• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Murali to retire from Test Cricket

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Migara said:
There's no opinions about chucking. It's proven by science. If some one still tries to disprove what is proven by scientific evidence, 'idiot' would be the nicest word to use. Sorry, I am not remotely sorry about using that. Crap about chucking should be dealt as crap, not otherwise. I had been nice to almost all people here, even in heated debates, but a vomitus of subjective crap when there's clear evidence will not get any respect from me.
Click to expand...
Whoa, hang on there champ. I'm absolutely on Murali's side and under the 15 degree rule, associated testing, etc. he doesn't breach it. However, the 15 degrees itself is a fairly arbitrary cut-off point and not everyone will agree with it. There's no objective definition of what constitutes a chuck.
 
GotSpin

GotSpin

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Top_Cat said:
Whoa, hang on there champ. I'm absolutely on Murali's side and under the 15 degree rule, associated testing, etc. he doesn't breach it. However, the 15 degrees itself is a fairly arbitrary cut-off point and not everyone will agree with it. There's no objective definition of what constitutes a chuck.
Click to expand...
Didn't the 15 degrees rule used to be a couple degrees lower, around 12 or so, meaning that Murali failed it? Can someone clear this up. I'm not really sure at all
 
Cruxdude

Cruxdude

International Debutant
Got_Spin said:
Didn't the 15 degrees rule used to be a couple degrees lower, around 12 or so, meaning that Murali failed it? Can someone clear this up. I'm not really sure at all
Click to expand...
Before the fifteen degree rule there was a rule stipulating that 10 was the limit for fast bowlers, and 5 for spinners. Another test in 2004 proved that 99% of bowlers were beyond this limit. so this new rule was adopted to keep all the bowlers from being called for chucking.
 
S

Streetwise

Banned
Cruxdude said:
Before the fifteen degree rule there was a rule stipulating that 10 was the limit for fast bowlers, and 5 for spinners. Another test in 2004 proved that 99% of bowlers were beyond this limit. so this new rule was adopted to keep all the bowlers from being called for chucking.
Click to expand...
How can that be, players have to be tested in the nets because they cant test them in real time on the pitch. Otherwise we could just look at the footage of any bowler and would not need to wire them up. Unless they got all the players in the nets (Ihave not heard of this) or this 99% of bowlers is pure guess work.
 
GotSpin

GotSpin

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Cruxdude said:
Before the fifteen degree rule there was a rule stipulating that 10 was the limit for fast bowlers, and 5 for spinners. Another test in 2004 proved that 99% of bowlers were beyond this limit. so this new rule was adopted to keep all the bowlers from being called for chucking.
Click to expand...
So theoretically then, they could have changed the rules in order to accommodate players with suspect actions like Murali?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top