Chucking.

[Gems]

In answer to your question, I've been very busy and whenever I've had access to computers for personal internet time it's been to reply to rather long email 'enquiries'.
I am glad to see that its still going strong though and that subjects are being debated as they rightly should be!

And thank you for your welcome back!

 

[Top_Cat]

My immediate thoughts - no one is ever going to agree whether he chucks or not and thats cricketers included.

And that just makes them idiots and lacking in the ability to reason. The doctors and scientists at UWA have come up with several reasons why he doesn't chuck and the best his opponents can say is "Well I just think he chucks."???

Not good enough.

If someone has an objection to the way he bowls, they'll have to come up with better reasons than that. I don't believe they will. Why? Because the evidence presented in their physiological examination of Murali's bowling is damn near irrefutable. I'm no physio (a chemist by trade) but I am a scientist and there is a time when scientific evidence has to be accepted and that refusal to do so constitutes a personal bias rather than any on solid logical grounds.

People who deny the evidence presented by Pike and co at UWA are insulting their expertise and doing the argumentative equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and shouting "LALALALALALALALA!". I've not heard ONE solid reason in rebuttal to the presented evidence in the media or any forum for that matter. When I do, I'll listen but as long as I keep hearing that people still "believes he chucks", I'll continue to label them idiots.

And before anyone goes on about "no wrong opinions", I ask you this; if I held the opinion that the sky is actually red with purple elephants as stars, would I REALLY be able to defend myself with "Well, it's just my opinion and there are no wrong opinions."?

 

[indianreligion]

Chucking issue pops up before aus-lanka match
check this article out.

 

[Richard]

thats the rule in question....

I know. I've read it.
Quite a few times. :rolleyes:
And your posting of it confirms that you quoted it wrongly.

 

[Richard]

Careful now - you may be accused of double standards.......:rolleyes:

Nah - it's only those from the west of the Tasman that seem to suffer from that.
Those on the east never seem to be anywhere near as bad.

 

[Richard]

Why? I dont think Lee chucks. Name one cricketer I have called a chucker?

Surely you must have thought Ruchira Perera's action was as blatantly and consistently illegal as you'll see at Lord's in 2002?
Or did you not watch that game?
But I am very glad you are not one who sees something that one angle makes look like a kink and immidiately thinks "chucker".
Personally, I tend to think "I'd like to get some more angles on that, and some replays, and some slo-mos".
Then I can start to come to a conclusion. Some people seem not to realise this.

 

[Richard]

And that just makes them idiots and lacking in the ability to reason. The doctors and scientists at UWA have come up with several reasons why he doesn't chuck and the best his opponents can say is "Well I just think he chucks."???

Not good enough.

If someone has an objection to the way he bowls, they'll have to come up with better reasons than that. I don't believe they will. Why? Because the evidence presented in their physiological examination of Murali's bowling is damn near irrefutable. I'm no physio (a chemist by trade) but I am a scientist and there is a time when scientific evidence has to be accepted and that refusal to do so constitutes a personal bias rather than any on solid logical grounds.

People who deny the evidence presented by Pike and co at UWA are insulting their expertise and doing the argumentative equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and shouting "LALALALALALALALA!". I've not heard ONE solid reason in rebuttal to the presented evidence in the media or any forum for that matter. When I do, I'll listen but as long as I keep hearing that people still "believes he chucks", I'll continue to label them idiots.

And before anyone goes on about "no wrong opinions", I ask you this; if I held the opinion that the sky is actually red with purple elephants as stars, would I REALLY be able to defend myself with "Well, it's just my opinion and there are no wrong opinions."?

Thanks, Corey - your authoritative manner was badly needed here.
As for the whole opinions thing, we've discussed that one before - for all we know, the sky could be not blue but gkdgjfdhejht. But no, it's blue for us, because everyone says it's blue. Well, everyone who speaks English anyway. Similarly, those who speak French say it's... er...

Too long since GCSE year.:duh:

 

[Neil Pickup]

It's bleu.

 

[Craig]

Surely you must have thought Ruchira Perera's action was as blatantly and consistently illegal as you'll see at Lord's in 2002?
Or did you not watch that game?
But I am very glad you are not one who sees something that one angle makes look like a kink and immidiately thinks "chucker".
Personally, I tend to think "I'd like to get some more angles on that, and some replays, and some slo-mos".
Then I can start to come to a conclusion. Some people seem not to realise this.

I wasnt able to watch much of that game, so I am in not much of a position to comment.

 

[Richard]

It's bleu.

I knew it was something simple.:!(

 

[Richard]

I wasnt able to watch much of that game, so I am in not much of a position to comment.

And full credit to you for not simply saying "everyone said he chucked, so he must have done".
Plenty clearly did that.