Ajmal's anomaly needs to be rectified

Daniel, I didn't say "‘there are no optical illusions", but "these are no optical illusions". On the question of science, I am partially with you, but there seems to be a strange reluctance to discuss the notion that elbow flexion cannot indicate chucking, and the research for that has been around for a few years now, freely available on google: "The Biomechanics of Illegal Bowling Actions in Cricket / Dr Rene E. D. Ferdinands" -- with the interesting comment on suspected throwers, "Of the throwing group, only one of the eight suspected bowlers flexed the elbow through release."

Of course, the science isn't infallible. Absolutely. But to suggest that it should be thrown out of the window and we return to judgement by the naked eye alone is absurd. The human eye is not physically capable of observing movement beyond certain boundaries. It's not a machine. There is only so much a bunch of rods and cones can do. Yes, implementing the 15 degree rule in a real live match would be impossible with the technology we currently have. But going backwards is never the answer. Players are never tested for chucking unless they are reported by someone first anyway. Someone sees the bowler with his own eyes, and THEN the bowler is subject to further analysis. So the human eye always serves as the first 'filter' in the process, and is by no means disregarded. You can't just outright claim that 'there are no optical illusions' with nothing to back up that statement. Especially when there are works to show that these illusions are very real in the bowling actions of particular players. You may see a bowler that LOOKS like he belongs in a shot put event. But if further investigation revealed that he remained within the laws of the game, despite the APPEARANCE, then you can't argue with it. If analysis showed that he did throw it, then you can make a fuss. Fine, don't take science like gospel. But common sense alone would tell you that just because you see something, it doesn't mean it actually is what it appears to be.

The notion that science is a bunch of facts out there waiting to be discovered has long been discredited. You don't need to know a lot about deconstructionism to realise that there is an agenda to that traditional view of science -- which is at odds with some parts of quantum physics that can prove that an object can be in 2 places at once, and can prove that something that happens in the future can influence the past. Lumping this all in as "science" that cannot be argued with is a mistake. In fact the ICC is challenging its own henchmen on this basis: we used to think you were good at discovering chuckers, but now we are unhappy that you aren't finding enough. But even if we accept the mechanistic view of science used in biomechanical studies as gospel, the problem is in the application of the science. The biomechanic boffins have shown that a lot of bowlers throw some of the time. They have come up with a tolerance level of 15 degrees -- this cannot be measured in real time under real conditions because there are too many variables -- so the science cannot be applied. Could be that a bowler is bending 14.9 degrees, or as suggested by Big Ramifications, could be 130 degrees. The umpire won't call it. But if I see a bowler whose delivery looks more at home in a shot-putting event, or in a darts competition, then I am suspicious. I have never seen a shotputter or a darts player use a Malcolm Marshall-style throw. These are not optical illusions.

Daniel, under the old laws, and UNDER THE NEW LAWS Murali did “chuck." There are times when he was ripping 'em in from 130 degrees flexion. Occasionally, at the start of the delivery phase proper, his arm was about as fully flexed as humanly possibly, ball lurking atop his shoulder, and RRIIIIIP, flings it in like he was doing the worlds most difficult yo-yo trick. 15 degrees, my ass.

I would have thought it was pretty clear my "I fondly remember the days" which led up to the time "it turned out he DID chuck" indicated I was talking about the old days and the old ways. Again. I've read all the available research but I cannot find a distinction between intentional chucking with a flexing arm and incidental chucking courtesy of centrifugal force with ball in hand, and exactly who the chuckers were. Feel free to add here.

A bit of research will do you wonders Tony! If you bothered to read the studies conducted on Murali, you would find that he had a bent arm, which IN TURN led to an illusion. Brett Lee had the same, according to Cricket Australia. I think you have gotten yourself confused with the old laws and the new laws. Let me explain. Under the old laws, Murali did "chuck." But more than one study have found that most bowlers exceeded the limits placed by the old laws anyway. If you had randomly picked a bowler, there is a huge change that he too would have exceeded that limit. That points towards a problem with the laws themselves. Not the bowlers. So upon recommendation by biomechanical experts, the laws were changed to 15 degrees - the point at which a chuck actually becomes visible to the naked eye. Muralitharan doesn't exceed the new laws, which happened to be based on logic, reasoning, and science. No, the laws weren't changed to suit him. If you read the literature and educate yourself on this topic, you might understand.

If you bothered to read any of the studies you would find that Murali had a bent arm, which IN TURN created an optical illusion. The studies will also tell you that Murali 'chucked' it under the old laws, but they will also make it very very clear that the majority of bowlers chucked under the old laws as well. Those laws are irrelevant. A bit of research and reading will do you wonders Tony!

I fondly remember the days when the Shrees maintained Murali could not chuck because he had a bent arm, and then he did not chuck because it was an optical illusion, and then it turned out he DID chuck, and the Shrees just shrugged and said everyone did it. (Mind you, I'm still waiting on the research results which show precisely which bowlers in cricket history bend their arms - Lillee, Thommo, Willis, Sobers, Botham, etc. And also whether their arm bending is centrifugal force / torque type bending courtesy of the ball in hand, or an actual intentional flex of the shoulder or elbow to get more pace or spin.)

The day is coming when technology will allow anyone to assess a bowler's action on Youtube or wherever. The ICC desperately wants to avoid a situation where you can accurately call the angle of chuck while sitting at home in front of your TV.

With all due respect Prof, I think you will find that your facts are a little out dated. Not only was Muralitharan cleared as a 'thrower' but he was explicitly allowed by the ICC to bowl his doosra once again. You are correct in saying that they did stop him from bowling it, but that was only for a very short period of time. In late 2004, he was allowed to bowl it again. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/news/Cricket/Murali-cleared-to-bowl-doosra/2004/11/10/1100021882436.html You keep mentioning the old laws, and the fact that Muralitharan exceeded them. But in the interest of being consistent, you shouldn't forget to mention the findings which showed that a big proportion of bowlers exceeded those old laws. So to put it bluntly, those laws mean shit all. They weren't based on science, and certainly weren't based on biomechanics. The new 15 degree law is far more relevant, because it has scientific basis. Your statement on Brett Lee goes against what Cricket Australia and Lee himself have said: "Australian cricket authorities claimed yesterday that an injury during a national age-group tournament several years ago had left Lee with a permanently bent right arm, which had possibly contributed to an illusion of throwing." Read more here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=143900 The 'illusion' aspect of it actually played a very big role in the Brett Lee debate. I can even recall reading about it in his biography. I don't agree with your point that he looked like he chucked only when he was making an effort to bowl fast. I can personally see the same 'bend' in all his deliveries, regardless of speed, and this was constant throughout his career. And to add to that point, Lee never had any rehabilitation work done on his action.I don't know where you read that. I can quote Lee himself saying that "No, I haven't got a problem with my action. It's all been cleared up so the most important thing now is for me to concentrate on my..." So, he never had any rehab which allowed him to fix up his action and bowl properly afterwards. You are right in saying that Muralitharan would have encountered trouble at grassroots level in Australia. But that would be because most playgrounds don't have the equipment to perform biomechanical testing! If they happened to send him to UWA, it would be a very different story - even in the playground. Giving the umpires the power to decide if a bowler is 'chucking' or not would be disastrous. You simply cannot determine if a bowler is chucking or not, just because it 'looks' like he is. You need to perform tests and analyse it from a scientific point of view. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.It would be a shame if the game was exposed to such subjectivity. What I think looks like a chuck, another person wouldn't. This thread is actually a testament to this. Take care.

We probably have exhausted our prejudices on this one, Hoppy, but in answer to your comments, Muralidharan was NOT cleared as a thrower. He was shown to exceed the limit allowed by the laws of the game ; his doosra was explicitly banned because he was throwing it. By the way, this does not take away from some of Muralidharan's achievements. His most potent weapon was his cricketing brain, and even with an orthodox action he would have taken many test wickets. Brett Lee threw the ball at times when straining for speed. This was not an optical illusion. After rehabilitation, it was unusual to see him throw, so no illusion there. Tony Lock is the great example of a bowler who saw his own action on film, and changed it because he knew he was throwing. No optical illusion On the earlier subject of googly bowlers, Mushtaq Ahmed's googly was stronger than his leg-break, and became his virtual stock ball, to the extent that Shane Warne said if in doubt, Australians also played for the off-break and were usually right. Paul Adams' stock delivery was a left arm googly, according to some sources. The worst thrower I have seen, who rarely gets a mention, is Andrew Symonds, when he bowls off-spin. Absolutely diabolical action! At this stage, I would advocate umpires calling bowlers on appearance -- there were fewer chuckers under this regime. In Australia, Muralidharan would not have been bowling in the school playground, because he would have been told in very Australian terms to bowl properly or not bowl at all. But, on the subject of ignoring science, it is time that the ICC began to look at the science involved in throwing. Anyone who has pitched a baseball AND bowled a cricket ball would know that the difference is not totally or mainly in the elbow. Or anyone who has wondered why a fielder in the deep will bowl the ball in rather than throw it. Final word to you ....

Ok, so findings by UWA suggest that there is more to 'throwing' than simply the level of elbow bending. Fair enough. But I hope you aren't suggesting that we go off what we see with the naked eye instead! It would be a massive step in the wrong direction if we were to refute science and then go back to what bowlers "look like" when they bowl. Murali isn't the only bowler to have 'looked like a thrower' and then been cleared upon investigation. Cameron Gannon and Brett Lee are two others that come to my mind immediately. In the case of Lee, he also has a bend in his elbow - which happens to give the illusion of a chuck. I personally can see the illusion when I watch his videos, and those that reported him obviously saw it too. On the topic of seeing illusions, I could also see a clear 'chuck' in the video of Murali bowling with a brace on youtube. If you listen to the commentary by Ravi Shastri and Michael Slater, I'm not alone on that one!

Good points, Hoppy. By the way, I did mention that other bowlers bent the elbow during testing. In my opinion, the reports of the testing are slightly unclear in their description of flexion. They do not distinguish between "backward flexion" and "throwing flexion". A fast bowler with a weight at the end of his arm (a ball) will have backward flexion at 130 knh +. The study does not make it clear whether this is included in the bend. The online videos do not give the illusion of throwing to me ("illusion" being subjective naturally) ; they do show a jerking of the shoulder, which to me is the source of much of the doubt about Muralidharan's action. The rest looks like a typical roundarm delivery with a very fluid wrist. There are a number of bowlers who cannot straighten their arm without bending the elbow backwards -- a congenital issue. They do not appear to throw, even when they bowl over the wrist. "the only wrist spinning off-spinner the game has ever seen " -- I guess it's just me and Muralidharan, then! But can I go back to my first point published here, which is a result of research done at UWA: you cannot tell if someone is throwing by measuring the angle and amount of elbow-bending. Some bowlers bend a lot but don't appear to throw ; some bowlers don't bend at all in some deliveries but look like throwers. The elbow can effectively be ruled out as the sole source of judging a bowler's action. The ICC has not absorbed this into their evidence-base yet.

Sorry Prof, but it has been observed repeatedly that there is an optical illusion. In all his studies, this bend/jerk, was observed - despite it being deemed that it was not a chuck. In fact, there is a video on youtube which serves to prove this very point. He is fitted with a steel brace, and told to bowl. It is very clear that the arm appears to 'bend.' This is of course impossible, he can't bend steel. So, it's not some one off study which suggests that there is an optical illusion. It is literally every test he has ever undergone. Yes he did exceed the limit 'as it stood.' But please don't forget that several studies - including one conducted by the ICC found that most bowlers exceeded the limit 'as it stood.' They have found no scientific basis for the old 5 degree laws, and they certainly weren't based on biomechanics. So while it is all well and good to say that Muralitharan exceeded the old laws, it is irresponsible not to mention the fact that most bowlers exceeded those archaic laws in the first place. The limit was NOT extended to suit Muralitharan. I don't know how many times I'll have to go over this one. The limit was extended to 15 degrees upon the recommendation of studies (which can be found online). The basis for this is the fact that 15 degrees is the point at which a 'bend' becomes visible to the naked eye. Of course it makes perfect sense to deem a delivery a "chuck" when you can actually SEE that it is a "chuck." You have described a leg spinner. Most leg spinners are wrist spinners. Please note that I said wrist spinning OFF spinner. I know some bowlers may occasionally use their wrists as an offie, but not for their stock ball like Murali did. He is unique in that sense. "Can only move the ball from off to leg with with my over-the-wrist spinners" That's called a wrong un, and is bowled by a leg spinner. Can you name any first class/international offies that bowled using mainly their wrists? I'm not a big fan of anecdotal evidence. Muralitharan also had a shoulder joint that could rotate 360 degrees - a double jointed shoulder of sorts. This is a very well documented fact. So while ordinary people can't bowl like that without an elbow bend being 'encouraged,' Murali's shoulder coupled with his wrists allowed him to do so. You can't apply the same argument you would place on an anatomically normal human being, to Muralitharan. He isn't anatomically normal.

"the only wrist spinning off-spinner the game has ever seen" -- not so. You can look at any club game and you will see wrist-spinners who are unable to move the ball from leg to off. They bowl a "wrong 'un", which is an off-break. They may vary it with a top-spinner or a zooter. I am a pretty crap bowler, but I can turn the ball from leg to off with my finger-spinner (as a variation from the normal off-break), but can only move the ball from off to leg with with my over-the-wrist spinners. It is also possible to bowl "over the fingers", with the hand side-on, and move the ball either way, depending on the angle of the hand -- this is a delivery that really encourages an elbow-bend.

There is no optical illusion -- although for some years there was a Hong Kong study that tried to show that Murali's chucking action was an optical illusion. This became difficult to support when testing of other bowlers revealed that many of them bent their elbows. In fact, it would have led to the ludicrous assertion that Muralidharan was the only bowler in cricket who NEVER chucked. When Murali was tested, he was found to exceed the limit as it stood. The limit was extended to his normal percentage of elbow-bending. The bend in his elbow joint has never been the problem. Lots of bowlers use a round arm bowling action. If the elbow was the problem, every delivery would look legitimate or every delivery would look like a throw. The problem was the bending from his normal position, which was real and measurable. As his career progressed, more of his deliveries looked suspect. The ICC eventually called his doosra into question, and said he should not bowl it. I believe he did occasionally bowl it during matches, but to my eye, his doosra was no more or less suspect than his other actions. My personal view is that the main issue was his shoulder jerk (a "darts throw") -- but the ICC and the laws of the game are silent on this issue.

Don't forget that Murali wasn't a finger spinner Chris. He was a wrist spinner. His super flexible wrists and shoulder allowed him to be the only wrist spinning off-spinner the game has ever seen. If Murali had been an Aussie, he may not have played top level cricket. Agreed. But that would be due to the ILLUSION that he chucks the ball. If Cricket Australia had done tests on him, he may well have been able to play for Australia. The chucking illusion is caused by the permanent bend at his elbow joint. This gives the illusion that he chucks the ball. Brett Lee has this exact same defect, which was caused by a fractured ulna during his teenage years (and surprise surprise, Lee was also tested for chucking). When Murali was actually tested, he was deemed to be a legal bowler, over and over again.

I agree FTR, that testing in match conditions would be ideal. But here's a few points I think you should note: -When testing, they take a number of measures to make sure that the bowler is bowling at match intensity. Be it having another player present to verify this, or comparing it with match footage and speeds. The bowler can't get away by bowling a bunch of half assed deliveries in the lab. - The argument that Murali, Ajmal etc bowl properly in labs and not in matches reeks of double standards. When Brett Lee was tested for chucking over a decade ago, and cleared... where were all the people screaming "he is bowling properly in the labs, test him in the game?" Hypocrisy, and double standards. I'm telling you.

Surely they should be able to use hawkeye technology to track the arm through the delivery and actually do the testing in the match itself. Then there is no way a bowler can be extra careful not to chuck when being tested, pass the test, and then go back to chucking on the field again.

Actually, for most bowlers who don't have illegal actions, it's actually really difficult and awkward to try and chuck in your bowling action. That's bowling any sort of pace bowling. If I run in and bowl quick and try to chuck it I'll find it really awkward and struggle to do it. However, bowling finger spin is different. It's actually quite easy to add in a bit of elbow action, and it gives you great benefit when it comes to spinning the ball. Hence, spinners are the modern realm of chucking issues. I stand by the fact that if Murali was born in Australia he'd never have played top level cricket and the chucking laws would never have been changed. But Sri Lanka managed to turn the whole thing into some sort of race thing and the ICC decided that chucking should be tested in laboratory conditions and set to whatever level allowed Murali to play. Maybe the fact that he seems like such a nice guy played into it too. If he was a bit of a prick then they probably would have happily just turfed him out of the game.