• 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's reputation in tatters? Check this out.

Adamc

Adamc

Cricketer Of The Year
anzac said:
so far as the presence of Yardley or Broad goes - there is enough video evidence for each not to be required to be present during the tests....
Yardley would be the person who's input would be least required for any authenticity as Murali has been playing Test cricket for years...
a review of the video footage can establish the physical characteristics of his match deliveries such as run up & bowling speed
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what I was getting at. Of course someone has to give the final verdict based on video footage as to whether the action is consistent or not though. EDIT: either that, or quantitative measures are introduced for various other aspects, i.e. speed of arm rotation, runup, delivery speed etc. This would probably result in these measures being argued - just like what is happening now with the degree of straightening for fast/slow bowlers.

anzac said:
I don't know the rules but IMO if the testing is declared invalid for such a reason then his action has not been cleared and as such the delivery remains suspect & should not be used until proven otherwise.....
Click to expand...
If the testing is declared invalid, then so too would the results. In this case the results are that he has exceeded the limit - so should that result be declared invalid? Argh, i'm confused :wacko:

anzac said:
surely by this time the ICC must have a set of rules & regs for such testing & it should be made as clear & impartial as possible.........

8-)
Click to expand...
Don't count on it. This is the ICC.
 
Last edited:
A

anzac

International Debutant
Adamc said:
Yes, that is what I was getting at. Of course someone has to give the final verdict based on video footage as to whether the action is consistent or not though. EDIT: either that, or quantitative measures are introduced for various other aspects, i.e. speed of arm rotation, runup, delivery speed etc. This would probably result in these measures being argued - just like what is happening now with the degree of straightening for fast/slow bowlers.


If the testing is declared invalid, then so too would the results. In this case the results are that he has exceeded the limit - so should that result be declared invalid? Argh, i'm confused :wacko:


Don't count on it. This is the ICC.
Click to expand...

1 - different kettle of fish - the action subject to the testing needs to be consistant with the action called - other variations between bowlers is irrelevant - no need to make it any more complicated than it needs to be...........

2 - if the testing was declared invalid there would be no 'result' - as such the delivery still remains subject to scrutiny re it's validity - I don't know if this then makes the delivery 'illegal' until such time as the testing is conducted, or perhaps such an ammendment is required to ensure that the bowler does maintain his 'normal' delivery characteristics during testing, such as run up & bowling speed etc..........if he does not then it can be held that he is attempting to 'cheat' the tests, just as a masking agent is held to be an attempt to 'cheat' in drug tests........

3 - hence the 8-)

:D
 
Adamc

Adamc

Cricketer Of The Year
anzac said:
1 - different kettle of fish - the action subject to the testing needs to be consistant with the action called - other variations between bowlers is irrelevant - no need to make it any more complicated than it needs to be...........
Click to expand...
The problem, though, is how consistent the action has to be for it to be deemed 'consistent'. If you remove all quantitative measures, then it is essentially a subjective decision, not independent of bias. If you do use quantitative measures, then you will have people constantly questioning where the limits should be set at. It's a lose-lose situation really.

anzac said:
3 - hence the 8-)

:D
Click to expand...
Yep, got it :thumbsup:
 
D

DJ

School Boy/Girl Captain
marc71178 said:
Erm, where have I said that?
Click to expand...
You've said that Broad's presence would turn the test into a 'kangaroo court' and a 'witch hunt,' both terms to describe events with pre-determined outcomes. You've also said that my arguing for Broad's presence is because I'm more interested in getting Murali banned than finding the truth.
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
DJ Bumfluff said:
If you go back and read through my posts, you'll find this out for yourself.
Click to expand...
The only way you can know it is if you were there when his action was questioned and there at the testing.

And you've said you weren't, so you are only supposing because you are an extreme anti-Murali
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
DJ Bumfluff said:
Bob Simpson: "Identifying chuckers isn't as complicated as the ICC make it out to be."
Click to expand...
In reality that means:

Suspecting chuckers then shouting your mouth off about it then backing a sustained media attack on the player who is then found to actually be a legal bowler.

How many times does it have to be said that optical illusions mean that NOBODY can tell a chucker with the naked eye?
 
D

DJ

School Boy/Girl Captain
marc71178 said:
The only way you can know it is if you were there when his action was questioned and there at the testing.

And you've said you weren't, so you are only supposing because you are an extreme anti-Murali
Click to expand...
Well read mate, yes, that's what I said. I'm anti-Murali. I'm also a racist war-monger who eats black babies for breakfast.

Go back and read my posts. Then you'll know. Unless, of course, you aren't at all interested in debating the issue and you just want to go along with your "he's anti-Murali, the bastard" accusations. So much easier than actually having to engage in reasoned debate, don't you think?
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
You have absolutely NO proof of this, but you insist you know that the tests were dodgy.

You have consistently shown an extreme desire to get Murali banned even though the scientists have shown that all his stock balls are legal.
 
D

DJ

School Boy/Girl Captain
You haven't read a word I've said. Not that I'm surprised though. People like you always seem to find that debate and discussion get in the way of them being able to hurl accusations of bias and prejudice around. Much more fun that, isn't it?

Since you got involved in this issue you've had no interest in debating the points presented. Why are you here at all?
 
D

DJ

School Boy/Girl Captain
Is it such a surprise to find someone who disagrees with the ICC? ;) Anyway, why should we ignore his view just because he disagrees with others?
 
D

DT8

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Well for starters Steve Bucknor is one of the greatest umpires in the world.
 
D

DJ

School Boy/Girl Captain
And Bob Simpson is one the greatest ever servants to world cricket, having been involved in the game longer than Waugh and Bucknor combined. Besides, I don't think that you'll find many Indians who share your view of Bucknor. :)

They are all views to be considered. After all, no-one said that Brett Lee's opinion wasn't worth looking at when he said he though Murali should be allowed to 'get on with it,' and he's been known to chuck himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top