Muralitharan a burglar,a thief and a dacoit : Bedi

[open365]

it is your ignorance to not to find that he is illegal bowler

No, it's not, he is allowed to bowl by the ICC, hence he is a legal bowler, you can't argue with that, because you're an idiot.

 

[silentstriker]

Judging by how easily optical illusions work on people i'll take the science thanks.

It is easy saying you'll judge yourself, but the only reason people do so is so they can continue with their pre conceived beliefs that he is a chucker and ignore any evidence contrary.

Sort of OT, but a good site to see how easy it is for your eyes to decieve you.

 

[open365]

Sort of OT, but a good site to see how easy it is for your eyes to decieve you.

Haha, our biology teacher spent the last 2 hours of school making us look at that site

 

[archie mac]

Judging by how easily optical illusions work on people i'll take the science thanks.

It is easy saying you'll judge yourself, but the only reason people do so is so they can continue with their pre conceived beliefs that he is a chucker and ignore any evidence contrary.

That suggests I had decided before watching him 'bowl' I watched him and then decided.

Tests were not done on the field

Optica illusions are one thing chucking is another

 

[BoyBrumby]

Was Ian Meckiff tested and cleared by biomechanic experts and still banned?

Just because the technology wasn't available and one person might have been hard done by, that doesn't mean we should do the same thing again. That makes no sense.

I think the issue is that the goalposts have been moved to accommodate Murali, whereas they were not for anyone else. Obviously, as it transpires, practically every bowler was transgressing the old law, but there's no doubt in my mind that the changes to the laws have been driven through because of him. If not for Murali there would have been no extensive (and expensive) recourse to bio-mechanical experts to discover that other bowlers "threw" too. &, to my mind at least, it's nonsense to say bowlers like Pollock & McGrath, who have/had very classical, fluid actions were chuckers; they were clearly acting with fidelity to the old law & to the naked eye (flawed, yes, but still apparently good enough for LBWs & front foot no-balls) no straightening was discernable.

Murali’s legacy has also bequeathed us a climate where umpires effectively cannot police the law on chucking because the technology doesn't yet exist that can tell them which bowlers are transgressing the permitted tolerance limits contemporaneously. We're lumbered with nonsense of a law that can only be applied retrospectively.

Pandora's box is open for good & there's obviously no going back, but whether the changes are for the better is a subjective call at best.

 

[silentstriker]

I think the issue is that the goalposts have been moved to accommodate Murali, whereas they were not for anyone else. Obviously, as it transpires, practically every bowler was transgressing the old law, but there's no doubt in my mind that the changes to the laws have been driven through because of him. If not for Murali there would have been no extensive (and expensive) recourse to bio-mechanical experts to discover that other bowlers "threw" too.

But it is said with a negative connotation that Murali was the one to usher in the changes, and I don't understand why that is so. Anytime there is a change, there is usually someone that causes the balance to shift. Completely unrelated, but if it wasn't for Rosa Parks, there would have been no extensive changes to the laws in the american south, at least not for a while. If it wasn't for the WI bowlers, there wouldn't have been a minimum 90 over rule, etc. That's how it works.

Just because the game was in the dark ages technology wise and needed someone to shed some scientific light on it, doesn't mean its bad.

&, to my mind at least, it's nonsense to say bowlers like Pollock & McGrath, who have/had very classical, fluid actions were chuckers;

Why? It just showed that the naked eye is susceptible to optical illusions and that the old law was crap. It wasn't an accusation on Pollock and McGrath. Just because it wasn't discernible to the naked eye, doesn't mean it didn't happen. And that's the whole point of bringing science into it.

flawed, yes, but still apparently good enough for LBWs & front foot no-balls)

And a lot of us support using technology for both LBW and front foot no-balls too...

 

[silentstriker]

TOptica illusions are one thing chucking is another

Why? Do you somehow have mechanical devices implanted in your eyes that analyzes the feed going to your brain and picks out the optical illusions and removes them before it is sent for processing?

Because really, that's the only way you can claim to 'know' someone is chucking if scientific evidence has already proven you wrong. That's like saying the Sun and the Moon are the same size because they appear the same size from earth as far as you can tell from your eyes, even though that statement has clearly been proven wrong. It makes no logical sense.

 

[archie mac]

Why? Do you somehow have mechanical devices implanted in your eyes that analyzes the feed going to your brain and picks out the optical illusions and removes them before it is sent for processing?

Because really, that's the only way you can claim to 'know' someone is chucking if scientific evidence has already proven you wrong. That's like saying the Sun and the Moon are the same size because they appear the same size from earth as far as you can tell from your eyes, even though that statement has clearly been proven wrong. It makes no logical sense.

You mean they are not the same size

It must be just my eyes that when he was tested even with him doing his best to keep his arm straight, his was still much worse than the rest, and lets not mention the D ball. It would seem that my eye was right, so I could not pick up McGrath maybe because he was not as bad. Not an illusion a fact. Poor old IM must just be shaking his head

 

[BoyBrumby]

But it is said with a negative connotation that Murali was the one to usher in the changes, and I don't understand why that is so. Anytime there is a change, there is usually someone that causes the balance to shift. Completely unrelated, but if it wasn't for Rosa Parks, there would have been no extensive changes to the laws in the american south, at least not for a while. If it wasn't for the WI bowlers, there wouldn't have been a minimum 90 over rule, etc. That's how it works.

Just because the game was in the dark ages technology wise and needed someone to shed some scientific light on it, doesn't mean its bad.

Why? It just showed that the naked eye is susceptible to optical illusions and that the old law was crap. It wasn't an accusation on Pollock and McGrath. Just because it wasn't discernible to the naked eye, doesn't mean it didn't happen. And that's the whole point of bringing science into it.

And a lot of us support using technology for both LBW and front foot no-balls too...

Obviously some change is necessary & desirable, but it doesn’t follow that all change is tho. The germane issue here is do you think the current law on throwing (which I'd suggest is a direct result of Murali) practical & equitable? If you do, fine. However I'd personally suggest that science has kicked the door off its hinges & done a fairly shabby job of replacing it. The obvious example is Shabbir Ahmed's efforts in the 1st test v England in 2005/6. Now, on inspection, it was seen that Shabbir was indeed throwing & he was duly banned for 12 months. The (IIRC) 5 wickets he took undoubtedly affected the result, but the result still stands.

 

[silentstriker]

Obviously some change is necessary & desirable, but it doesn’t follow that all change is tho. The germane issue here is do you think the current law on throwing (which I'd suggest is a direct result of Murali) practical & equitable? If you do, fine. However I'd personally suggest that science has kicked the door off its hinges & done a fairly shabby job of replacing it. The obvious example is Shabbir Ahmed's efforts in the 1st test v England in 2005/6. Now, on inspection, it was seen that Shabbir was indeed throwing & he was duly banned for 12 months. The (IIRC) 5 wickets he took undoubtedly affected the result, but the result still stands.

But until we can test the bend of the elbow in real time while bowling, the post-game testing and analysis seems to be the fairest place. Yes, it could mean a guy who threw and took wickets got away, but thats counterbalanced by a guy who might not be throwing and got called and was unable to bowl.

 

[JBH001]

No, his arm was bent which is unfair just like Murali. Biomechanics is a joke they are worse than Stats men imo

You listen to them, I will take my eye every time.

Undoubtedly one of the silliest and most inane remarks I have ever read.

 

[Richard]

'Fraid so. Amazes me that a sensible (if technophobe) fellow like Sean would say that TBH.

 

[Richard]

Obviously some change is necessary & desirable, but it doesn’t follow that all change is tho. The germane issue here is do you think the current law on throwing (which I'd suggest is a direct result of Murali) practical & equitable? If you do, fine. However I'd personally suggest that science has kicked the door off its hinges & done a fairly shabby job of replacing it.

Ignorance is bliss until it ceases to be ignorance.

Once it does, it becomes horror.

At least, IMO.

The current law is unpoliceable. The old law was completely unfair and based on false ideals. Which was worse? Hard to say, but me I like to see false ideals that are held dear exposed, so I'll probably take the later scenario as the slightly better.

 

[Richard]

Just my opinion tbh, if people had watched Chappell and Richards, I think they would rate Richards the better, even though Chappell finished with a higher ave. And the same with Lillee and Marshall.

No doubt there would be some who watched them all and would agree with Richard, but not the majority

That's because the majority were and still are those who judge by impulse rather than consideration.

At least, that's the way I see it.

 

[Richard]

You would not think either of those things if you had watched them play live

Believe me, I would. I might not if I was someone else, but I've always been unafraid to break from the norm and the crowd.

I've said the exact same thing about players I have watched live.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Tie me Kangaroo down, sport. Tie me Kangaroo down.

 

[Dasa]

Murali's deformity didn't appear in 1999, He was a good/decent bowler before that but in last 8 years he has been exceptional and to suggest that it is not because of hard work is totally incorrect and very very unfair.

This is probably the most compelling point in this thread. IF this natural deformity of Murali's has given him any huge advantage as some seem to suggest, why did it not help him for those first few years of his career where he was an average bowler at best? Did he suddenly acquire another deformity that allowed him to go from average to great? Or could it possibly be that he worked hard at his bowling and improved, not through any form of cheating, but through the same paths any other bowler does?

No, his arm was bent which is unfair just like Murali. Biomechanics is a joke they are worse than Stats men imo

You listen to them, I will take my eye every time.

My last post on this subject as we go around in circles

The earth is flat. I know the scientists keep telling me it's a sphere, but it doesn't look like that to me and I will take my eye every time.

 

[chipmonk]

it is your ignorance to not to find that he is illegal bowler

How old are you ? 5 ???

 

[adharcric]

Running is a discipline where you're enabling yourself further - with that advantage - and by that you are not disabling someone else. See, if Murali is being helped so much of because of his deformity, that means all batsmen that oppose him will be disabled from playing their natural game. They have to deal with Murali and their figures will drop, so will the opposition's success in total.

But a sprinter runs against himself as much as the opposition. The runner with the amazing amount of twitch fibers will always win, okay, but it doesn't stop his fellow runners from running as fast as THEY can. See? Big difference. And then when you acknowledge that X runner is this good because of it, then those that come 2nd, 3rd and on will compare themselves that don't have that many twitch fibers.

To clarify: If a sprinter is running in the 100m in 9.9 seconds, he isn't going to be slower because the guy next to him is running it in 8 seconds. But Murali's advantage works to disadvantage his opposition. Hence, it goes a step further than just being 'unfair'.

Very little difference, actually. A sprinter with abnormally fast twitch fibers definitely poses a disadvantage to his competition.

 

[adharcric]

You added more so I'll reply to that:

Actually, yes. If you are extremely deficient in something you aren't considered in the normal competitions. That is why there are such things like: The Special Olympics or the Paralympics. It does not make it fairer for those with deficiencies to have to compete with those that have none. Your argument is preposterous, really.

First of all, the majority of sports legends over the decades have been abnormal freaks in one way or another. You enter a competition with whatever mental and physical traits you have - an "unfair" advantage is something external, i.e., steroids. The special olympics are irrelevant - that's a competition for people who can't even do everyday chores properly. You're making it seem like Murali has ten fingers and a bowling machine implanted in his hand.