Muralitharan a burglar,a thief and a dacoit : Bedi

[silentstriker]

The first point you raise is fair enough & I did actually qualify what I said to accepted (in the sense that an umpire's probity isn't called into question if he makes an incorrect shout on an LBW), but does rather miss my point, which was that if the technology is available why isn't it used? My question was rhetorical in case that wasn't initially clear. The obvious answer is that there isn't the political will behind it to force the change through. Murali's action (& by extension chucking) is a cause celeb in a way the use of Hawkeye isn't.

But what's wrong with that? Bad decisions tend to affect everyone relatively equally, while this situation is unique to one (or a small minority) of people. So obviously the response is going to be different.

The second point (whilst appreciating you may just be playing devil's advocate) is rather easier to counter. Not enforcing a law because it might ruin a transgressor’s career doesn't seem a very compelling reason not to enforce it.

No, but seeing a law that isn't working because most people are already in violation of it is certainly a compelling reason to change it. Or enforce it equally for everyone who is violating it (all the fast bowlers, most of the slow bowlers).

Chucking is a serious accusation, but let's get some perspective here, sportspeople constantly bend & breaks laws in an attempt to gain an advantage in any way they can. Why should chucking be seen as somehow the exception that no-one would possibly ever countenance? Could it just possibly be that some bowlers bend (ha!) the laws on flexion to gain an edge over the opposition on occasion?* If so, shouldn't they be punished?

Who is saying the transgressors shouldn't be punished? The problem was that the laws weren't enforced equally since it was proven a lot of bowlers had a worse bend than Murali and weren't reprimanded (like McGrath, Lee, etc). The point is that of several pages ago change the law to say that people should be banned if they look like they are throwing, than that's another story. But that was never the law. We just came upon the technology recently that proved that the law did not work.

No one is saying that this replacement is perfect either. Unless someone can prove the explanation of the optical illusion wrong, or show me that even guys with perfect actions like McGrath didn't chuck under the old rules but Murali did...I don't see why we should continue to live under a delusional law.

I just want the law, whatever it is, enforced equally. That's not too much to ask in sport, surely?

 

[Richard]

You aren't serious, are you? Hair was removed from the test umpire's list largely at the behest of the south Asian test nations. If his judgement was held to be untainted by bias his exile makes literally no sense whatsoever.

Exactly, it doesn't. Hair being removed was unfair IMO.

Come on, that's too, too rich, Rich.

Why tho? Why is it not ok to hurt the feelings of someone who is contravening the laws of the game? No one would dream of letting someone who'd failed a drug test continue playing in a game for fear of humiliating him (or her).

Chucking is a serious accusation, but let's get some perspective here, sportspeople constantly bend & breaks laws in an attempt to gain an advantage in any way they can. Why should chucking be seen as somehow the exception that no-one would possibly ever countenance? Could it just possibly be that some bowlers bend (ha!) the laws on flexion to gain an edge over the opposition on occasion?* If so, shouldn't they be punished?

*I'd just like to add, for legal reasons, there is no suggestion that Muttiah Muralitharan is one of them.

The thing is, failed drugs-tests are unequivocal. And action is taken when competition is suspended.

Both of these are totally different to cricket and throwing. A bowler being no-balled happens in-game, and on no more than a supposition. This is not right. It should be more akin to drugs-testing (and is), in that there should be proper research done that finds-out the real truths, and it should be done out of the public eye when no game is in progress. Only once the results are known, in certain "negative" type, should public ridicule happen.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I just want the law, whatever it is, enforced equally. That's not too much to ask in sport, surely?

No, not at all. Of course you realise it isn't tho, I'm sure. Who gets referred? Plays whose actions look dodgy.

As you point out appearance & reality aren't always in perfect allignment on this issue.

 

[silentstriker]

No, not at all. Of course you realise it isn't tho, I'm sure. Who gets referred? Plays whose actions look dodgy.

As you point out appearance & reality aren't always in perfect allignment on this issue.

Yup. I realize that, but unless there is a better way that someone proposes (which I am perfectly willing to listen to as I don't think the current system is all that great), what else can you do?

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, ignore my point, well done. By the way, I haven't been missing the mark again and again, I'm understanding you quite well but I'll repeat, your argument is nonsensical because you've decided on an arbitrary point of 'abnormality'.
Again, why have you set an arbitrary mark that singles Murali out?
And how can you possibly maintain that you're not disputing his talent when your posts in this thread have basically been arguing that he has an 'unfair advantage' which would logically mean you think he's less talented. Seriously, what's the motivation for harping on and on about this point? I mean, you claim you rate Murali highly etc etc, but then you go to great lengths to 'prove' his inferiority...which one is it then?

Are you kidding me? How many times is this going to fly over your head: it is abnormal because it isn't frequent. That is the very definition of the word. No one else has what Murali has. And it isn't a talent (having double-jointed wrists), it is a deformity. Get it? There is nothing arbitrary about what I have said there, so why do you keep digressing to something never implied nor mentioned? As I said, you keep missing the mark again and again.

Oh yeah, this: 'But your Murali fanboy cap keeps getting in your view.' is exactly what you've accused JBH001 of doing. If it's my 'Murali fanboy cap' affecting how I argue this, what do you have to say for everyone else refuting your points in this thread? Is it a vast cricketweb conspiracy to keep KaZoH0lic down or what? To use your words, you're ridiculous.

Certainly. For you guys, who are his stout fans, it seems that most things said against him are taboo - even when it has logic. When have I even said in this thread that Murali has an unfair advantage, so much so that he should be banned because of it? I even said that I don't totally agree with Pratyush's argument, but it does have it's merits.

But people gave some flipping examples and likened it to Murali when there was no such ground. I said those people should be removed or at the least some rethinking of the game itself would be advisable, where did I say Murali is getting an unfair advantage and should be banned?

But to deny that he gets any advantage of it is preposterous. You've got to be '"avin a laugh" as our friends from way down the river say. The point is that you're so against anything said against Murali that you've assumed way too much, without even having looked properly at what I've said.

What's worse is that some others not only do not see this, they go on to compare a physical deformity over some talent that someone else has acquired - like Richard equating it with shot-selection FFS.

You've used the right phrase though: "You're ridiculous."

 

[BoyBrumby]

Exactly, it doesn't. Hair being removed was unfair IMO..

Fair enough, but the fact that he was exiled means the idea that he is biased isn't just the preserve of the lunatic fringe; it clearly has credence in high places.

The thing is, failed drugs-tests are unequivocal. And action is taken when competition is suspended.

Both of these are totally different to cricket and throwing. A bowler being no-balled happens in-game, and on no more than a supposition. This is not right. It should be more akin to drugs-testing (and is), in that there should be proper research done that finds-out the real truths, and it should be done out of the public eye when no game is in progress. Only once the results are known, in certain "negative" type, should public ridicule happen.

Well you'd think drugs tests are an issue of fact rather than conjecture, but given what happened with Shoaib & Asif it would appear not. The fact that their failures were written off suggests they're actually rather equivocal. In practice in cricket tests would almost always happen after the fact, yes, but as is shown by the Tour de France this isn't necessarily the case in all sports.

& you are right, an umpire calling a bowler for throwing is based on his judgement, but so are the majority of the decisions they give. Just because they could be wrong doesn't follow that they would be.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry guys, I read Manan's post and it seems I missed a few and I will reply to some of them now.

Does that suggest that Murali's success can be attributed to more than just a deformity? Why is he the only bowler with a deformity who is this damn good?

How is Murali's success even relevant in the first place? Sanz earlier showed Murali's drastic improvement in the second half of his career - your response? Why are you only worried about "unfair competition" due to a deformity when it poses a threat to your beloved cricketers?

Did he suddenly have a surgery to remove his double-jointed wrists? And Warne, or any other cricketer that I have an admiration of is no way related to this debate. Even with it all there, and leaving it alone, Warne will always be the greater bowler for me and I have given plenty of reasons why.

Perhaps I am wrong here ... but haven't you been saying that Murali doesn't belong in international cricket because he has an unfair advantage? Aren't you then implying that he doesn't deserve the hundreds of wickets he has taken at this level?

Nope, that's actually not what I am saying. I am saying that to acknowledge his great bowling is one thing, to equate his deformity which aids his bowling, to whatever degree you may wish to think, with someone else's acquired talent is preposterous.

There has essentially been two arguments here:

1) What do we do when a freak comes along
2) What do we do with Murali

Whilst Murali is helped, unarguably, by his deformities, I do not consider him a anomaly of the 10ft or 100% twitch fibre kind.

 

[Ikki]

Just want to ask Kaz. At what point of that curve does a skill become 'abnormal', and worth banning, as opposed to merely 'exceptional' and worth celebrating?

Sorry, I missed this post earlier, maybe because you edited? Dunno, I missed it anyway.

Anyway, I think your examples are lacking. You say Richards had amazing hand-eye coordination, but that trait in itself has variance. Richards will only have hand-eye coordination just a bit better than his fellow cricketers as his colleagues will also be in the top percentile of people with that trait. Now the thing is there is a clear variance in strength, speed, etc. What there is no variance is in physical deformities like a kinked elbow or being double-wristed. For e.g. someone with 3 arms. You either have 2 arms or 3. There is no variance in it.

That's the clear difference in these examples: "what if this guy had much better..."

'Better' being the key word, it is a comparative one. And really I'd, personally, only start viewing such an advantage like hand-eye coordination in the same light when it becomes insanely divisive where one batsmen never - or rarely - gets out and is averaging like 300 runs a game.

 

[Richard]

Fair enough, but the fact that he was exiled means the idea that he is biased isn't just the preserve of the lunatic fringe; it clearly has credence in high places.

Just because they're in high places doesn't mean they can't be "preserves of the lunatic fringe". IMO many PCB and BCCSL figures overreacted hugely to the incidents.

Well you'd think drugs tests are an issue of fact rather than conjecture, but given what happened with Shoaib & Asif it would appear not. The fact that their failures were written off suggests they're actually rather equivocal. In practice in cricket tests would almost always happen after the fact, yes, but as is shown by the Tour de France this is necessarily the case is all sports.

Drugs-tests are a matter of fact, not conjecture, unlike chucking. It's fact that the traces were found in their bloodstreams; this is exactly equable with biomechanics testing and not at all with Umpiring viewing.

How the traces got there is obviously not something that can be known for certain, and as we know I think there's far more likelihood that the bowlers were innocent than most do, but this isn't the matter of importance here. Drugs tests are unequivocal; where to go from there is not. However, an Umpire viewing a bowler and thinking his action looks dodgy has no equivocation whatsoever.

& you are right, an umpire calling a bowler for throwing is based on his judgement, but so are the majority of the decisions they give. Just because they could be wrong doesn't follow that they would be.

That's not the point - as Dasa said earlier, all wrong decisions are deplorable but calling someone for being a chucker when they're not is quite the worst thing imagineable. It should be avoided at all costs - a bad lbw decision is mostly nothing more than a nuscience, though it will occasionally alter the outcome of a game. It will almost never ruin a career, though - being called for chucking always has a very substantial chance of doing so.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That's not the point - as Dasa said earlier, all wrong decisions are deplorable but calling someone for being a chucker when they're not is quite the worst thing imagineable. It should be avoided at all costs - a bad lbw decision is mostly nothing more than a nuscience, though it will occasionally alter the outcome of a game. It will almost never ruin a career, though - being called for chucking always has a very substantial chance of doing so.

No, it isn't & it's cant to suggest it is.

As for the suggestion that the taint of being a chucker will ruin careers, well it hasn't done lately, has it? Perhaps 60 years ago it might've, but if a player is talented a bit of controversy is so many column inches. They'll be back in the fold eventually.

 

[Richard]

Shabbir Ahmed?

So suggest to me - what in cricket is worse for a bowler than to be called a chucker? I can't think of much.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Shabbir Ahmed?

So suggest to me - what in cricket is worse for a bowler than to be called a chucker? I can't think of much.

Rupturing your anterior cruciate ligament, hell any injury at all.

& Shabbir was mooted as a possible for the Pakistan WC squad even before his ban ended.

 

[silentstriker]

And really I'd, personally, only start viewing such an advantage like hand-eye coordination in the same light when it becomes insanely divisive where one batsmen never - or rarely - gets out and is averaging like 300 runs a game.

What about if he averages 299? 250? 200? At what point do you say that he should not play due to an unfair advantage? And who decides this, and on what basis? Try to make a rule like that, and you'll likely get sued (and lose the lawsuit).

 

[Ikki]

What about if he averages 299? 250? 200? At what point do you say that he should not play due to an unfair advantage? And who decides this, and on what basis? Try to make a rule like that, and you'll likely get sued (and lose the lawsuit).

When he has a third arm, I think that's when.

There is currently no player I see that fits this description so it's all conjecture. But, it would be something preposterous for someone to be that good. And I don't mean him scoring that much and his colleagues similar to it, I mean whilst everyone is averaging 50 he is averaging 300. They say Bradman is a statistical anomaly himself, now think of someone who could average 3 times as him. Something will have to be changed, no?

Let me put it this way: would it be fair and just to have, for example, a great, normal athlete, running in the special olympics/paralympics? Surely, they will have a much greater advantage than the rest of the field.

 

[Richard]

Rupturing your anterior cruciate ligament, hell any injury at all.

Injury-excluded, obviously.

& Shabbir was mooted as a possible for the Pakistan WC squad even before his ban ended.

Mooted. Not yet come back, has he? Even with the rubbish (Sami, Azhar Mahmood) who played for Pakistan in the WC. Wonder why that's been now...

 

[Richard]

What about if he averages 299? 250? 200? At what point do you say that he should not play due to an unfair advantage? And who decides this, and on what basis? Try to make a rule like that, and you'll likely get sued (and lose the lawsuit).

I'm finished with this argument.

Good luck bashing your head out, Manan.

 

[Ikki]

I'm finished with this argument.

Good luck bashing your head out, Manan.

The kind of guy Manan is talking about is out of the depths of reality.

It is a tennis player winning every game, every set and every match 6-0 6-0 6-0.

It is a boxer that knocks out every opponent with the opening punch.

It is a basketball player that averages 40 points a quarter, gives 15 assists and has 15 rebounds.

It is a golfer who scores an eagle or an albatross in every hole.

And so on...

What is the solution? Richard, I'd like you to answer this question too:

"would it be fair and just to have, for example, a great, normal athlete, running in the special olympics/paralympics? Surely, they will have a much greater advantage than the rest of the field."

 

[Lostman]

The kind of guy Manan is talking about is out of the depths of reality.

It is a tennis player winning every game, every set and every match 6-0 6-0 6-0.

It is a boxer that knocks out every opponent with the opening punch.

It is a basketball player that averages 40 points a quarter, gives 15 assists and has 15 rebounds.

It is a golfer who scores an eagle or an albatross in every hole.

And so on...

What is the solution? Richard, I'd like you to answer this question too:

"would it be fair and just to have, for example, a great, normal athlete, running in the special olympics/paralympics? Surely, they will have a much greater advantage than the rest of the field."

you have just described babe ruth.

 

[Richard]

The kind of guy Manan is talking about is out of the depths of reality.

It is a tennis player winning every game, every set and every match 6-0 6-0 6-0.

It is a boxer that knocks out every opponent with the opening punch.

It is a basketball player that averages 40 points a quarter, gives 15 assists and has 15 rebounds.

It is a golfer who scores an eagle or an albatross in every hole.

And so on...

I'll tell you something - if Murali didn't exist, everyone would think he was out of the question. It's very possible we'll never, ever see another like him.

Unusual cases do happen, however. Personally, I don't really care, in the slightest, why they're unsual. Contrary to (mercifully only fairly) popular belief, Murali does not break any rules of cricket, therefore I don't care, at all, whether his wrist's suppleness is beyond some certain threshold of "norm" or not.

If you do, that's up to you. I couldn't, therefore, care less about arguing over where some norm which, to me, basically doesn't exist ("norm" is in the eye of the beholder) is here or on Jupiter. It doesn't bother me - it does bother you. I don't really think it deserves 3 pages (120 posts) of debate myself, but if people wish to indulge in it that's their choice. I'm merely greatful this is Manan and Dasa, not C_C.

What is the solution? Richard, I'd like you to answer this question too:

"would it be fair and just to have, for example, a great, normal athlete, running in the special olympics/paralympics? Surely, they will have a much greater advantage than the rest of the field."

No, it wouldn't. I don't believe Murali's case is remotely equable to this, though.

 

[Legglancer]

I still think the rules were changed for his benifit and still think my eye is right

Yeah .... once upon a time people believed that the World was flat Too .....