*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[social]

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?

It was claimed that a birth deformity prevented Murali from straightening his arm during delivery.

Ive got no doubts about the deformity but subsequent tests have shown that it prevented no such thing.

 

[Dasa]

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're doing a wonderful job of missing the point. The "excuse" that Murali can't chuck because he's got a birth deformity relates to the fact that it makes him LOOK like he's chucking when his flexion isn't any worse than any other bowler around....and it's a bit rich of you to be suggesting some sort of conspiracy theory about the new chucking rules, when you're very quick to dismiss any suggestions that the ICC may be biased when it goes against your point.

Anyway, when will this register in your mind: EVERY BOWLER IS A CHUCKER.
Yet you constantly single out Murali....if you call his action illegal, call McGrath a chucker, call Gillespie a chucker, call Flintoff a chucker, call Vaas a chucker, call Vettori a chucker...it never ends.

 

[C_C]

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?

It was showed that if Murali is a chucker, everybody else is a chucker and that the umpires are wrong because they are INCOMPETENT in detecting a chuck.
Comprende ?

 

[C_C]

Huh?

Tests proved that he chucked. End of story

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

Dont jump the gun on incomplete research- when a large contingent of players were tested, it was found that EVERYBODY chucked by the old definition- including McGrath, Holding etc. who are credited to have one of the cleanest actions of all.
It categorically proved that the umpires are UTTERLY INCOMPETENT in determining a chuck with the naked eye and that the old law was utterly impractical.

 

[social]

You're doing a wonderful job of missing the point. The "excuse" that Murali can't chuck because he's got a birth deformity relates to the fact that it makes him LOOK like he's chucking when his flexion isn't any worse than any other bowler around....and it's a bit rich of you to be suggesting some sort of conspiracy theory about the new chucking rules, when you're very quick to dismiss any suggestions that the ICC may be biased when it goes against your point.

Anyway, when will this register in your mind: EVERY BOWLER IS A CHUCKER.
Yet you constantly single out Murali....if you call his action illegal, call McGrath a chucker, call Gillespie a chucker, call Flintoff a chucker, call Vaas a chucker, call Vettori a chucker...it never ends.

And when will this register in your mind.

a. Murali has spent the greater part of his career bowling with an action that clearly contravened existing laws.

b. The determination as to whether a bowler chucks is made firstly with the naked eye of the umpire on the field not with the assistance of high-speed cameras and computer software. As such, it is impossible to tell that 99.9% of have some degree of flexion in their delivery.

Murali's problem has always been that his degree of flexion is clearly visible with the naked eye and that is why he has been no-balled for throwing and reported countless times.

c. Given the new legislation, Murali's action is now as close to being legal as it ever will be.

So how do I judge him as a Bowler? A tainted genius.

 

[social]

Dont jump the gun on incomplete research- when a large contingent of players were tested, it was found that EVERYBODY chucked by the old definition- including McGrath, Holding etc. who are credited to have one of the cleanest actions of all.
It categorically proved that the umpires are UTTERLY INCOMPETENT in determining a chuck with the naked eye and that the old law was utterly impractical.

No, it simply proved that unless it blatant like Murali, flexion in a bowling action is impossible to discern with the naked eye.

Competence has nothing to do with it. It's simply a case of physical limitations.

 

[C_C]

a. Murali has spent the greater part of his career bowling with an action that clearly contravened existing laws.

So has every single bowler in the history of the game

b. The determination as to whether a bowler chucks is made firstly with the naked eye of the umpire on the field not with the assistance of high-speed cameras and computer software. As such, it is impossible to tell that 99.9% of have some degree of flexion in their delivery.

Irrelevant. The rules are to be upheld by the highest level of competence possible, not just some quaint idea of tradition- where bunch of 50+ year old guys with fading vision gets to call something that the human eye cannot determine. Therefore, the determination process was flawed in the first place

Murali's problem has always been that his degree of flexion is clearly visible with the naked eye and that is why he has been no-balled for throwing and reported countless times.

Irrelevant. The old law dealt with flexion, not flexion visible with naked eye only. Murali has been unfairly victimised because of people who continue to stick to tradition before common sense and efficiency. Its not his problem that his flexion is more visible than McGrath or Warney's- its the problem of the umpires and their incompetence that they cannot spot other bowlers chuck.

c. Given the new legislation, Murali's action is now as close to being legal as it ever will be.

So how do I judge him as a Bowler? A tainted genius.

If he is a tainted genius, so is every single bowler in history of this game, simply because every single bowler in the history of this game contravenes the original letter of the law but only Murali has been victimised for it.
The cricketing world owes him an apology and if not, we need to start talking about McGrath, Pollock, Akhtar, Kumble, Warney, Bond, Lillee, Holding, etc. all being bowlers of questionable legality.

 

[C_C]

No, it simply proved that unless it blatant like Murali, flexion in a bowling action is impossible to discern with the naked eye.

Competence has nothing to do with it. It's simply a case of physical limitations.

Its a case of optical illusions, not physical limitations. Murali's flexion is just a degree or two more than McGrath's chucking and if you think that Murali's action looks jerkier because of a degree or two, you need to rethink your viewpoint on how sensetive the human eye is.
Its a case of incompetence because the umpires are fooled by an illusion that Murali's action is worse than McGrath's when in reality there is less than a percentage difference between each one's flexion levels.
If you fall for an illusion, its your incompetence. Simple as that.

 

[honestbharani]

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

Scientific testing also proved that McGrath, Gillespie etc. were chucking. Why didn't Hair call them?

 

[honestbharani]

No, it simply proved that unless it blatant like Murali, flexion in a bowling action is impossible to discern with the naked eye.

Competence has nothing to do with it. It's simply a case of physical limitations.

The only reason why the flex was more obvious with Murali's action was because he has a bent elbow while starting to bowl the delivery and then straightens it, whereas guys like McGrath start out with a straight arm and then bend it ever so slightly. It is amazing how many people still think that just because a guy bowls with a bent elbow, it is automatically chucking, when the laws have never said that. That is the only reason why it appeared more obvious in Murali's case and either way, it is an error on the part of Hair to have only called him while missing the others.

 

[Anil]

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

no he got it right on one bowler and missed every other bowler who were also chucking under the old rules and the australian vilification of murali was an absolute disgrace considering that all of their bowlers chucked as well.....

 

[Deja moo]

no he got it right on one bowler and missed every other bowler who were also chucking under the old rules and the australian vilification of murali was an absolute disgrace considering that all of their bowlers chucked as well.....

and even thats debatable. I'd really like one of the Murali-baiters to step up and tell me which end (umpiring-wise that is), was Murali called from

 

[social]

and even thats debatable. I'd really like one of the Murali-baiters to step up and tell me which end (umpiring-wise that is), was Murali called from

He was called from the bowler's end.

 

[social]

no he got it right on one bowler and missed every other bowler who were also chucking under the old rules and the australian vilification of murali was an absolute disgrace considering that all of their bowlers chucked as well.....

a. It's impossible to detect something that's not visible with the naked eye.

b. Why is an apology needed? Hair and Emerson correctly interpreted the rules as they stood at the time.

 

[social]

Scientific testing also proved that McGrath, Gillespie etc. were chucking. Why didn't Hair call them?

Not visible with naked eye zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[C_C]

a. It's impossible to detect something that's not visible with the naked eye.

b. Why is an apology needed? Hair and Emerson correctly interpreted the rules as they stood at the time.

a) It is factually proven that Murali's flexion is within 1% of McGrath's flexion. If McGrath's flexion is invisible to the naked eye, so is Murali's. Optical illusions do not count for impossibility of detection-it counts as incompetence of the umpires.

b) Apology is needed because Hair and Emerson's interpretation of the rules, while correct at that time, was nowhere remotely as efficient in its application. According to the rules of that time, Murali was a chucker. But so was McGrath,Warne, Donald, Pollock,Ambrose etc. etc.
Instead, Murali was picked on because the human eye was fooled by an optical illusion, owing to his hyperflexible wrists(something that has been demonstrated) and considerable flexion at the shoulders- both of which are legal in the game.
However, Hair and Emerson were fooled due to their incompetence and since Murali's actual flexion of the elbow is insignificantly more than that of McGrath or Warne, Murali does not deserve to be called if Warne and McGrath arn't called.
The plain and simple fact is, murali was victimised for doing exactly the same thing every single bowler in the history of the game has been doing and that is because of the incompetence of the human eye that painted Murali as a 'criminal' when in reality everyone is a criminal. He owes an apology for being unfairly targetted due to the incompetence of the tools at the disposal of the umpires - their eyes.
If you are letting all the murderers go and then pick on just one, it is unfair to say the least.
The umpires should have absolutely no jurisdiction over chucking, as they are incompetent to determine the factuality of a chuck- the human eye can easily be fooled into an optical illusion and therefore it is NOT well equipped to make such high speed observations accurately. And it is idiotic to let incompetent people/instruments run the show when there are more competent tools available.

 

[C_C]

Not visible with naked eye zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If McGrath's flexion isnt visible to the naked eye, neither is Murali's. What you are seeing is an 'illusion' which is due to the already bent nature of Murali's elbow and his hyperflexible wrists.
A 1-2 degree differential( the difference between McGrath and Murali's flexion) is not differentiable by the human eye.

Therefore, either both their flexions are visible or neither of their flexions are visible. And if your eyes are playing tricks on you, that is not Murali's problem but boils down to the incompetence of your eyes.
It is not Murali's problem that his already bent elbow( which is legal) and his hyperflexible wrists lead you to immagine a more exgaggerated flexion when in reality his is no worse than McGrath or Warney's. Sort of like seeing a mirage in the desert and mistaking it for water- its not the problem of the desert,its your incompetence in differentiating between illusion and reality that is the problem

Either Murali deserves an apology or the entire bowling crew in cricket playing worlds need doubt to be cast on the legality of their actions.

 

[social]

Firstly, until such time as indisputably accurate technology becomes the sole arbiter for decision making in cricket, mistakes will be made. And, even then, as the run-out incident in Pakistan showed, human participation in the decision-making process is no guarantee that mistakes wont continue.

Secondly, what youre advocating in Murali's case is akin to releasing all convicted criminals from the jail system as there is the likelihood that others remain unpunished for similar crimes. And, to top it off, you want to apologise to those convicted criminals despite the fact that they have broken the law and been, unluckily according to you, tried and convicted.

Nonsense.

 

[C_C]

Firstly, until such time as indisputably accurate technology becomes the sole arbiter for decision making in cricket, mistakes will be made. And, even then, as the run-out incident in Pakistan showed, human participation in the decision-making process is no guarantee that mistakes wont continue.

Secondly, what youre advocating in Murali's case is akin to releasing all convicted criminals from the jail system as there is the likelihood that others remain unpunished for similar crimes. And, to top it off, you want to apologise to those convicted criminals despite the fact that they have broken the law and been, unluckily according to you, tried and convicted.

Nonsense.

No. Your example is nonsense.

if Murali's case is made an analogy to criminals, it is akin to having a group of 100 people, all murderers going scot free, except one, who is no more guilty than the others, just because your detection technology suck.
That is unfair to the said murderer. And now that the technology is available to categorically prove that the rest of 99 people are murderers, you either put them in the jail or you apologise for the one who's been unfairly targetted.
Simple as that.

And this is not an error in human judgement - this is beyond human capability.
This is beyond the capability of the eye to determine a chuck, especially since the human eye is fooled easily with illusions.
Therefore, the umpires were wrong to call Murali only when in reality Murali is no more a chucker than McGrath or Warne.

The entire smidgen to Murali's reputation is caused because of the incompetence of the umpires ( ie, the incompetence of the human eye), not because of Murali himself.
Since he's been made to pay for the errors of others, errors caused by the limited capability of the human eye, he deserves to be apologised to.

And as evidence clearly demonstrates, no umpire should ever have the right to call a chuck with their naked eye as their eyes are NOT competent enough to differentiate between a chuck and a legality. Even jerky action is not enough since an action can appear to be jerky but be legal. The only solution is random tests applied to all bowlers and does NOT matter what their reputations are or how it looks through the naked eye- if they chuck more than the acceptable limits, they should be sanctioned upon. Simple as that.

 

[social]

No. Your example is nonsense.

if Murali's case is made an analogy to criminals, it is akin to having a group of 100 people, all murderers going scot free, except one, who is no more guilty than the others, just because your detection technology suck.
That is unfair to the said murderer. And now that the technology is available to categorically prove that the rest of 99 people are murderers, you either put them in the jail or you apologise for the one who's been unfairly targetted.
Simple as that.

And this is not an error in human judgement - this is beyond human capability.
This is beyond the capability of the eye to determine a chuck, especially since the human eye is fooled easily with illusions.
Therefore, the umpires were wrong to call Murali only when in reality Murali is no more a chucker than McGrath or Warne.

The entire smidgen to Murali's reputation is caused because of the incompetence of the umpires ( ie, the incompetence of the human eye), not because of Murali himself.
Since he's been made to pay for the errors of others, errors caused by the limited capability of the human eye, he deserves to be apologised to.

And as evidence clearly demonstrates, no umpire should ever have the right to call a chuck with their naked eye as their eyes are NOT competent enough to differentiate between a chuck and a legality. Even jerky action is not enough since an action can appear to be jerky but be legal. The only solution is random tests applied to all bowlers and does NOT matter what their reputations are or how it looks through the naked eye- if they chuck more than the acceptable limits, they should be sanctioned upon. Simple as that.

Unfortunately, they did have the right to make such a call and, on the available evidence, got it absolutely correct.

The players have rules to adhere to and the it is the umpires job to enforce those rules to the best of their ability. Nowhere in these rules does it say that the umpires must be mindful of future advances in technology or revisions in thinking.

And just what has it cost Murali?

He's gone on to take hundreds more wickets.

He's revered in several parts of the world.

He's relatively wealthy.

He's made out to be a martyr by some when he was undeniably in the wrong.

He's been afforded the luxury of only bowling under the eye of selected umpires.

So he chose not to tour Aus on a couple of occassions. Whose fault is that? Not the ACB or the Australian public.

Compare his case to Ian Meckiff, whose action was no worse.

Thrown out of the game and never played at any real level again.

Do you hear any Aus bleating for an apology to be made to him?

Or what of Geoff Griffin?

I dont hear too many SA supporters leaping to his defence.

If Murali had been Australian, I wonder what the punishment would've been?

Something tells me that if he had been, the only way that he'd ever have graced a cricket field again would be with a vastly remodelled action.