Controversy of bowling action
Throughout much of his international career, Muralitharan's action has been suspected of contravening the
laws of the game by
the straightening of his bowling arm during delivery. Although he has been cited three times, subsequent biomechanical testing led the ICC to clear him of the charge and permit him to continue bowling.
Biomechanical testing conducted on four occasions has fueled debate as to whether his action is in fact illegal or actually an illusion created by his allegedly unique ability to generate extra movement both at the shoulder as well the wrist enables him to bowl the doosra without straightening the elbow.
[130]ref name="Murali bowling with brace">
Nicholas, Mark (2004-07-08). "Brace yourselves for new footage that may prove Murali's not bending the law". The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/07/1089000223490.html?from=storylhs. Retrieved 2008-02-10.
[edit] First throwing citation and testing
Muttiah Muralitharan bowling in SCG for ICC World XI
Initial concerns as to whether Muralitharan's action contravened the
laws of the game by
straightening his bowling arm during delivery broke into open controversy after Australian
umpire Darrell Hair called a "
no ball" for an illegal action seven times during the
Boxing Day Test match in
Melbourne, Australia, in 1995. Australian Sir
Donald Bradman, universally regarded as the greatest batsman in history, was later quoted as saying it was the "worst example of umpiring that [he had] witnessed, and against everything the game stands for. Clearly Murali does not throw the ball".
[131][132]
Ten days later, on 5 January 1996, Sri Lanka played the West Indies in the seventh ODI of the triangular World Series competition, in Brisbane. Umpire
Ross Emerson officiating in his debut international match, no-balled Muralitharan three times in his first over, twice in his second and twice in his third. It was an identical tally to that called by Hair on Boxing Day and (like Hair) Emerson made his calls from the bowler's end while his partner stood silent. The main difference was that several no-balls were for leg-breaks instead of the bowler's normal off-breaks.
In February 1996, just before the world cup Muralitharan underwent biomechanical analysis at the
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology under the supervision of Prof. Ravindra Goonetilleke, who declared his action legal in the conditions tested, citing a
congenital defect in Muralitharan's arm which makes him incapable of fully straightening it, but giving the appearance of fully straightening the arm. Although under the original Laws a bowler's arm did not need to be fully straightened to be in breach of a legal delivery.
[133][134] They concluded that his action created the 'optical illusion of throwing'. Based on this evidence ICC gave clearance to Muralitharan to continue bowling.
[10]
[edit] Second citation and testing
Doubts about Muralitharan's action persisted however, on the 1998–99 tour to Australia he was once again called for throwing by Ross Emerson during a One Day International against England at the
Adelaide Oval in Australia. The Sri Lankan team almost abandoned the match, but after instructions from the President of the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka, the game resumed.
[135] The Sri Lankan captain at the time
Arjuna Ranatunga, was later fined and given a suspended ban from the game as a result.
[136] It later emerged that at the time of this match Emerson was on sick leave from his non-cricket job due to a stress-related illness and he stood down for the rest of the series.
[137] Muralitharan was sent for further tests in Perth and England and was cleared again.
[10] At no stage was Muralitharan requested to change or remodel his action, by the ICC. Up to this point in his career (1999) Muralitharan primarily bowled two types of deliveries, namely the
off-break and the
topspinner. He had not yet mastered the doosra.
