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?

Comments

[chris88]

Deep sigh .... well, that's the end of the hope Murali will be told to do something and the game will be fairer, cleaner and stronger for all.

Back to headshaking and following the football for me.

[Tony.T]

I hoping the right thing will be done, but I fear the next we'll hear will be Arjuna and his mates cat-calling "Told ya so."

[Big Ramifications]

>>>As commenter Wacker succinctly noted yesterday....

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

Oy!

I succinctly noted that a week ago! On more than more occasion (In the Bruce Elliot thread).

*sniff*

[Tony.T]

Sorry Big. When I first wrote the post I had a sentence in it that went....

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

But when I moved some blocks of text around, it got lost in the shuffle. I mainly included Wacker because he said what he said yesterday, so the timing fit.

I'll see what I can do.

[Big Ramifications]

!

[Tony.T]

?

[SM]

Assuming I am said DISSENTER, all i can say is, thank Jeebus & praise Crom Bruce Yardley isn't from the "subcontinent". Imagine the talk of sinister subcontinental conspiracy if that were the case. Whew, close one !

And what's with all this b**locks about Kerry Packer ruining the game ? Best thing that happened to cricket in my opinion.
That would be anecdotage ;-) and now i'm off to a preview of Hellboy after a hard days work.

[Tony.T]

DISSENTER! Good to have you back. No doubt my sweet siren's song was too hard to resist. I would have put your name, but it's a bugger trolling through the archives and you've got a nonny mouse email address.

1) What's a Crom?

2) It is a conspiracy. The aggreived team -- the Shrees -- have to agree to whoever becomes the observer.

3) Absolutely agree with you about Packer. Aussie cricket rocks now because of the WSC innovations and subsequent game development. Even though the 80's were hyper painful.

4) Anacdotage is a magnificent word. I'm stealing it.

5) What's a hellboy? Sounds vaguely pornographic. In a Thai nightclub kind of way.

Don't be a stranger.

[Yorkshire Soul]

Dear Tony, aka cricket guru.

What do the rules say about the height of a bowlers arm when he releases the ball, the arm has to be strait, but is it also supposed to be vertical ?

I was pondering this as I watched young Fidel Edwards in action last night, his arm comes across a diagonal angle as he releases, giving the appearence of throwing.

[Clem Snide]

I don't know why they bother with sensors on the body in a lab. All you need is video cameras from multiple angles trained on the bowler, similar to the Hawkeye system, recording the live action. You can do your triangulation from that. If the bowler uses the excuse that shirt deformation gives a misleading result, the administrators could make him wear either a skintight jersey or a sleeveless shirt (and maybe a bow tie, just to rub it in). Of course it will never happen. One effect of melanin pigmentation is that it makes one's deficiencies hard to see in polite company.

[Richard T]

"As if he is going to chuck when the slow motion cameras are on him." Very well put. The only way to get some action is when the umpires actually no-ball him on the field, and they won't no-ball him unless they get the green light from their heirarchy. Where's Yossarian when you need him.

[SM]

Don't know who Crom and Hellboy are !!! I ask you ...

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1808404362&intl=us

http://www.geocities.com/jrgdawg/breviews/conanthebarbarian.html

[Brett Pee]

I'm wondering how many of the chuckers victims will be happy now that Broad has reported him? He bowls with such a whirr and twist of wrist that some analysts are now saying that it is nigh on impossible to detect the throwing- even watching video action.

Cricket analyst Simon Hughes watched him- with 8 cameras filming 75 frames per second, split screens of his bowling arm from differing angles. Even he could'nt say wether Murali's action was illegitimate, saying that camera's film in only 2 dimensions and we all see in 3-D.

Now Mural's over here in Perth undergoing yet more tests and of course the conclusion will be returned on his 'deformity' and he will be cleared to carry on.

The Lanks suspect this issue is rooted in an Anglo-Aussie conspiracy of course. They claim "we" are attempting to stop him from picking up more test victims and thus overtaking Warnie in the chase for Walsh's record.

Our old mate Ranatunga has chimed in with more bullshit "The English and Australian authorities, umpires and players are becoming spitefully jealous of a great bowler and are seeking ways and means of preventing him from plying his trade in the International arena. These people (us & the poms i presume) are now running scared of seeing an Asian cricketer standing way ahead of the field and will not stop trying to undermine him" Shut up mate.

Rumours that Ranatunga is currently in training to enter this year's world eating championship are as yet unfounded. This chubby crusader of Lankan cricket just can't keep it shut.

[SM]

Tony,

Off topic, but i see that someone has been trying to turn you into a Greg Easterbrook fan.
Puhleeze etc, Easterbrook is way overrated. His offending column basically argued that the "jews in hollywood" should not have allowed Tarantino to make "Kill Bill" because, you know, didn't the holocaust sensitize them to movie violence etc ? Sheesh! He is also an Intelligent Design afficionado. For those lucky folks who don't know what ID is - it is Creationism perpetrated by people who are embarrassed by the old time religion but bad faith keeps at the thankless task of reconciling scripture and real life . Even got one of his ID articles on the cover of "Wired". I nearly cancelled. Could be the case that he is a capital sports columnist but i can't bring myself to read someone who believes in "spiritual dimensions" (another Easterbrook patent) as valid physics. Only in the US, God bless !

[Big Ramifications]

SM, that was me.

Thanks for the clarification. When I read his ESPN columns, I noticed the occasional religious type comment.

And I'm thinking, "WTF is going on here?"

How could an intelligent, sports mad, bikini girl mad (lots of pictures of scantily clad girls in his columns!) journalist be a God botherer?

And now I know where he's coming from. Intelligent design, eh?!

(Still like some of his work, but!)

[SM]

Big Ramifications,

To be fair to Easterbrook, he is rather well regarded as a pundit and even as a science journalist here in the US; i've seen him touted as an expert on NASA and such. One can catch him doing the talking head on TV all the time. I'll admit i'm biased against him so anything from me about the man ... you know how that goes.

[Big Ramifications]

Kewl! Being a citizen of backwater Australia, I hadn't heard about him at all, until I found TMQ via a link in www.metafilter.com.

But I'm with you in many respects. I have subconscious (possible irrational?) apprehension when listening to God botherers pontificate about sporting matters!

[Tony.T]

Mike, the No Ball rule is here....

http://www.lords.org/cricket/lw_0000000050.asp

.... south of James Herriot's house and the Ilkley Wine & Cuisine Appreciation Society.

Unfortunately I can't find anywhere there where it mentions the angle of the arm. I agree some of those West Indian bowlers have had some very low arms at times, Colin Croft for one, but it doesn't appear to be against the rules.

Anyway, I sent an email to Lords -- seriously -- asking if they could help. Afterall, if you can't bowl underarm, you'd think there must be some sort of limit.

You bring up an excedingly good point Clem....

"All you need is video cameras from multiple angles trained on the bowler, similar to the Hawkeye system, recording the live action. You can do your triangulation from that."

If Channel 9 are so confident Hawkeye is the bees knees why don't they use it to suss a bowler's action? Top point. I think I might fire off a note to Big K. Or at least Doyen Benaud. He's the only commentator who doesn't seem to get carried away with the bloody thing.

Your point also embraces the significant issue with the UWA testing. To whit, how is getting an all clear at the UWA going to stop him chucking in a match?

Rich, umps MUST be able to call it. And Yossarian sold Hawkeye to Milo who's turned it into a high-end video game.

SM....

"When a Nazi mystical experiment goes awry in 1944, the target of a wizard's spell, the child of Satan, Hellboy, is wrenched from his home, and adopted by the U.S. agents who intercept his arrival."

It's a comedy, right?

And Crom? I didn't know that was from Conan. I've got a friend who reckons that movie has the best soundtrack of all time. He also thinks Roxette is cutting edge. Tell me, what DO the "lamentations of their women" sound like?

The question is Brett, if we're so racist, how come we don't have a problem with Courtney Walsh being the present highest wicket taker? Or Kapil Dev before that?

Thanks, SM. GE sounds like a crank. I'll approach with care. Like Big.R, I'm not a fan of sport and religion being overly chummy with each other. But that's probably just the Australian way. Many's the time when the media here (Or talkback radio) puzzles over one sportsman or another (Aaron Baddely, Sean Hart) praising the lord upon winning some event or match. I'm not against it, mind you, but it just doesn't sit right.