|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 18 April 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Sports |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
EXCLUSIVE: Elliot tests could lead to amendment of Law 24.3 on straightening of arm From Maximus Anandappa in Australia As I write this, results of the recent tests carried out by Prof. Bruce Elliot of the University of Western Australia to assess the legality of Murali's "doosra" has not been released yet. The cricket.org web site quoted Elliot as saying that he proposed to e-mail his final report to SLC on 13 April 04. Sri Lankans have made it clear that they would act upon facts based on a formal report. Elliot reportedly has said that the outcome of his tests were not conclusive and that there are no clear-cut conclusions from the recent tests. One can only conjecture the recommendations Elliot would be making in his report. Anyone who is keeping abreast of what is happening quite recently within the ICC with regard to interpretation of Law 24.3 (definition of a fair delivery- the arm) and concerns raised by bio-mechanists (including Frank Tyson and Elliot himself) with regard to enforceability of the chucking law will be quick to recognise the complexity of the current dilemma and why Elliot may not be able to draw hard conclusions- particularly at this juncture. One reason for the tests to be inconclusive may relate to the impending changes to Law 24.3 that are so imminent and inevitable. I will come to this point again later. Chris Broad's unilateral decision to query Murali's action without an umpire's report appears to have thrown ICC into a spin at a time when the establishment is striving to find a sensible and a practical solution to the "chucking problem"- no doubt a complex process that will eventually have wide and far reaching implications and changes on administration. Law 24.3 states that a bowler cannot straighten his elbow from the point the delivery arm reaches the shoulder level, to the point the ball is released from the hand. Assuming that the elbow angle is 180 degrees, technically the delivery becomes illegal if during the delivery process this angle is changed (say) even to 179 degrees. General consensus is that straightening of the elbow upto 15 degrees would not be discernible to the naked eye. Recent scientific research has established that it might be a biomechanical impossibility for fast bowlers not to straighten their arms prior to the delivery. Given that biomechanics suggest that most fast bowlers contravene the current Law 24.3 (probably minimally), it is obvious that the Law 24.3 needs re-framing to accommodate minimal inevitable straightening of the elbow that most bowlers have to have. (However, it must be added that Murali's exceptional skills are attributable to his ability to rotate his wrists and not to his crooked elbow). Partial straightening Extensive research the ICC had carried out recently had vindicated that 100% of fast bowlers straighten or partially straighten their arms in delivering most of the balls. In other words according to Law 24.3 as it stands now, every fast bowler throws. In a recent interview to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Malcolm Speed, the CEO of ICC observed that the scientific investigations of bowling actions of pace bowlers is now complete, and the ICC would proceed to examine the actions of spin bowlers. In late 2003, when Dave Richardson mentioned that the ICC would be assessing the spin bowlers, he was referring to this study, though the media, reported it as if Murali was targeted again. The objective of this exercise is to establish what tolerance levels would be appropriate for spin bowlers. Though this information is not available on hard print in ICC rules, to overcome the deficiency of the current throwing law, a level of tolerance is allowed for straightening of the arm. Currently a tolerance of 5 degrees is allowed for spinners, 7.5 degrees for medium pacers and 10 degrees for pace bowlers. Elliot, who headed the recent investigations on fast bowlers, says that they would probably recommend to the ICC a rule amendment to allow a straightening of upto 15 degrees for fast bowlers. Given that the assessment of spin bowlers is not complete, the 5 degrees allowed must surely be a notional tolerance that will have to be reviewed if pace bowlers will be given the advantage of a 15-degrees flexibility. There are many experts who argue that whilst allowing pace bowlers a tolerance of 15 degrees, it would be ludicrous to allow anything less to the spinners. You can then understand why the problem is such a complex one and what Broad has done is really pre-empting a situation for which the ICC is not fully ready yet. The ICC review process of the Law 24.3 is still in a fluid state. It is no doubt a colossal task to affect changes to an outdated law and change the cricketing culture to accommodate legitimizing "throwing". Whether Murali's deviation for the "doosra" falls within the currently "acceptable" interim tolerance level of 5 degrees is not clear. We may have to wait for Elliot's report. There are many writers notably the highly articulate Sambit Bal (cricket.org web site 1 April 2004: "Save the Doosra") who argues that there is a compelling argument to save the doosra even if the wrong'un is found to contravene the currently muddled laws. I would like to quote Sambit Bal who seemed to have a great vision for the future and the growth of the game: "Cricket needs to take a judgement call on what is in the best interests of the game. Not only Murali's doosra, but every off spinner's wrong'un is open to question. Cricket needs to take a call on what the doosra means to the game. Laws are meant to protect the best interest of the game, not to tie it down in rigidity. MCC reacted in horror to the overarm delivery and John Wiles, its first practitioner, was repeatedly no balled, humiliated and driven out of the game. But the law-makers saw the light soon and the game was revolutionized. The humble doosra does not carry the same import as the overarm ball. But it enhances cricket. It has given a new dimension to off-spin, and a fresh lease of life to off spinners. Most law changes and technological advancements in the recent past have loaded the game in favour of the batsmen. They have been protected against the bouncer, both by law and by helmets, they have lighter pads and heavier bats, and the field restrictions in one-day cricket are only to facilitate run scoring, and finally the pitches these days are deliberately designed to suit the batsmen. Whereas the bowlers' only instrument, the cricket ball, has if anything, had its seam depressed" Notwithstanding the outcome of Elliot's report on the doosra, Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) would do well to actively participate in the Law 24.3 review process to ensure that spinners and pace bowlers are given the equal leverage as regards the tolerance. On conclusion of his investigations on pace bowlers, Elliot stated that whilst he may recommend to the ICC a rule amendment to allow a bend' of 15 degrees for fast bowlers, on conclusion of the analysis of spin bowlers, he would well be suggesting the same. Jealous eyes There are a few but influential fundamentalists headed by Bob Simpson, Jim Maxwell, Terry Jenner, Geoff Lawson, Peter Craddock, John Pierik, Col Egar, Ted Corbett et al who will certainly continue to make every effort to discredit Murali whether or not the "doosra" is assessed as legal. These fundamentalists simply do not want to see beyond their own eyes. They want to rely on what they see with the naked eye or a two dimensional TV view. They will no doubt continue to portray Murali as a chucker. SLC and cricket commentators in Sri Lanka must be aware of these fanatics who had been largely instrumental in sustaining the controversy though Murali's action was assessed in University of Western Australia (1996), Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (1996) and in England (1998) independently. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
