Murali's action not clean: Gilchrist

[Richard]

Someone bolt this thread closed.

Aye, it's just impossible to reach anything resembling a resolution IMO.

 

[Dasa]

Key point; what they 'believe' to be a throw and what actually was turned out to be different things when the slow-mo cams were turned on.



Maybe. But what about the not-so-blatant ones? What constituted a throw needed quantification because opinion and judgement varies so much between umpires so as to render the policing of the law essentially guesswork. Coincidence that the rise of tech associated with this came about with rumblings about changing of the law? Nope.

People get it wrong. The tech showed that.

Exactly.

 

[Precambrian]

OK mate.

Their actions are as bad as Murali's?

You're in la la land.

Oh yeah, how can you determine whether Murali's action is bad?

 

[Precambrian]

Yeah better this thread closed. Unnecessary argument, while the legend continues piling on wickets.

 

[silentstriker]

OK, this isn't where I hoped the thread would go. But we've had this discussion before, and I'm going to close it. I should obviously know better. Sorry.