Editing Muttiah Muralitharan (section)

===University of South Australia study===
<!-- This section needs to be improved. The focus should be on the implications of this research on Muralitharan and his bowling. From the current wording it is unclear what the results and the conclusions are-->
The original decision of disallowing the doosra bowling action was hailed widely as justifiable on account of being scientifically based. Hence, a team of Australian scientists<ref name="anthropometric assessment">{{cite report|title=Use of imprecise biomedical image analysis and anthropometric assessment in biomechanics with particular reference to competitive cricket|author=Pathegama, M., Göl, Ö, Mazumdar, J., Winefield, T. and Jain, L|publisher=[[University of South Australia]]|year=2003–2004}}</ref> representing the [[University of South Australia]] conducted an independent research, in line with modern [[Artificial Intelligence]] and [[Sports Biomechanics|biomechanics]] to solve the controversial issue arise from doosra. The [[University of South Australia]]'s study, founded by Prof. [[Mahinda Pathegama]], and contributed by Prof. Ozdemir Gol, Prof. J. Mazumdar, Prof. Tony Worsley and Prof. Lakmi Jain has analyzed the previous studies with close scrutiny since the techniques in their fields of expertise are employed in the course of assessment as the basis for decision-making. The findings based on this scientific study are overwhelming<ref name="anthropometric assessment" /> and [[Dave Richardson (South African cricketer)|Dave Richardson]], general manager ICC stated that "the ICC is currently reviewing the Law on throwing and the ICC regulations and the study done by Prof. Mahinda Pathegama with UniSA scientists<ref name="Special Report on the Controversial doosra" /> is a valuable source of information in this regard."<ref name="KES News">{{Cite news |date=12 August 2008 |title=ICC Acknowledgement for UniSA researchers |url=http://www.unisa.edu.au/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19970122094101/http://www.unisa.edu.au/ |url-status=live |archive-date=22 January 1997 |publisher=[[University of South Australia]] |access-date=14 August 2008 }}</ref> The team of Australian scientists including Sri Lankan-born Australian scientist, Prof. Mahinda Pathegama<ref name="anthropometric assessment" /> reporting their findings, in line with the Muralitharan test to ICC, has analyzed in-depth various issues, such as Pitfalls in image interpretation when using 2D images for 3D modeling associates compared to the modern techniques in [[Artificial Intelligence]] and [[Sports Biomechanics|biomechanics]], and [[Sports Biomechanics|Biomechanics]] assessment for doosra bowling action, etc. Pathegama at al. (2004) further reports on the Disagreement of expression on measurement accuracy in the Murali Report, with the analysis of the Motion tracking system used for the Murali Report, and discussing [[Cognitive]] aspects, Evidence of errors in Anthropometric assessment and movement tracking, Lateral inhibition in response tracking, Psycho-physiological aspect on post-assessments, Angular measurement errors, Skin marker induced errors, Geometrics-and physics-based 3D modeling and the Approach to on-field assessment, etc.

The Muralitharan Report produced by the University of Western Australia's study has considered the Richards study<ref name="Richards">{{Cite journal| doi= 10.1016/S0167-9457(99)00023-8 | author=Richards, J. | title= The measurement of human motion. A comparison of commercially available systems | journal=Human Movement Science | year= 1999 | volume=18| issue= 5 | pages=589–602| citeseerx=10.1.1.466.3706 }}</ref> done in 1999 to evaluate the error margin. [[University of South Australia]]'s study done by Prof. Mahinda Pathegama<ref name="anthropometric assessment" /> argued that the Richards study which was presented by the University of Western Australia's study has used a rigid aluminium bar that only rotated in the horizontal plane to introduce such error margin. Pathegama's report<ref name="Special Report on the Controversial doosra" /> stated that "in view of the system used in the test itself yielding considerable error even with a rigid aluminum bar (an ''accuracy level of approximately 4 degrees'' as stated in the Murali Report), it stands to reason that the error margin would be considerably larger when tracking skin markers on a spin bowler's moving upper limb by this same system". Sri Lankan born Australian medical doctor [[Siri Kannangara]] who also then served as the director of the New South Wales Institute of Sports Medicine, was also present at the forefront in analyzing Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action as part of the University of South Australia case study to determine whether Muralitharan's bowling action was genuinely legitimate or if he was chucking the ball in his bowling runup when delivering the ball in his follow-through at the international level.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Medical experts' views on Murali's action (27 January 1999) |url=https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/medical-experts-views-on-murali-s-action-27-january-1999-80341 |access-date=2024-06-09 |website=ESPNcricinfo |language=en}}</ref>

Vincent Barnes in an interview argues<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/404772.html |title=Life after the doosra |publisher=ESPNcricinfo |access-date=8 August 2014 |archive-date=15 August 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090815061104/http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/404772.html |url-status=live }}</ref> that Bruce Elliott, the UWA professor who is also the ICC biomechanist, had made an interesting discovery in his dealings with finger spinners. "He said he had found that a lot of bowlers from the subcontinent could bowl the doosra legally, but not Caucasian bowlers."