Muralitharan a burglar,a thief and a dacoit : Bedi

[archie mac]

that was the case when he no balled murali rite ther were 2 umpires but he only called him....

and i f i remmebr it was he who was in the thick of action on that day.and billy was just being aprt of it with out taking any sides

Not sure what the point is? He thought he threw the ball and called him for it, good umpiring imho

 

[honestbharani]

Not sure what the point is? He thought he threw the ball and called him for it, good umpiring imho

maybe.... Still find it hard to be convinced that he didn't premeditate calling him, in which case, even if his decision was right, it is still wrong to go in with a premeditated move. How did he know that Murali was chucking if he wasn't watching the front foot no ball? As I said, he just seems to have made up his mind the night before and just called him... That is not really good umpiring, even if his call turned out to be correct, because as an umpire or as a judge, you don't premeditate your decisions before seeing the actions.

 

[JASON]

The point is quite clear , the other Umpire did not find reason to call him. Darrell called him even when he changed to bowling Leg Spin IIRC and also called him from Square Leg, IIRC....that was Darrell Trying to be "Prima Donna", which is the point Biased Indian is making.

 

[JASON]

maybe.... Still find it hard to be convinced that he didn't premeditate calling him, in which case, even if his decision was right, it is still wrong to go in with a premeditated move. How did he know that Murali was chucking if he wasn't watching the front foot no ball? As I said, he just seems to have made up his mind the night before and just called him... That is not really good umpiring, even if his call turned out to be correct, because as an umpire or as a judge, you don't premeditate your decisions before seeing the actions.

Agree with that completely.

 

[archie mac]

maybe.... Still find it hard to be convinced that he didn't premeditate calling him, in which case, even if his decision was right, it is still wrong to go in with a premeditated move. How did he know that Murali was chucking if he wasn't watching the front foot no ball? As I said, he just seems to have made up his mind the night before and just called him... That is not really good umpiring, even if his call turned out to be correct, because as an umpire or as a judge, you don't premeditate your decisions before seeing the actions.

I have read the Hair book, from memory he told the ICC he thought Murali was suspect, and under the laws at the time it was up to the umpire to call him. I have little doubt that every bowler called throughout the history of Test cricket was premeditated by the umpire.

Jones, Griffen, Meckiff etc

 

[archie mac]

The point is quite clear , the other Umpire did not find reason to call him. Darrell called him even when he changed to bowling Leg Spin IIRC and also called him from Square Leg, IIRC....that was Darrell Trying to be "Prima Donna", which is the point Biased Indian is making.

The other umpire Dunn? had written a report to the ICC in which he claimed Murali was throwing the ball, not sure why he did not call him or support Hair, unless he thought Murali had suddenly changed his action?

The word gutless comes to mind

 

[honestbharani]

I have read the Hair book, from memory he told the ICC he thought Murali was suspect, and under the laws at the time it was up to the umpire to call him. I have little doubt that every bowler called throughout the history of Test cricket was premeditated by the umpire.

Jones, Griffen, Meckiff etc

yeah, but isn't there the possibility that his action might be ok one day and suspicious the next? Not with Murali, but I am sure it has happened with other bowlers. The other day, in of the threads here, some poster said that Sreesanth's action looked suspicious when it detoriated... You just don't premeditate such calls. And if you do, it is wrong, even if the guy is actually throwing. You have to give the bowler a chance. As Jason said, if Murali was bowling leg spin with that action, it was fine under the old rules. Would it have been right if he still called him? No way.


The ends just don't justify the means here. You have to give the bowler, whoever he is, the chance to rectify his action on the own. You go in, have a look at the guy's action and if you still think he is chucking, then u call him. Otherwise, it is never great umpiring in my book.

 

[JASON]

I have read the Hair book, from memory he told the ICC he thought Murali was suspect, and under the laws at the time it was up to the umpire to call him. I have little doubt that every bowler called throughout the history of Test cricket was premeditated by the umpire.

Jones, Griffen, Meckiff etc

That still doesn't explain his Prima Donna like calling over and over again. He wanted to be the star in his own little scripted Drama . He could've chosen to report it . But he had pre-dramatised his own Little drama and wanted to act it out to his full satisfaction....and he didn't stop there he continued with his Tirade against Murali in his interviews and books and what not ...he really wanted to carry on with his own crusade and be seen as the guy who kicked Murali out of Cricket .

 

[JASON]

The other umpire Dunn? had written a report to the ICC in which he claimed Murali was throwing the ball, not sure why he did not call him or support Hair, unless he thought Murali had suddenly changed his action?

The word gutless comes to mind

The other Umpire was not Dunn...I think you are confused.

 

[honestbharani]

That still doesn't explain his Prima Donna like calling over and over again. He wanted to be the star in his own little scripted Drama . He could've chosen to report it . But he had pre-dramatised his own Little drama and wanted to act it out to his full satisfaction....and he didn't stop there he continued with his Tirade against Murali in his interviews and books and what not ...he really wanted to carry on with his own crusade and be seen as the guy who kicked Murali out of Cricket .

only that the script didn't go exactly as he planned. AS it turned out, he was the one who was kicked out of cricket.......

 

[archie mac]

yeah, but isn't there the possibility that his action might be ok one day and suspicious the next? Not with Murali, but I am sure it has happened with other bowlers. The other day, in of the threads here, some poster said that Sreesanth's action looked suspicious when it detoriated... You just don't premeditate such calls. And if you do, it is wrong, even if the guy is actually throwing. You have to give the bowler a chance. As Jason said, if Murali was bowling leg spin with that action, it was fine under the old rules. Would it have been right if he still called him? No way.


The ends just don't justify the means here. You have to give the bowler, whoever he is, the chance to rectify his action on the own. You go in, have a look at the guy's action and if you still think he is chucking, then u call him. Otherwise, it is never great umpiring in my book.

I think he had watched him before in a ODI comp and thought he threw the ball, but still think you will find it has been ever so in the history of Test cricket. The ICC should have directed Hair from the outset, but as per usual the toothless tiger left him with all of the stress.

I think he should be congratulated for having the courage of his convictions, regardless if you agreed with the call

 

[archie mac]

The other Umpire was not Dunn...I think you are confused.

Would not surprise me who was it?

 

[JASON]

The other umpire Dunn? had written a report to the ICC in which he claimed Murali was throwing the ball, not sure why he did not call him or support Hair, unless he thought Murali had suddenly changed his action?

The word gutless comes to mind

Who ever the other Umpire was, they had decided to work along the lines of reporting to ICC and not trying to take a Hitlerian approach like Darrell, that was the difference.

The word "Prima Donna" is what comes to my Mind with regard to Darrell.

 

[JASON]

Would not surprise me who was it?

You have no idea do you Archie? but you chose to scorn Dunn without knowing your facts , eh .

 

[archie mac]

That still doesn't explain his Prima Donna like calling over and over again. He wanted to be the star in his own little scripted Drama . He could've chosen to report it . But he had pre-dramatised his own Little drama and wanted to act it out to his full satisfaction....and he didn't stop there he continued with his Tirade against Murali in his interviews and books and what not ...he really wanted to carry on with his own crusade and be seen as the guy who kicked Murali out of Cricket .

A little harsh, if he thought he was chucking that meant he would call every ball, and Murali would never finish an over. Not sure it was a tirade, he just said he thought his action unfair

 

[archie mac]

You have no idea do you Archie? but you chose to scorn Dunn without knowing your facts , eh .

I would not say no idea, I got it wrong though, just meant I did not remember it correctly, I am sure you make mistakes Jason

We are not sending these people to gaol, just chatting on a forum, if I was in a court I would make sure I had my facts straight.

Sorry to Mr Dunn

 

[honestbharani]

I think he had watched him before in a ODI comp and thought he threw the ball, but still think you will find it has been ever so in the history of Test cricket. The ICC should have directed Hair from the outset, but as per usual the toothless tiger left him with all of the stress.

I think he should be congratulated for having the courage of his convictions, regardless if you agreed with the call

well, misplaced courage is hardly worth congratulations, esp. when it involves ruining people's careers and lives. If not, we should congratulate HItler too for being able to stand up for his convictions and beliefts about the Jews....


The thing is, it is an admirable quality when your convictions are right but when it isn't, you just end up looking like an ass. Murali did chuck under the old rules and I suppose in a way, Hair calling him made ICC look up at the whole issue with some ground-breaking results... But it could have so easily gone the other way and Murali could have been absolutely destroyed and the world would have never known that he wasn't doing anything that every other bowler wasn't doing. We would have lost one of the greatest bowlers of all time, heck one of the greatest cricketers of all time..... So, I am sorry, but I don't really have too many sympathies with Hair on this issue. And the way he came out in his book gets me to think that he did seem to have a personal agenda vis-a-vis Murali.

 

[archie mac]

well, misplaced courage is hardly worth congratulations, esp. when it involves ruining people's careers and lives. If not, we should congratulate HItler too for being able to stand up for his convictions and beliefts about the Jews....


The thing is, it is an admirable quality when your convictions are right but when it isn't, you just end up looking like an ass. Murali did chuck under the old rules and I suppose in a way, Hair calling him made ICC look up at the whole issue with some ground-breaking results... But it could have so easily gone the other way and Murali could have been absolutely destroyed and the world would have never known that he wasn't doing anything that every other bowler wasn't doing. We would have lost one of the greatest bowlers of all time, heck one of the greatest cricketers of all time..... So, I am sorry, but I don't really have too many sympathies with Hair on this issue. And the way he came out in his book gets me to think that he did seem to have a personal agenda vis-a-vis Murali.

Well mate you know I thought he was correct, can never remember him saying anything personal against Murali just his action. You would think he is calling him a killer. He thought his action wrong and called him. I am sure he figured he would have some remedal work and would come back.

As for the thing about Hitler, lets not go right over the top, Hair did not chop off Murali's arm

 

[honestbharani]

Well mate you know I thought he was correct, can never remember him saying anything personal against Murali just his action. You would think he is calling him a killer. He thought his action wrong and called him. I am sure he figured he would have some remedal work and would come back.

As for the thing about Hitler, lets not go right over the top, Hair did not chop off Murali's arm

lol, that example was to indicate that misplaced courage and stuff is not always good. Didn't really say it in reference to Hair, more of a general example.


No, I am not saying he was wrong in calling him, it is the fact that it looked so premeditated that troubles me.... Don't see how I can really explain it better here. I m at work, maybe will get back to this later.

 

[The_Bunny]

well, misplaced courage is hardly worth congratulations, esp. when it involves ruining people's careers and lives. If not, we should congratulate HItler too for being able to stand up for his convictions and beliefts about the Jews....


The thing is, it is an admirable quality when your convictions are right but when it isn't, you just end up looking like an ass. Murali did chuck under the old rules and I suppose in a way, Hair calling him made ICC look up at the whole issue with some ground-breaking results... But it could have so easily gone the other way and Murali could have been absolutely destroyed and the world would have never known that he wasn't doing anything that every other bowler wasn't doing. We would have lost one of the greatest bowlers of all time, heck one of the greatest cricketers of all time..... So, I am sorry, but I don't really have too many sympathies with Hair on this issue. And the way he came out in his book gets me to think that he did seem to have a personal agenda vis-a-vis Murali.

Given what he has gone through because of Murali (allthough the fact that he went through it wasnt Murali's fault) you wouldnt expect Murali to be his favorite person wouold you