Johan Botha's action

[Son Of Coco]

If Botha deserves to be called, Tait deserves it also.

I wasn't saying he deserves to be called...just that he can't be. Nor can anyone else.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Same applies to those who calls for Botha's blood.

Yes...given Botha's already been under scrutiny and found wanting.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So what should the rule state? Bearing in mind that every international bowler bar Ramnaresh Sarwan bent their arm more than the original rules said.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Botha's action looks ****ing terrible. I've said that on numerous occasions.

However, he doesn't straighten his arm in his delivery AFAIC.

There's nothing in the rules to prevent anyone from bowling with a bent arm.

I doubt that's actually true, unless he has a similar defect to Murali where he's physically unable to straighten his arm to 180 degrees. I'm no physiologist, but (as tests have shown) the very action of bowling causes even those arms that are locked straight to flex slightly (hence the tolerence limit), so an arm that isn't fully straightened is going to have more movement around the elbow.

Try bowling with a bent arm and not straightening it. It's more or less impossible to do and keep any velocity.

The rules weren't moulded to suit Murali. Murali had one of his deliveries banned and when they found out everyone chucked the rules were moulded to suit everyone else.

Sorry, but whatever one's personal feelings about Murali, I don't think there's too much doubt he's been the catalyst for the recent changes in the chucking law. Whether this has been good or bad for the sport is a matter of opinion, but without him I don't think there'd have been the political will for the changes to happen.

 

[zaremba]

It is almost trolling as Murali's action has been tried, tested, re-reported, tried, re-tested, whinged, records, more-whinge.

You are very, very oversensitive. The thing is, I think that the majority of cricket-watchers (and Test players) share my view that Murali chucks the ball (by any sensible definition of the term). But this isn't intended as a slight on the man. It's just how he bowls. He's allowed to get away with it, and I'm not directing any whinge at him. I love the guy, I love watching him bowl, and I am delighted that such a fine human being should be the all-time world record holder for Test wickets.

As for whether it's trolling even to refer to him in the context of a discussion about chucking, well that's a completely ridiculous thing to say. Murali is high profile for the two reasons given above: (a) he's the world record holder and (b) he's got a blatantly dodgy action. It's a bit like if Bradman had scored his runs with an aluminium bat which the lawmakers had deemed legal. Yes he's done nothing wrong under the law as then defined; yes he's a great player; and yes people are going to bloody well talk about it.

 

[Precambrian]

You are very, very oversensitive. The thing is, I think that the majority of cricket-watchers (and Test players) share my view that Murali chucks the ball (by any sensible definition of the term). But this isn't intended as a slight on the man. It's just how he bowls. He's allowed to get away with it, and I'm not directing any whinge at him. I love the guy, I love watching him bowl, and I am delighted that such a fine human being should be the all-time world record holder for Test wickets.

As for whether it's trolling even to refer to him in the context of a discussion about chucking, well that's a completely ridiculous thing to say. Murali is high profile for the two reasons given above: (a) he's the world record holder and (b) he's got a blatantly dodgy action. It's a bit like if Bradman had scored his runs with an aluminium bat which the lawmakers had deemed legal. Yes he's done nothing wrong under the law as then defined; yes he's a great player; and yes people are going to bloody well talk about it.

From Wikipedia

Bowling with an arm brace

In July 2004 Muralitharan was filmed in England, bowling with an arm brace on. The film was shown on Britain's Channel 4 during the Test against England on 22 July 2004. The documentary is not available for purchase and has not been aired in Australia.

Initially, Muralitharan bowled three balls - the off-spinner, the top-spinner and the doosra - as he would in a match. Then he bowled the same three balls with a brace that is made from steel bars, which are set into strong resin. This brace has been moulded to his right arm, is approximately 46 centimetres long and weighs just under 1 kilogram.

TV presenter Mark Nicholas who tried the brace himself, confirmed that "There is no way an arm can be bent, or flexed, when it is in this brace." All three balls reacted in the same way as when bowled without the brace. They were not bowled quite so fast because the weight of the brace restricts the speed of Muralitharan's shoulder rotation, but the spin was still there.

With the brace on, there still appeared to be a jerk in his action. When studying the film at varying speeds, it still appeared as if he straightened his arm, even though the brace makes it impossible to do so. His unique shoulder rotation and amazing wrist action seem to create the illusion that he straightens his arm.

The off-spinner said the exercise was to convince a sceptical public rather than sway an ICC investigation into bowling actions launched after he was reported by match referee Chris Broad for his doosra delivery in March 2004, the third time action has been taken on his bowling. In an interview for August 2004 edition of Wisden Asia Cricket, Muralitharan stated "I think it will prove a point to those who had said that it was physically impossible to bowl a ball that turned the other way. I proved that it was possible to bowl the doosra without bending the arm."

For the still sceptic, here are the videos

YouTube - Proof that Muttiah Muralitharan does not chuck

YouTube - Understanding Muttiah 'Murali' Muralitharan

YouTube - Ian Chappell on Muralitharan

Mr.Z, I respect your opinion, but do not agree to that many test cricketers feel that way. In fact, I'd say majority of such cricketers are limited to UK and Australia. And none of them have the slightest clue to substantiate other than "I think he is chucking because I think he is".

 

[zaremba]

TV presenter Mark Nicholas who tried the brace himself, confirmed that "There is no way an arm can be bent, or flexed, when it is in this brace." All three balls reacted in the same way as when bowled without the brace. They were not bowled quite so fast because the weight of the brace restricts the speed of Muralitharan's shoulder rotation, but the spin was still there.

With the brace on, there still appeared to be a jerk in his action. When studying the film at varying speeds, it still appeared as if he straightened his arm, even though the brace makes it impossible to do so. His unique shoulder rotation and amazing wrist action seem to create the illusion that he straightens his arm.

But the thing is, it's been established that he does straighten his arm in delivery when bowling in competitive cricket. It's just that the straightening is within the 15% limit allowed by the law. As Uppercut has pointed out, the only "bowler" in modern cricket who doesn't straighten his arm is Ramnaresh Sarwan.

From this I'm forced to conclude that in this particular TV trial, even under the rigorous scrutiny of Mark Nicholas, Murali wasn't bowling as he would in a Test match.

I'd also point out, slightly mischievously, that there's some interesting footage of Murali bowling legspin on YouTube (I don't have the link but you can find it easily). And when he's bowling legspin, his arm looks completely straight.

 

[JBH001]

You are very, very oversensitive. The thing is, I think that the majority of cricket-watchers (and Test players) share my view that Murali chucks the ball (by any sensible definition of the term). But this isn't intended as a slight on the man. It's just how he bowls. He's allowed to get away with it, and I'm not directing any whinge at him. I love the guy, I love watching him bowl, and I am delighted that such a fine human being should be the all-time world record holder for Test wickets.

As for whether it's trolling even to refer to him in the context of a discussion about chucking, well that's a completely ridiculous thing to say. Murali is high profile for the two reasons given above: (a) he's the world record holder and (b) he's got a blatantly dodgy action. It's a bit like if Bradman had scored his runs with an aluminium bat which the lawmakers had deemed legal. Yes he's done nothing wrong under the law as then defined; yes he's a great player; and yes people are going to bloody well talk about it.

A fair post, but chock full of flawed assumptions.

The most obvious of these are:

1. The thing is, I think that the majority of cricket-watchers.
2. (and Test players) share my view that Murali chucks the ball.
3. by any sensible definition of the term.

I take it you conducted a survey? And polled the majority of cricket watchers and test players? I have no objection to your belief that Murali chucks the ball by your 'sensible' definition. That is perfectly fair enough. But dont load your post with assumptions and statements to make it seem more than it is.

I just wanted to point that out as this issue has been done to death and more, and I cant be arsed going into all that again.

 

[Precambrian]

But the thing is, it's been established that he does straighten his arm in delivery when bowling in competitive cricket. It's just that the straightening is within the 15% limit allowed by the law. As Uppercut has pointed out, the only "bowler" in modern cricket who doesn't straighten his arm is Ramnaresh Sarwan.

From this I'm forced to conclude that in this particular TV trial, even under the rigorous scrutiny of Mark Nicholas, Murali wasn't bowling as he would in a Test match.

I'd also point out, slightly mischievously, that there's some interesting footage of Murali bowling legspin on YouTube (I don't have the link but you can find it easily). And when he's bowling legspin, his arm looks completely straight.

Yep. That's one thing I am also puzzled about. Because, it is virtually impossible to deliver the doosra without slight straightening of the arms, and how he managed that in the brace then? Maybe the "straightening" is far too negligible to be considered.

 

[zaremba]

A fair post, but chock full of flawed assumptions.

The most obvious of these are:

1. The thing is, I think that the majority of cricket-watchers.
2. (and Test players) share my view that Murali chucks the ball.
3. by any sensible definition of the term.

I take it you conducted a survey? And polled the majority of cricket watchers and test players? I have no objection to your belief that Murali chucks the ball by your 'sensible' definition. That is perfectly fair enough. But dont load your post with assumptions and statements to make it seem more than it is.

I just wanted to point that out as this issue has been done to death and more, and I cant be arsed going into all that again.

No I haven't done a survey and yes, my post was therefore full of assumptions (flawed or otherwise) as you rightly point out.

 

[JBH001]

Precambrian ^^

You also have to factor in, iirc, that Murali was bowling slightly slower and with less spin on the ball that in normal test match conditions. The weight of the brace inhibited his ability to bowl as he normally would. I also dont know if the brace was so tight that it held his arm so rigid he could not bend it even a little.

In any case, this is the most relevant part of the report you posted.

With the brace on, there still appeared to be a jerk in his action. When studying the film at varying speeds, it still appeared as if he straightened his arm, even though the brace makes it impossible to do so. His unique shoulder rotation and amazing wrist action seem to create the illusion that he straightens his arm.

 

[zaremba]

Yep. That's one thing I am also puzzled about. Because, it is virtually impossible to deliver the doosra without slight straightening of the arms, and how he managed that in the brace then? Maybe the "straightening" is far too negligible to be considered.

I've just watched the first of the youtube videos which you've posted. Thanks for posting it - very interesting.

However to me it confirms my view that he's not bowling as he would in a match. Even allowing for the fact that (a) his run-up looks different and (b) he can't achieve the same pace due to the weight of the brace, his action bears little resemblance to that which he uses in match conditions. Yes he gets spin but we've no way of knowing how it would compare with the spin he'd get in similar conditions without the brace, and bowling at his normal speed.

In other words, what the video seems to show is not that Murali doesn't chuck when he bowls, but merely that he is capable of bowling without chucking (which I have to say we knew anyway from the footage of him bowling legspin).

Apologies all round for being part of the boring diversion into Murali-is-a-chucker territory which I appreciate is a horse that has well and truly been flogged.

 

[BoyBrumby]

But the thing is, it's been established that he does straighten his arm in delivery when bowling in competitive cricket. It's just that the straightening is within the 15% limit allowed by the law. As Uppercut has pointed out, the only "bowler" in modern cricket who doesn't straighten his arm is Ramnaresh Sarwan.

From this I'm forced to conclude that in this particular TV trial, even under the rigorous scrutiny of Mark Nicholas, Murali wasn't bowling as he would in a Test match.

I'd also point out, slightly mischievously, that there's some interesting footage of Murali bowling legspin on YouTube (I don't have the link but you can find it easily). And when he's bowling legspin, his arm looks completely straight.

Link for the lazy.

His right arm does indeed appear straight as the proverbial die to the naked eye.

Now given he can bowl with an action that looks a paragon of rectitude (and turn it miles in so doing), the more cyncially minded might wonder why he doesn't always bowl like that. Could it possibly be he extracts some advantage from his usual, ah, unorthodox action?

 

[JBH001]

In other words, what the video seems to show is not that Murali doesn't chuck when he bowls, but merely that he is capable of bowling without chucking (which I have to say we knew anyway from the footage of him bowling legspin).

I'd also point out, slightly mischievously, that there's some interesting footage of Murali bowling legspin on YouTube (I don't have the link but you can find it easily). And when he's bowling legspin, his arm looks completely straight.

Emerson called him for bowling leg spinners in the 1998/99 VB series. After having first called him for bowling his orthodox off-spinners.

Apologies all round for being part of the boring diversion into Murali-is-a-chucker territory which I appreciate is a horse that has well and truly been flogged.

No need for that. It tends to happen on CW. Also, I can understand the dislike people have for the fact that Murali, seemingly singlehandedly, has overturned a long standing and stable law of the game. Sometimes, I feel that way myself, but then I also think about some possibly other wonderful bowlers who may never have got to bowl because their actions just seemed questionable. I think Cowdrey, in his autobiography, mentioned a bowler Robin Hobb (iirc) who was double-jointed at the elbow and looked like he was chucking when he, Cowdrey, was convinced he was not. As a result his career was curtailed.There are, probably, scores more examples.

Whether the final outcome of the law changes is for the good of the game or not, I suppose only time will tell.

 

[Precambrian]

Link for the lazy.

His right arm does indeed appear straight as the proverbial die to the naked eye.

Now given he can bowl with an action that looks a paragon of rectitude (and turn it miles in so doing), the more cyncially minded might wonder why he doesn't always bowl like that. Could it possibly be he extracts some advantage from his usual, ah, unorthodox action?

What it could be if not more spin?

 

[Precambrian]

Emerson called him for bowling leg spinners in the 1998/99 VB series.



No need for that. It tends to happen on CW. Also, I can understand the dislike people have for the fact that Murali, seemingly singlehandedly, has overturned a long standing and stable law of the game. Sometimes, I feel that way myself but then I also think about some possibly other wonderful bowlers who may never have got to bowl because their actions just seemed questionable. I think Cowdrey, in his autobiography, mentioned a bowler Robin Hobb (iirc) who was double-jointed at the elbow and looked like he was chucking when he, Cowdrey, was convinced he was not. As a result his career was curtailed.

Whether the final outcome of the law changes is for the good of the game or not, I suppose only time will tell.

Emerson was a terrible umpire, no two ways about it.

 

[JBH001]

Link for the lazy.

His right arm does indeed appear straight as the proverbial die to the naked eye.

Now given he can bowl with an action that looks a paragon of rectitude (and turn it miles in so doing), the more cyncially minded might wonder why he doesn't always bowl like that. Could it possibly be he extracts some advantage from his usual, ah, unorthodox action?

It also hard to tell from behind the arm, not the ideal position. Although it still does look bent at the elbow with minimal straightening at delivery.

 

[JBH001]

Emerson was a terrible umpire, no two ways about it.

Not saying he wasnt. After all, he did call Murali for throwing leg spinners.

Point is that Murali bowling leg spinners with an apparently cleaner action is indicative of little except that he bowls leg spinners with an apparently cleaner action.

 

[fredfertang]

I don't understand what the fuss is about - he should just wear a Lancashire shirt all the time - he looks "ramrod straight" in one of those

 

[Uppercut]

Sorry, but whatever one's personal feelings about Murali, I don't think there's too much doubt he's been the catalyst for the recent changes in the chucking law. Whether this has been good or bad for the sport is a matter of opinion, but without him I don't think there'd have been the political will for the changes to happen.

Correct me if i get anything wrong here, but this has always been my interpretation of events.

1. Hair calls Murali for throwing. Murali gets biomechanical tests done and clears his name. He had no doosra at the time.

2. Emerson calls Murali for throwing, he gets tested again and cleared again.

3. Some time later, someone (i forget who) calls his doosra into question and when this delivery is tested, it's found to break the laws of the game. Murali is instructed not to bowl the doosra again as it broke the current rules (no straightening of the arm by more than 5 degrees).

4. Tests are carried out on 50-odd other anonymous international bowlers and it's found that they all break the rules, except Ramnaresh Sarwan. To avoid having to test and ban the vast majority of international bowlers, the ICC decided that 5 degrees (and 10 for quicks) is an unreasonable limit and increase the limit to 15 degrees. Hence, Murali can bowl the doosra again.

The reason i don't think there's any foul play involved is that cricket authorities are notoriously conservative, especially with regards to the chucking question. A lot of them, i'd say, don't like his action, and only ended up letting him bowl because the subsequent research left them with little other option (other than to ban everyone). The other theory, that he "fakes" testing, i don't agree with. If he can bowl perfectly legally in a brace, why would he chuck without one?