Murali's reputation in tatters? Check this out.

[DJ]

Yeah, but how much evidence can he give? "From where I stand, it looked like he was chucking the ball to me".

He's reported (correctly) the action, and it's been referred to a testing procedure. That's probably about as much input into the process as would/should be required from Broad.

He can give evidence like, "Yes, that's the action that I reported, you can test that one," or, "What sort of an action is that? That's not the way he bowls in Tests."

You see?

 

[DT8]

He can give evidence like, "Yes, that's the action that I reported, you can test that one," or, "What sort of an action is that? That's not the way he bowls in Tests."

The problem begins if he says "thats not the real action". Then what? If his word is taken like the Bible then he isn't equivalent to a witness in a court case but the judge himself!

 

[Slow Love™]

He can give evidence like, "Yes, that's the action that I reported, you can test that one," or, "What sort of an action is that? That's not the way he bowls in Tests."

You see?

If you object to Yardley on the grounds you give, surely you can see the problems with allowing Broad.

Somebody else could do it.

 

[DJ]

How? He tells them if the action Murali's using in the tests is the same as the one that prompted him to report him, and then they test it. He doesn't know the results of the testing before he approves the action. If it then transpires that the action he approved for testing wasn't a throw, then there you are (and vice versa of course). He's offering eye-witness testimony. How does that make him the judge?

 

[DJ]

If you object to Yardley on the grounds you give, surely you can see the problems with allowing Broad.

Somebody else could do it.

Why? You're assuming that Broad hates Murali instead of just reporting an action that he thinks is dodgy. Broad has no personal ties to Murali at all. Why shouldn't he be allowed to give evidence? He knows what action he reported, not Yardley or anyone else.

Bruce Yardley, on the other hand, was Murali's ex-coach and has been a staunch Murali supporter ever since he was first called. Apart from this, he was accused of being a chucker himself during his playing days. Quite clearly he should have had no part to play in the tests.

 

[JASON]

MURALI's Reputation in tatters

When none of the umpires who were only few yards away didn't find any thing to report, Broad sitting in the Match referees box 300 - 400 yards away and 40 - 50 feet above ground level felt that he could report the Doosra as being suspicious from his position!! Broad was on his first appointment as referee having been made a late replacement for Mike Proctor who was replaced at short notice (and for no apparent reason). Broad had previously been critical of Murali as a commentator over several years as a commentator. Hence the Lankan claim that it was a putup job by the ICC (or someone in its ranks).

Since Bumfluff has been the most frequent contributor to this Web particularly on the subject of Murali (obviously he has taken it to his heart or it has gone to his head!! ), why dont you guys at the Cricket Web consider giving him a promotion to the esteemed totle of " Cricket Web Staff Member".

If you don't I have a job for him. Since he has been the most skeptical of the testing at University of WA, I have the following position for him where he will be personally ( I mean personally ) testing Murali to see if he is chucking , f***king or faking it. He will be supervised by a pie eater called Ran-a- tunger and a rabbit (once called Hare) and a tortoise (called Emerson).
His Title will be - Professor Bumf***k,
Professor of Chucking, f***king, faking,
University of Fake Town.

MOD EDIT - Wow, I'm well impressed with that post. Not only can you not count the number of asterisks you need properly, you also use the space bar at seemingly random intervals, and make it your duty to insult as many people as possible, both staff and non-staff.

Congratulations - Watch your step very, very closely in future, your member status will depend on it...

 

[DJ]

When none of the umpires who were only few yards away didn't find any thing to report, Broad sitting in the Match referees box 300 - 400 yards away and 40 - 50 feet above ground level felt that he could report the Doosra as being suspicious from his position!!

He was right, wasn't he? Or is that beside the point?

Is anyone else wondering what the missing letters in "Bumf***k" are? Fluck? Frick? It's a mystery.....

 

[DT8]

Is anyone else wondering what the missing letters in "Bumf***k" are? Fluck? Frick? It's a mystery.....

haha

nice one

 

[marc71178]

How? He tells them if the action Murali's using in the tests is the same as the one that prompted him to report him, and then they test it. He doesn't know the results of the testing before he approves the action. If it then transpires that the action he approved for testing wasn't a throw, then there you are (and vice versa of course). He's offering eye-witness testimony. How does that make him the judge?

Yet you object to Yardley for exactly the same reasons...

Of course the only difference is that Broad is anti-Murali, so of course you want him involved as you still struggle to get over the fact that under current legislation, most of Murali's armoury is legal.

 

[DJ]

I've got it. It's "Bumflask."

Apparently it's for keeping your bum warm during picnics and fishing trips.

 

[marc71178]

When none of the umpires who were only few yards away didn't find any thing to report, Broad sitting in the Match referees box 300 - 400 yards away and 40 - 50 feet above ground level felt that he could report the Doosra as being suspicious from his position!!

One could argue that Broad is in a better place to observe the action than the umpires (seeing as they have a game to be in control of, and can't just concentrate on that one thing)

Broad was on his first appointment as referee having been made a late replacement for Mike Proctor who was replaced at short notice (and for no apparent reason).

Wasn't Proctor out in the West Indies?

 

[luckyeddie]

why dont you guys at the Cricket Web consider giving him a promotion to the esteemed totle of " Cricket Web Staff Member"

Well, you included enough exaggerations, insults and vaguely-disguised obscenities to leave few beople with any doubts as to your own credentials. Now if we can just have the last 2% of your own credibility removed, there's a bright career for yourself in journalism.

 

[DJ]

Yet you object to Yardley for exactly the same reasons...

Of course the only difference is that Broad is anti-Murali, so of course you want him involved as you still struggle to get over the fact that under current legislation, most of Murali's armoury is legal.

I'm not the one who suggested Broad be there. That was Eddie. In fact, I wasn't even talking about these latest tests in most of my posts, rather the first tests. I was just showing how Broad (or, "the accuser") could be useful in the testing. Having said that, don't you think that it makes sense for the accuser to be present at the tests? At the very least it ensures that the action being tested is the action that was reported. How would Yardley be able to comment on that? Anyway, seeing as there is already one Murali supporter at the tests, surely having Yardley there too is a bit much?

And I still want to know why Hair and Emerson weren't involved in the initial tests.

 

[marc71178]

Having said that, don't you think that it makes sense for the accuser to be present at the tests?

Right, so you want an accuser there, but nobody is allowed to defend the accused.

This is beginning to sound like a kangaroo court (appropriate considering it's taking place in Australia, but extremely unfair)

Anyway, seeing as there is already one Murali supporter at the tests, surely having Yardley there too is a bit much?

"Already one" - who is this one that you speak of?

 

[Craig]

Since Bumfluff has been the most frequent contributor to this Web particularly on the subject of Murali (obviously he has taken it to his heart or it has gone to his head!! ), why dont you guys at the Cricket Web consider giving him a promotion to the esteemed totle of " Cricket Web Staff Member".

If he wants to become a Staff Member, he will have to go via the same way as I had to, Eddie did and everybody else, by applying for it.

If you don't I have a job for him. Since he has been the most skeptical of the testing at University of WA, I have the following position for him where he will be personally ( I mean personally ) testing Murali to see if he is chucking , f***king or faking it. He will be supervised by a pie eater called Ran-a- tunger and a rabbit (once called Hare) and a tortoise (called Emerson).
His Title will be - Professor Bumf***k,
Professor of Chucking, f***king, faking,
University of Fake Town.

That is not on.

 

[DJ]

"Already one" - who is this one that you speak of?

Murali. He's still there.


Can you be specific as to what your objections are to having the accuser there, given that he is not the one who performs the tests, does the analysis or gives the final verdict?

 

[DJ]

Anyway, I put it to you again - does it not make sense to have the accuser there?

 

[JASON]

MURALI's Reputation in tatters

Apologies to BumFluff and Marc,Adam, LuckyEddie and all Cricket Web Staff. My piece was intended to be humourous, but I guess I crossed the boundary and sounded obscene. My humble Apologies to all concerned. Will not happen again.

 

[marc71178]

Murali. He's still there.

And can I ask how exactly the testing would go ahead without him there?

Can you be specific as to what your objections are to having the accuser there, given that he is not the one who performs the tests, does the analysis or gives the final verdict?

In which case what is your objection to having a supporter of the accused there or do you want to try and convict without an attempt of defence?

 

[DJ]

And can I ask how exactly the testing would go ahead without him there?

It wouldn't. I never said he shouldn't be there. You asked me which Murali supporter would be present, and I said Murali. I doubt you'd find a bigger Murali advocate than the man himself.

In which case what is your objection to having a supporter of the accused there or do you want to try and convict without an attempt of defence?

This is not a court case. This is a black and white scientific study. There is no defence to be made, nor is there a prosecution. Either he chucks or he doesn't (or so the theory goes), but someone has to make sure that the tests that are carried out are as close to reality as possible. Bruce Yardley is not that man.

Are you going to answer any of the questions I ask of you, or are you just going to sidestep all of them by asking more questions of your own?