About Techhology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

© Getty Images

The recent brouhaha about Muralitharan's "doosra" delivery appears to have been engineered by some Englishmen, who conveniently forgot that he had been bowling variants of the same ball (with perhaps less frequency and accuracy?) when he played for Lancashire in 2001 and Kent in 2003. Whatever we, partisan ourself, may think of the partisan interventions of these moralists, they may have done Murali a favour - albeit inadvertently. We have yet to know the results. But the contretemps has also brought technology to the forefront.

Here let me recommend to all readers the four excellent articles published (or republished) within wisden cricinfo: namely, those by Frank Tyson, Simon Hughes, Sambit Bal and Charlie Austin. These four riveting essays constitute essential reading for any person who writes hereafter on the subject of alleged chucking. Hughes has been something of a technologist/scientist himself and conveys the results of his own video analysis of Murali's action. In sum and in thrust these authors mark the virtues of technological testing - though Sambit Bal's article does raise some profound doubts and questions to which I shall return.

Perhaps the most sanguine position is that taken by Austin. He displays a belief in the scientific method and the capacities of the UWA team in ways that would render him into a "positivist." As a cautionary note, therefore, let me say that even in the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, robotics, etc there are qualifications attached to their respective methodologies and the degree of certainty one can attach to such results.

The limits of the slo-mo camera technology (in its then state) were revealed to all of us in the cricket world in the years 1999-2002 when the Third Umpire was asked adjudicate on what were deemed to have been possible bump-ball catches. Except for the odd occasion when home-town decisions favoured the host country (eg Taylor catching Atherton at Adelaide), by and large most decisions went in favour of the batsmen, even though in virtually all cases experienced watchers and the players themselves believed that a fair catch had been made. The misleading feature of technology was only taken on board when Stuart Law was declared not out during the Pura Cup finals in 2002, a decision that proved critical because he went on to make a big score that turned the game in Queensland's way against Victoria (?). A storm developed (quite validly). In consequence the ACB took serious note of the deficiencies of technology for this type of decision. And when the ACB, today's cricket superpower, stresses, everyone listens.

The problem lies in the manner in which the camera blurs the definition when it is evaluating an object against a plane surface. This is becoming evident in video replays of rugby union tries. At the rate we are going now, one/third of the tries will be disallowed if every one of them is referred to the camera. When one places the ball on the ground firmly it looks as if it has slipped.

Enter Sambit Bal with his access to technical/scientific findings available to the ICC. Here it is not technology that is questioned. Rather it is that technology produces a problem-genie: this genie bears a veritable Pandora's box and generates a whole range of ramifying doubts. Let me quote Bal and underline some statements in bold:

What we have, then, is verily a hornet's nest disturbed. Bal, thankfully, has the nous and flexibility to qualify his reliance on technology and to argue for flexibility. But will bureaucrats on the one hand and cricketing dogmatists of the Egar, Corbett, Jarman, Bedi variety on the other hand adopt such a perspective?

Bruce Elliot

Enter Dr. Bruce Elliot from the Human Movement and Exercise Science Department at the University of Western Australia, where Murali was tested originally in 1996. He was coopted by the ICC for its technical team reviewing the bowlers at the Under 19 World Cup in Bangladesh in early 2004. Purely on the basis of visual evidence on TV, Elliot proceeded to cast doubts on the legitimacy of the doosra - as distinct from Murali's other deliveries which he deemed legitimate. Whether this opinion was influenced by the climate of opinion from Woolmer and other English or ICC circles around him, one cannot tell, at least without being a fly on the wall. But, in mid-March 2004 it was reported that "Elliott's concerns have been raised by the facts [arising from the] ICC's fears over the thousands of youngsters from the subcontinent who are trying to copy Muralitharan's action." With the caveat that we are dependent on news reports for Elliot's commentary, the critical fact remains that his comments on Murali's doosra in March were, as Hughes categorically put it, "essentially" contradictory. The "science" behind his visual evaluation was further compounded by the sweeping generalisation that followed: lots of young men in the subcontinent were said to be copying Murali. Any backyard social scientist would hesitate to make such definitive verdicts, but Elliot had no hesitation. Worrying this.

Murali in Perth

After Chris Broad followed his instincts or a nod from some principality above and reported Muralis doosra, Murali made haste to Perth for new tests, where the UWA team was now armed with an improved and expanded set of cameras and sensors. The tests were quickly done and Elliot was as quickly reported on the media waves. Let me decode his statements.

A1) The "numbers" (statistics?), he said, had been sent to Sri Lanka Cricket.
A2) They, the Lankan administrators, could "NOW" take a decision.
B) The UWA report would follow in a week.

My point is clear: A and B are contradictory statements. This sort of comment (assuming the reporter got it right) is both self-contradictory and quite unscientific. It should be added that we were not told what modality had been used to send the "numbers' to the numbers to Colombo. If it was by mail, any mother's son would know that such a communication takes a little while to reach its destination (indeed, anything from 10 to 14 day in my personal experience). If it was email, well, then, only a few at SLC are computer literate. In any event, as of April 7th we know that the Lankan authorities had not yet received a communication from UWA.

Again, there is no question of action "now" because the SLC regime that came to power on March 30th has the sword of Damocles hanging over it, with a new Sports Minister (Arjuna Ranatunga perhaps) in the wings and probable "revolutions" (or rather the old story of musical chairs - for there have been six different chairs in seven years) in cricket administration on the cards. Elliot could hardly be expected to understand this, so that is excusable.

Let me add, too, that Darryl Foster is part of the UWA team. He looked after Murali in Perth and kept him in wraps. That is as it should be. The tests had to be uncontaminated by Sri Lankan and other networks. Indeed, Foster went so far as to tell the media that the report has not been sent and to contradict the media expectations arising from their interpretation of Elliot's comments. Sri Lanka is fortunate to have him on hand. Despite the inexcusable and petty manner in which the BCCSL under Hemaka Amarasuriya treated him when he was a bowling consultant with the touring team in UK in mid-2002 and had to rush home because a grandchild was at death's door, we can expect a fair appraisal from this decent man. And for that matter from Elliot himself - for all his indiscretions. Besides these blokes have impressive technology at their fingertips.

Wow! New Biomechanics

Having raised doubts about the hundred percent accuracy of all technology, let me move the other way and emphasise that this specific cluster of technology seems pretty precise and effective to my unscientific eye. TV coverage of Murali's tests was not limited to a picture of the bare-bodied Murali with white sensors gleaming against his dark background like some bionic man. There was a clip of the results of his doosra-action as captured on the UWA cameras. These moving images (separate frames in motion - quite unlike still shots of the sort used by Malcolm Conn and the Australian in late January 1999 to condemn Murali and support Emerson) were powerful in their imagery. In association with a written report, such video footage would provide solid evidence. Note that it is evidence of this type that Sambit Bal has used for his commentary. So, we are moving towards a reasonable resolution.

Questions

Other questions arise however. This type of evidence about the nature of Murali's normal bowling deliveries, admittedly less comprehensive and advanced but pretty good, was available from 1996 onwards. It was available in report and video footage to both the ICC and the BCCSL. The various Sri Lankan regimes, notably those headed by Thilanga Sumathipala, must stand condemned on this ground. Why on earth was this data not shown to the world? Why did not the ICC make the video footage compulsory viewing for all umpires and match referees? Why did'nt sports writers pick all this up as part of their investigative journalism? There has been a colossal failure all round which has opened the door to people like Bedi, Patrick Smith and Ian Smith, as well as nondescripts like Billy Bolonski, to present their ex parte comments freely and dogmatically. As a result the international cricketers in particular and the cricket world in general has been misled.

This secrecy, this lack of transparency, must not be permitted and must not continue. The video footage and UWA report on Murali's doosra-action must enter the public realm after the ICC and SLC have had time to digest it. We cannot stop there. A distilled summary of the video footage revealing the arm actions of those "34 deliveries of 21 different bowlers" that "showed some degree of elbow-straightening" must be assembled in another video with accompanying reports. Whether the names of these bowlers are to be disclosed is a moot question. Personally I would say they should be. Such a listing would make a lot of people shut up because a significant number of fast bowlers would enter the doubtful box. Not all of them would have Murali's deformed elbow and plasticine wrists, or even Brian Statham's double jointed-ness at the elbow (Tyson's evidence). Either way it will make commentators aware that we humans do not have uniform arms. We should then be wary of legislation that is based on imposing uniformity. Having argued this for quite some time, I do feel vindicated.