After Grog Blog

TRON THE LEVEL?

As commenter Wacker succinctly noted yesterday:

"As if he is going to chuck when the slow motion cameras are on him."

Agreed. Just as the AGB and 99% of the commenters here have been saying for ages.**

And the question needs to be asked, if he did, would the judge be prepared to call it?

With that in mind:

Murali waits for computer to deliver

A DOZEN infra-red video cameras shooting 250 frames per second yesterday recorded every minute movement in Sri Lankan spinner Muttiah Muralitharan's delivery action.

Putting his faith in science, the man who is on the brink of becoming the greatest wicket-taker in Test cricket history appeared relaxed, and even jovial, despite being covered from head to waist in electronic reflectors.

Scientists at the University of Western Australia's human movement department expect the process to give them a definitive answer on the legality of Murali's controversial wicket-taking "doosra" ball by early next week.

Murali was reported by match referee Chris Broad after the third Test against Australia in Colombo last weekend.

In front of a growing crowd of media, university boffins and intrigued students at UWA's Nedlands campus, Murali spent more than half an hour late yesterday bowling the doosra for the cameras.

Intriguingly, the search for an independent arbiter, to ensure Murali bowled with the same action yesterday as in matches, turned out to be former Sri Lanka coach and self-confessed admirer of Murali, Bruce Yardley.

The doosra is the delivery which turns the opposite way to his stock off-spinner.

But scientists were confident that the state-of-the-art technology, used in the Lord Of The Rings film trilogy and countless video games, would deliver a definitive verdict on the action.

The data gathered, which did not include any footage of his also often-controversial off-spinners, will be examined over the weekend.

Once a conclusion has been reached, it will be up to Murali and the Sri Lankan Cricket Board as to when the findings are released.

As emotional as the throwing issue has been, UWA professor Bruce Elliott, who also cleared Murali's bowling action in 1996, said science would rule the day.

"This (data) is collected by the computer and the cameras," Elliott said.

"The computer then does the calculations and gives you an answer.

"There is really no way I can interfere in the system at all.

"There is no way I can change the answer and that is the reason the International Cricket Council is quite happy to take whatever our opinion is as to being the truth."

If Murali's action is cleared, he will be free to continue using the delivery.

However, if any straightening of his right arm is deemed to be outside the five-degree latitude given to spinners under ICC guidelines, then he will have to either stop bowling the ball or undertake remedial action.

Elliott said the technology at UWA was equal to the world's best.

"There is nowhere where you would have a better laboratory facility with regards to biomechanical assessment," he said. "For high-speed analysis, he has come to the right place."

Elliott said Yardley's job was to ensure that Murali was bowling the doosra with his usual action. "We'll be very conscious of the fact that we make sure the quality of the deliveries is as he would bowl in a Test match," Elliott said.

With Murali set to break Courtney Walsh's Test wicket-taking record in the upcoming series against Zimbabwe, Elliott acknowledged the sensitive nature of the matter.

"Presumably, he won't be quite as good a bowler if you take that ball from his repertoire," he said.

"I feel pressure from that viewpoint, because I feel that I need to report what I see.

"I'd be foolish to say that I don't have some feeling for him.

"He's a nice young man and I wouldn't like to say to anyone that they should give up what is their livelihood.

"But science is a bit like that."

Haven't we been told ad nauseum that adjudication of chucking cannot be left to the naked eye? That we must have "questionable actions" referred for scientific appraisal? That we cannot be allowed to unfairly damage a player's career based on an umpire's subjective assessment? On all counts ... we have.

Why then, is the adjudication of whether or not Murali is changing his action under surveillance, now being assessed with the naked eye?

What's more, why does that naked eye -- for Bruce Yardley, that's eye, singular -- belong to a self-confessed Murali afficionado?

Bruce Yardley is a commentator and coach who's regularly described Murali as "a genius" and "great for cricket", and also officially defended him:

The biggest support for him came from the former Australian off-spinner Bruce Yardley, who produced video-recordings to prove that Murali had a natural defect in his bowling arm and the bent wrist was a deformity and not an illusion of a deliberate attempt at chucking.

Given this "apparent" conflict of interest -- COI's being an issue officialdom, superficially at least, regularly tries to avoid -- why isn't the judge appointed from the ranks of the ICC official advisors? Someone like Dennis Lillee, for instance?

Sounds to me like the fix is in. Expect Murali to be cleared to continue ruining cricket.

NB: ** Big Ramifications rightly reminds me not to forget him and all the other regular commenters -- who, let's face it, constitute the lustrous golden thread that binds the heart of the AGB -- who'd criticised the disingenuous smoke and mirrors trick that is the Bowling Review Process.

Come to think of it, I can only remember ONE serious dissenter. That poor misguided soul was, like as not, struck fixedly mute by the sheer torturous weight of cricketing knowledge displayed hereabouts. And likely unable to refocus at his keyboard in the face of the glittering unalloyed logic, blindingly incontrovertible common sense and starkly presented revelations of cricketing anecdoture -- is that even a word -- that dissenter has never been back. DISSENTER! Where are you?

D'OH COMMENT

When I heard on the radio that The Simpsons voices had gone out on strike, I thought -- unlike the SMH -- "Now, THAT headline writes itself!" ... then I googled....

MSNBC -- D'OH....

Simpsons stars on strike for more D'oh

Voices of characters stop working to force contract settlement

The actors who provide the voices for "The Simpsons," including Dan Castellaneta (Homer), Julie Kavner (Marge), Yeardley Smith (Lisa) and Nancy Cartwright (Bart), are seeking $360,000 per episode.

Ottawa Radio -- D'OH....

Simpsons Cast Look For More D'oh!

The actors who provide the voices for the cartoon characters on the long-running TV show "The Simpsons" have stopped work in a bid to force a settlement of lengthy contract renewal talks.

The Sun -- D'OH....

Simpsons want more doh!

A MASSIVE row has erupted over the new series of The Simpsons, it emerged today.

The actors who give the voices to the classic TV cartoon’s stars are staging a pay revolt.

The six actors, who between them play Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and the rest of the cast, have reportedly asked for a pay increase to about £4.25million a year - a leap from the £1.5million they get now.

Washington Post -- D'OH....

Simpsons Stars Strike for More D'oh

LOS ANGELES - The actors who provide the voices for the cartoon characters on the long-running TV show "The Simpsons" have stopped work in a bid to force a settlement of lengthy contract renewal talks, Daily Variety reported in its Thursday edition.

Slightly different, Variety -- D'OH....

Oh no, here they d'oh! Again

The actors behind Homer, Bart, Marge, Lisa and the rest of "The Simpsons" characters have gone silent. The hit Fox animated laffer's collective voices have not shown up for two table reads in the past few weeks, holding up production on the show's 2004-05 season.

TOO POOPED TO POST

No postage today. Working hard.

Inquiries to the Substitute Teacher.