*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[honestbharani]

Apparently, he can see through wood, which explains how he was able to see through his own brain.

 

[Slow Love™]

But since the rules themselves have been proven as wrong, why are you still defending those two umpires?

Actually, I only intended to defend Hair, because Emerson's behaviour (pre-meditated calling and not noticing when Murali was bowling leg-breaks) is far more problematic. Serves me right for not reading properly, as social snuck that one in on me.

But why couldn't I defend an umpire when the rules were wrong, when his job is not to make the rules but apply them as they stand? This is the fundamental leap of logic that many seem to make concerning this issue. I really don't know why, because it seems quite simple. Hair made his adjudication following what he believed he saw, and applied the rules in place at the time.

Plus, I heard an interview with Darryl Harper when he said that he was never sure if Murali was straightening his arm completely from the bent position when he starts. And because no other umpire called him, including a former great off spinner in Venkatraghavan, who has ALWAYS said that it was IMPOSSIBLE to be convinced whether he was transgressing the laws or not, implying that his flex wasn't as VISIBLE as you guys seem to think, I think there is a lot of ground for doubting why Hair and Emerson did what they did.

The flex was suggested by optical illusion. That's precisely why I keep mentioning it. Once the defenders of Murali accepted this AS a defence, it immediately made it evident that most people saw or understood that his action looked like an egregious chuck in real-time.

 

[Deja moo]

I'm sure the awesome ability Hair has to judge, to the exact degree, with his naked eye how much Murali flexes, and that to from behind, is explained in his amazing autobiography. I advise you to get it

lol, I think I will. Need some reading when on the pot..

Besides, more to the point. Apparently Mr.Umpire is so adroit at multi-tasking, he even managed to keep one eye on the crease (which is what hes actually supposed to be doing when the bowler is delivering the ball , to detect any over-stepping ) and the other on Muralis arm, and from behind at that.

Quite the Superman.

 

[honestbharani]

It is not really OPTICAL ILLUSION if it is only picked up by two people. I believe what the report said was what I have been saying all along. He starts with a bent elbow and straightens it about 10 degrees plus. It is just that so many cricket fans around the world simply believe that once the elbow is bent, the action is illegal, when it has never been the case. THAT was the optical illusion they were referring to, IMHO and I think it is a disgrace if the umpires also thought that way.

 

[Slow Love™]

It is not really OPTICAL ILLUSION if it is only picked up by two people. I believe what the report said was what I have been saying all along. He starts with a bent elbow and straightens it about 10 degrees plus. It is just that so many cricket fans around the world simply believe that once the elbow is bent, the action is illegal, when it has never been the case. THAT was the optical illusion they were referring to, IMHO and I think it is a disgrace if the umpires also thought that way.

Firstly, why do you claim that the optical illusion is only picked up by two people? It was picked up by many people around the world who thought his action looked very dubious, and was used as a defence by those defending Murali.

Secondly, my recall is that NOBODY back in '96 was saying "you know, I think he's straightening it about 10 degrees or so". I highly doubt that you were - maybe you remember it that way, I don't know.

OK, let's flash back to 1996. The rules say that you can't straighten your arm when you deliver the ball, or it's a no-ball. With me? Good. In step Darryl Hair and Murali. There had been much talk of Murali's action, and to the naked eye it did indeed look quite bad, like he could be chucking the ball. Hair called him. Murali defenders claimed he wasn't breaking the laws of the game. Lab tests said Murali was indeed straightening his arm, which was illegal at the time.

Much consternation followed. Tolerance levels were introduced, but further down the track, Murali was reported for his doosra delivery, which was suspected to be over the new tolerance limits. In lab tests, it was measured to be over the new tolerance levels. Still with me?

Scientists, were by this time quite involved, both at the request of Murali's defenders and the ICC itself. It was suggested that, in fact, it may be the case that just about everybody was straightening their arm to a degree, and many were at least in the ballpark of Murali's doosra. This necessitated a further rule-change. I have no problem with any of this - it's a genuine pursuit of the truth.

But people looking back judge Hair's calls on the basis that he had this information. Unfortunately, this is an extremely common mistake we often make when we judge historical events. He didn't have it, and neither did any of us. Previous to the whole Murali fracas, there wasn't anybody saying "you know, I think all the bowlers in the game might be straightening their arms to some degree". The conclusion (and the research that preceded it) was arrived at, like so many discoveries, tangentially.

 

[social]

Firstly, why do you claim that the optical illusion is only picked up by two people? It was picked up by many people around the world who thought his action looked very dubious, and was used as a defence by those defending Murali.

Secondly, my recall is that NOBODY back in '96 was saying "you know, I think he's straightening it about 10 degrees or so". I highly doubt that you were - maybe you remember it that way, I don't know.

OK, let's flash back to 1996. The rules say that you can't straighten your arm when you deliver the ball, or it's a no-ball. With me? Good. In step Darryl Hair and Murali. There had been much talk of Murali's action, and to the naked eye it did indeed look quite bad, like he could be chucking the ball. Hair called him. Murali defenders claimed he wasn't breaking the laws of the game. Lab tests said Murali was indeed straightening his arm, which was illegal at the time.

Much consternation followed. Tolerance levels were introduced, but further down the track, Murali was reported for his doosra delivery, which was suspected to be over the new tolerance limits. In lab tests, it was measured to be over the new tolerance levels. Still with me?

Scientists, were by this time quite involved, both at the request of Murali's defenders and the ICC itself. It was suggested that, in fact, it may be the case that just about everybody was straightening their arm to a degree, and many were at least in the ballpark of Murali's doosra. This necessitated a further rule-change. I have no problem with any of this - it's a genuine pursuit of the truth.

But people looking back judge Hair's calls on the basis that he had this information. Unfortunately, this is an extremely common mistake we often make when we judge historical events. He didn't have it, and neither did any of us. Previous to the whole Murali fracas, there wasn't anybody saying "you know, I think all the bowlers in the game might be straightening their arms to some degree". The conclusion (and the research that preceded it) was arrived at, like so many discoveries, tangentially.

Exactly.

The cricket world had never considered degrees of flexion until last year.

Hair only had to consider whether Murali straightened his arm during delivery.

Obviously he did and still does.

Hence, no ball for chucking and an absolutely correct interpretation of the rule as it stood.

 

[social]

Why the hell did Hair have a book? Who the hell would read that?

One controversial incident makes his life worth reading about?

He wrote a book because, at the time, he had basically been forced out of umpiring by Murali defenders within the ICC and he saw it as a way of supplementing his retirement income.

 

[social]

Exactly!

Now, explain to me, how the eff does one figure out whether a bowler is bending his arm, which essentially requires a sideways view for even naked-eye analysis, if you're watching his back ???

Why would he be watching his back?

According to the laws, Hair was quite entitled to adjudicate on the bowlers' action from whichever position he chose.

Anyway, in the end, he got the decision right so really cares where he stood.

 

[social]

Apparently, he can see through wood, which explains how he was able to see through his own brain.

Rather than criticise Hair, who has been proven absolutely correct, why dont you point the finger at law-makers or, the real villains of the piece, the Sri Lankan authorities that allowed Murali to make it to the test team with such an obviously flawed action.

 

[Slow Love™]

Exactly.

The cricket world had never considered degrees of flexion until last year.

Hair only had to consider whether Murali straightened his arm during delivery.

Obviously he did and still does.

Hence, no ball for chucking and an absolutely correct interpretation of the rule as it stood.

And by all means we can criticize those laws, because in hindsight, they were wrong (in the sense that they were based on the false assumption that the vast majority of bowlers were not straightening their arms during delivery).

Hell, if people want to criticize Hair on his general umpiring skills, whatever - some people think Rudi Koertzen's a good umpire, and I think he's lousy. But the way people interpret this slice of history really irritates me. People project their current thoughts backwards and forget what the arguments were back then - hell, if honestbharani was thinking back in '96 that Murali was straightening at 10 degrees plus, he would have been deriding him as a chucker! Not that I think it's an accurate recollection anyway.

Personally, I don't think it's a whole lot better than the luddites that still think that Murali's a chucker merely because his arm is bent at the point of delivery. I find both interpretations pretty exasperating. I guess the whole debate is, by it's nature.

 

[Deja moo]

Why would he be watching his back?

According to the laws, Hair was quite entitled to adjudicate on the bowlers' action from whichever position he chose.

Anyway, in the end, he got the decision right so really cares where he stood.

And the position he did it from was in no way an appropriate one to do it from. This wasnt backyard cricket. It involved putting a mans career at stake, and when it involves something as important as that, you'd better be damn sure you're in the best position to judge it correctly. And whatever happened to watching the feet for overstepping ? Dereliction of duty ?

 

[Tom Halsey]

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 ?

The point was that the umpires were not incorrect in calling Murali - they were incorrect in failing to call everyone else under the old, flawed rules.

Obviously, under new (fairer) laws, Murali does not chuck, and very few people have a problem with it.

I used to think he chucked, until the evidence came out that McGrath and Pollock did too - then it became obvious the rule was flawed.

 

[open365]

^But Mc Grath and Pollock chucked or different reasons didn't they?

being pace bowlers,their arms naturaly wavered under the rotational force of bowling,unlike Murali who can't bend/straighten hsia rm for ome reason.

 

[Tom Halsey]

^But Mc Grath and Pollock chucked or different reasons didn't they?

being pace bowlers,their arms naturaly wavered under the rotational force of bowling,unlike Murali who can't bend/straighten hsia rm for ome reason.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here - a chuck is a chuck (inder the old rules).

 

[open365]

Not really sure what you're trying to say here - a chuck is a chuck (inder the old rules).

I'm saying that if Pac bowlers weren't allowed for that much flew when bowling,bowlers would become slower to keep their arms straight which wouldn't be good for cricket.

Murali is an isolated incident,though i still support him and don't think he should be banned.

 

[social]

And by all means we can criticize those laws, because in hindsight, they were wrong (in the sense that they were based on the false assumption that the vast majority of bowlers were not straightening their arms during delivery).

Hell, if people want to criticize Hair on his general umpiring skills, whatever - some people think Rudi Koertzen's a good umpire, and I think he's lousy. But the way people interpret this slice of history really irritates me. People project their current thoughts backwards and forget what the arguments were back then - hell, if honestbharani was thinking back in '96 that Murali was straightening at 10 degrees plus, he would have been deriding him as a chucker! Not that I think it's an accurate recollection anyway.

Personally, I don't think it's a whole lot better than the luddites that still think that Murali's a chucker merely because his arm is bent at the point of delivery. I find both interpretations pretty exasperating. I guess the whole debate is, by it's nature.

Slow Love,

youre absolutely correct on all accounts.

The sole issue a decade ago was whether Murali straightened his arm during the delivery process.

Until 18 months ago, a range of explanations were put forward on a regular basis in an attempt to prove anything and everything from it being impossible for Murali to achieve such a manouvre (the man himself went as far to bowl in a splint on national television in an attempt to clear his name) to him being the subject of an Aus-led conspiracy.

Following the release of statistics that proved Murali (and just about everybody else for that matter) straightened their arm to some degree during delivery, the argument changed to "well, he shouldnt have been called as he wasnt the only one doing it."

Both positions are nonsense.

Murali was correctly called.

Hair was unfairly villified as history has proven him to be correct.

And the whole issue is still shrouded in emotions which naturally produces polarised and, at times, ludicrous positions.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'm saying that if Pac bowlers weren't allowed for that much flew when bowling,bowlers would become slower to keep their arms straight which wouldn't be good for cricket.

Murali is an isolated incident,though i still support him and don't think he should be banned.

Which was my point - I thought the rule was wrong, and was glad it was changed.

 

[social]

And the position he did it from was in no way an appropriate one to do it from. This wasnt backyard cricket. It involved putting a mans career at stake, and when it involves something as important as that, you'd better be damn sure you're in the best position to judge it correctly. And whatever happened to watching the feet for overstepping ? Dereliction of duty ?

Deja, Hair got it right. That is beyond dispute.

 

[C_C]

The point was that the umpires were not incorrect in calling Murali - they were incorrect in failing to call everyone else under the old, flawed rules.

Obviously, under new (fairer) laws, Murali does not chuck, and very few people have a problem with it.

I used to think he chucked, until the evidence came out that McGrath and Pollock did too - then it became obvious the rule was flawed.

Indeed. THerefore people ( for example Social) seeing Murali as a 'tainted genius' is being unfair to Murali.

 

[C_C]

But as to Hair's decisions back when Murali was no-balled, they can certainly be defended. You want to call the decision of calling Murali "incompetent" on the part of the umpire, but this is an unfair description. In hindsight, "Inadequately equipped" to make the decision would be more apt.

Yes, i agree with that.
What i disagree with is Social's perspective that everything was done well and he thinks that Murali's action is obviously more dodgy than the rest based on optical illusions, not facts.
I think that in hindsight, Murali got a real raw deal and it was unfair to victimise him. I cannot fathom why someone would hold a viewpoint that Murali got let off easy given that he does nothing that others dont do.