to not adopt a strict implementation of Law 24.3. Therefore, the Bowling Review Group should not be forced to adopt a strict interpretation of the laws in Murali's case, especially without the bowler being given a fair opportunity to state his case. And since the current limits are based on no scientific rationale, they need to be reviewed.
No justification for banning the doosra
Given Murali's faster shoulder rotation speed, the doosra does not breach the current laws of the game and since the ICC itself admits that the research conducted on spin bowling is insufficient, there is no justification in concluding that Murali is operating outside the laws. No other spin bowler has been officially scientifically tested using the present levels of tolerance as a benchmark. A grave injustice is being done to Murali by making him alone a victim of what appears to be an arbitrarily fixed level of tolerance. In the interest of justice and fairplay, Murali should be permitted to continue bowling the doosra at least until a valid database is collected on the various spin bowling disciplines.
Given Murali's faster shoulder rotation speed, the doosra does not breach the current laws of the game and since the ICC itself admits that the research conducted on spin bowling is insufficient, there is no justification in concluding that Murali is operating outside the laws. No other spin bowler has been officially scientifically tested using the present levels of tolerance as a benchmark. A grave injustice is being done to Murali by making him alone a victim of what appears to be an arbitrarily fixed level of tolerance. In the interest of justice and fairplay, Murali should be permitted to continue bowling the doosra at least until a valid database is collected on the various spin bowling disciplines.
Click here to read the main feature by Charlie Austin on Murali's battle.
Click here to read what Murali has to say.
This article was first published in the August issue of Wisden Asia Cricket.
Click here for further details.
Click here for further details.