*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[social]

funny sections in the article:
Arjuna Ranatunga is one legend who has done more than most to protect Murali from adverse reaction. When asked about the reaction to Murali in Australia, he said: "People only throw stones at ripe mangoes" - an oblique reference to what he saw as vested interests in those that ran the game.
QUOTE]

When Murali first appeared in Aus, he'd taken around 80 wickets at about 35 - hardly a ripe mango!

Much of the cricket watching public was bemused by the fact that a person could rise to test status whilst using a seemingly blatant illegal action.

When he was eventually called for throwing, many in the crowd were horrified that it happened and felt truly sorry for Murali (I was at the day-nighter in Brisbane when he was called) but felt it inevitable.

For Ranatunga, or anyone else, to portray the actions of Hair and Emerson as the sharp end of a conspiracy was utter nonsense and merely an attempt to deflect attention from the obvious.

 

[Tom Halsey]

What i meant by Gillespie category is that he is in the same zone as Gillespie- some may think Vaas is a bit better, some may think Gillespie is.
Like how McGrath is in Ambrose/Hadlee/Marshall category.

Fair enough.

 

[R_D]

Funny how only place he's been called for throwing is Australia eh and by same umpire twice.

 

[Googenheim]

All that means is that theres a few nuts out there who think they know everything, and only one was stupid enough to display his stupidity openly.

 

[social]

All that means is that theres a few nuts out there who think they know everything, and only one was stupid enough to display his stupidity openly.

Scientific testing proved the umpires correct, so I can only assume youre referring to Ranatunga.

 

[Googenheim]

Scientific testing proved the umpires correct, so I can only assume youre referring to Ranatunga.

So what you're saying is that by callling just Muralitharan, when in fact each and every bowler from A to Z was found to be stepping over the limits, the Ump was actually doing his job. yeah, right. Wheres the consistency ? Either call everone, or you'll be proving bias by calling just one.

 

[C_C]

Scientific testing proved the umpires correct, so I can only assume youre referring to Ranatunga.

Actually the scientific testing proved Murali to be correct, not the umpires.
The umpires were utterly fooled ( due to optical illusions) and had no idea that McGrath chucks almost as much as Murali does.

 

[Dasa]

Scientific testing proved the umpires correct, so I can only assume youre referring to Ranatunga.

Um... what? Scientific testing proved the umpires were wrong because they singled out Murali, when nearly every bowler was a chucker under the old rules.

 

[Googenheim]

I'd have to say its a testament to the activity on these forums that we've had 3 posters make exactly the same point within seconds of each other.

 

[social]

Actually the scientific testing proved Murali to be correct, not the umpires.
The umpires were utterly fooled ( due to optical illusions) and had no idea that McGrath chucks almost as much as Murali does.

Huh?

Tests proved that he chucked. End of story

How that makes Murali right and the umpires wrong is beyond me.

 

[R_D]

Ever wonder why Aus are the ones mostly determined to prove Murali chucks ?

The test showed that under the old rules every bowler chucked not just Murali so i don't see why one guy should be singled out because he doesn't have conventional bowling action.

 

[social]

Ever wonder why Aus are the ones mostly determined to prove Murali chucks ?

The test showed that under the old rules every bowler chucked not just Murali so i don't see why one guy should be singled out because he doesn't have conventional bowling action.

I think you'd find that very few people even care any more.

It's generally accepted that he chucks and that the ICC has washed its' hands of the issue. As a result, he'll continue playing regardless.

 

[Anil]

It's generally accepted that he chucks and that the ICC has washed its' hands of the issue. As a result, he'll continue playing regardless.

in australia maybe? for everyone else he is one of the greatest spinners ever....

 

[Deja moo]

Huh?

Tests proved that he chucked. End of story

How that makes Murali right and the umpires wrong is beyond me.

Tests also proved that other bowlers chucked. Um calls one, doesnt call others. Discrimination/Incompetence.

Besides, do you remember which end the ump called him from ?

 

[social]

in australia maybe? for everyone else he is one of the greatest spinners ever....

What exactly has this got to do with Aus?

The only relevance Aus has to this discussion is that an Australian umpire correctly called Murali for throwing during a test in Australia.

 

[social]

Tests also proved that other bowlers chucked. Um calls one, doesnt call others. Discrimination/Incompetence.

Besides, do you remember which end the ump called him from ?

You can call it incompetence if you like but given that the degree of flexion in virtually every other bowlers' action is impossible to discern with the naked eye, that's a pretty harsh call.

There's no case for discrimination.

However, what you cannot do is defend Murali's action in this regard. He has been tried and convicted but escaped punishment because the ICC is toothless in the face of Asian pressure.

And the end at which the ump was standing has proven irrelevant as the calls were correct in all respects except for the fact that analysis has shown that over 90% of his deliveries contravened the laws.

Anyway, it's largely irrelevant now as the ICC has taken its' stance so Murali has no need to modify his action.

 

[Anil]

What exactly has this got to do with Aus?

The only relevance Aus has to this discussion is that an Australian umpire correctly called Murali for throwing during a test in Australia.

no it has since been proved that almost every single player chucks under the old rules which has been pointed out to you numerous times already in this thread, you just seem to skip over it in your responses....the umpire picks on only one bowler and does not call anyone else...indeed that is umpiring at its finest... and that too darrell hair, wasn't it...? who over the years has been a real shining example of umpiring efficiency!!

...and under the new rules murali doesnt chuck just like a lot of the other bowlers...it's as simple as that whether you acknowledge it or not....

 

[social]

no it has since been proved that almost every single player chucks under the old rules which has been pointed out to you numerous times already in this thread, you just seem to skip over it in your responses....the umpire picks on only one bowler and does not call anyone else...indeed that is umpiring at its finest... and that too darrell hair, wasn't it...? who over the years has been a real shining example of umpiring efficiency!!

...and under the new rules murali doesnt chuck just like a lot of the other bowlers...it's as simple as that whether you acknowledge it or not....

Again, what exactly has that got do with Aus other than the fact that an Aus umpire correctly interpreted the rules in place at the time. You can criticise Hair all you like but history shows he got it right and the Sri Lankans villification of him was an absolute disgrace.

And dont you find that it's oh so convenient that the new tolerance levels are set precisely 1 degree above Murali's recorded flexion levels. Nothing suspicious there.

And BTW, whatever happened to all the excuses that Murali cant chuck because he has a birth deformity or is double jointed or its an illusion or his dog's sick.

Unfortunately, they've been revealed for what they always were - total and utter bs.

 

[marc71178]

Actually the scientific testing proved Murali to be correct, not the umpires.

No, they showed that under the laws prevalent at the time, Murali was chucking the ball, so being no balled was the correct call - how is that showing Murali was correct?

 

[Deja moo]

Again, what exactly has that got do with Aus other than the fact that an Aus umpire correctly interpreted the rules in place at the time. You can criticise Hair all you like but history shows he got it right and the Sri Lankans villification of him was an absolute disgrace.

And dont you find that it's oh so convenient that the new tolerance levels are set precisely 1 degree above Murali's recorded flexion levels. Nothing suspicious there.

And BTW, whatever happened to all the excuses that Murali cant chuck because he has a birth deformity or is double jointed or its an illusion or his dog's sick.

Unfortunately, they've been revealed for what they always were - total and utter bs.

You still havent mentioned as to which end the Umpire called Murali. Dismiss it as irrelevant all you want, still doesnt alter plain common sense. As for the birth deformity being revealed as bs, care to present proof of it being conclusively revealed so?