*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[social]

Because of his unique physiology - a permanently bent arm along with hyperflexible wrists, his action is truly unique and unfortunately, aesthetics determined the extent of fairplay, not literal application of the rules ( or even in the spirit of the law).

Unfortunately, even if the above were true, his action contravened the law in '96 and most recent tests supposedly (I say "supposedly" because Ive never bothered to analyse them) confirm that his action is at the outer most limit of tolerances available to bowlers and far out-do those applicable to other bowlers.

 

[Slow Love™]

Unlike other instances where the umpire is called into play, we are talking about a case where umpires had literally tens of thousands of opportunities to make a call. It's not split second - it's over after over, year after year, bowler after bowler.

That doesn't change the point. You don't dictate "the truth" solely by what an umpire adjudicates. So calling McGrath's deliveries (at the time that no flexion whatsoever was allowed) legal is a falsehood. And I think you know it.

Why, then, do you think Murali was singled out?

Luck of the draw?

Racial discrimination?

Or merely the fact that he was the most blatant chucker (as defined under the superseded laws) that there's been in history.

The fact that his action to the naked eye, bent elbow and all, suggested that he was doing something that other bowlers were not. As it happens, they were all doing it, many to comparable degrees. We've been through this already, and I have no idea why you're asking me this question.

I don't really understand where you're coming from on this issue, because you'll agree that the laws were wrong and that Murali was unfortunate one minute, and then contradict it the next, in order to continue to suggest that, in fact, Murali should have been targeted (and maybe still should be?).

 

[Slow Love™]

Perversely, I agree with you both when you say that, given today's laws, what happened 10 years ago is largely irrelevant. But for people such as C C to claim that it should never have happened and to base this argument on data collected in non-controlled environments years after the event is absolute nonsense.

Well, I believe C_C is saying that Hair's call was justified given the circumstances and he may also have been unfairly criticized. I think it's maybe other posters still making that an issue.

 

[C_C]

Unfortunately, even if the above were true, his action contravened the law in '96 and most recent tests supposedly (I say "supposedly" because Ive never bothered to analyse them) confirm that his action is at the outer most limit of tolerances available to bowlers and far out-do those applicable to other bowlers.

And yet again, thats irrelevant. Old law is utterly irrelevant and whether he was guilty by old law or not does not matter one iota.
What matters is that the old laws were wrong and therefore had flaws in them. It asked the almost impossible from the players ( to bowl with their arms absolutely without bending) and failed to pick up the basic fact that most players were breaking that law.

And as far as recent tests show, the flexion on the arm is primarily dependent on the rate it is being rotated. ( 3 joints and counteracting forces in the three joints, producing a net torque on the elbow- do you really want to get into the biomechanics of it ? I know cricket enthusiasts who are biomechanists you know)
Not the speed at which the ball is being bowled. Ie, it is dependent on the arm action ( primarily that is, different bowling poses and styles exert different torques but the governing principle is that torque in the elbow is produced by the arm action).

As such, Murali, despite bowling a lot slower than McGrath, is in the same ballpark as McGrath when it comes to flexion - a difference of mere 2 degrees ( out of a possible range of motion of near 180 degrees- thats just over a percent difference!)
And which is why the laws were modified and drawn inorder to take the upper median limit of the flexion into consideration as the maximum acceptable limit ( 15 degrees- Murali is within 2 degrees of that limit and there are other bowlers - with no controversy to their actions who's figures are higher than his)
Even this limit is arbitarily set, as research into this area still has yet to come to its conclusion and which is why in my opinion, there is a tolerance level associated with the limiting value.

Therefore, if you still hold on to your erroneous viewpoint( which are not grounded in facts), then you'd have to concede that McGrath is a chucker if Murali is a chucker.

Its just as simple as that.

 

[social]

That doesn't change the point. You don't dictate "the truth" solely by what an umpire adjudicates. So calling McGrath's deliveries (at the time that no flexion whatsoever was allowed) legal is a falsehood. And I think you know it.


The fact that his action to the naked eye, bent elbow and all, suggested that he was doing something that other bowlers were not. As it happens, they were all doing it, many to comparable degrees. We've been through this already, and I have no idea why you're asking me this question.

I don't really understand where you're coming from on this issue, because you'll agree that the laws were wrong and that Murali was unfortunate one minute, and then contradict it the next, in order to continue to suggest that, in fact, Murali should have been targeted (and maybe still should be?).[/QUOT

My only point is that Murali was correctly called for no-balls in '96 given the evidence available.

Likewise, other bowlers were deemed legal on the same criteria.

Should advances in technology hae proven that the results of those laws are unsustainable, change them.

As for the current laws, who knows?

For example, why is it that 15 degrees is an appropriate tolerance level for spin bowlers whereas bowlers of other types are subject to more stringent guidelines?

 

[Deja moo]

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

No, it isnt. Simply because he wasnt in the best of positions to make that call.

You cannot judge a throw/non-throw from the position behind the stumps. You can BS everyone and claim you did, but unless you're in two places at the same time, you simply couldnt have made that call.

In other words, the umpire was operating either on incomplete evidence (even for a naked-eye analysis), or on the basis of a preformed opinion, which is not what an umpire is supposed to do. So, its for you to choose which of the two, incompetence or plain bias, he was guilty of.

 

[social]

And yet again, thats irrelevant. Old law is utterly irrelevant and whether he was guilty by old law or not does not matter one iota.
What matters is that the old laws were wrong and therefore had flaws in them. It asked the almost impossible from the players ( to bowl with their arms absolutely without bending) and failed to pick up the basic fact that most players were breaking that law.

And as far as recent tests show, the flexion on the arm is primarily dependent on the rate it is being rotated. ( 3 joints and counteracting forces in the three joints, producing a net torque on the elbow- do you really want to get into the biomechanics of it ? I know cricket enthusiasts who are biomechanists you know)
Not the speed at which the ball is being bowled. Ie, it is dependent on the arm action ( primarily that is, different bowling poses and styles exert different torques but the governing principle is that torque in the elbow is produced by the arm action).

As such, Murali, despite bowling a lot slower than McGrath, is in the same ballpark as McGrath when it comes to flexion - a difference of mere 2 degrees ( out of a possible range of motion of near 180 degrees- thats just over a percent difference!)
And which is why the laws were modified and drawn inorder to take the upper median limit of the flexion into consideration as the maximum acceptable limit ( 15 degrees- Murali is within 2 degrees of that limit and there are other bowlers - with no controversy to their actions who's figures are higher than his)
Even this limit is arbitarily set, as research into this area still has yet to come to its conclusion and which is why in my opinion, there is a tolerance level associated with the limiting value.

Therefore, if you still hold on to your erroneous viewpoint( which are not grounded in facts), then you'd have to concede that McGrath is a chucker if Murali is a chucker.

Its just as simple as that.

Firstly, the old law is the only thing that's relevant as it was under that law that he was found to be in breach.

Secondly, I respectfully suggest that you have misinterpreted the advice of these so-called bio-mechanists or that you have simply asked them the wrong questions because it is not plausible that Murali has the same arm speed as McGrath or that other well known chucker, Chaminda Vaas.

 

[social]

No, it isnt. Simply because he wasnt in the best of positions to make that call.

You cannot judge a throw/non-throw from the position behind the stumps. You can BS everyone and claim you did, but unless you're in two places at the same time, you simply couldnt have made that call.

In other words, the umpire was operating either on incomplete evidence (even for a naked-eye analysis), or on the basis of a preformed opinion, which is not what an umpire is supposed to do. So, its for you to choose which of the two, incompetence or plain bias, he was guilty of.

Take it up with the testers.

On a good day, Murali straightens his arm on an average of 14 degrees during the course of delivery.

In other words, Dazza was right.

 

[C_C]

Firstly, the old law is the only thing that's relevant as it was under that law that he was found to be in breach.

Secondly, I respectfully suggest that you have misinterpreted the advice of these so-called bio-mechanists or that you have simply asked them the wrong questions because it is not plausible that Murali has the same arm speed as McGrath or that other well known chucker, Chaminda Vaas.

1. By that logic, you'd want to uphold the incarceration of Galeleo as a just thing since according to the old laws of his time, he was grossly in error. That is essentially the same analogy you are using.

2. I also, respectfully suggest that you seek to inform yourself about the principles behind the rotation of the arm and stress related flexion at the pivot points before you form an opinion.
Your observation, that Murali cannot have the same arm speed as McGrath is categorically wrong and anyone who's bowled seriously can tell you that how fast your rotate your arm has very little bearing to how fast you bowl. Which is why Akram ( and lately Agarkar) has/had one of the fastest arm actions in history of cricket- faster arm actions than bowlers considerably faster than them ( such as Akhtar, Lee, etc.)
And if Vaas is a chucker in your books, Lee most definately should be considered a chucker as well and so too should be McGrath.
Please educate yourself in the matter before forming an opinion simply out of your perceptions and instincts.

 

[C_C]

Take it up with the testers.

On a good day, Murali straightens his arm on an average of 14 degrees during the course of delivery.

In other words, Dazza was right.

And on a good day, McGrath straightens his arm an average of 12 degrees during the course of delivery.
Your point ?
There is a very good reason why ICC scrapped the ridiculous '5 deg for spinner/10 deg for fast bowlers' rule and made it a general rule based on the upper median range of the flexion values.
And that reason is simply the fact that bowling speeds do not correlate to arm flexion, but arm speed most definately does in a critical fashion.

Which is why when some of the fast bowlers were bowling off-cutters/leg cutters ( deliveries that are 5-6mph slower than their stock balls) their flexion angles were higher. Simply because their arm speeds also happened to go up. ( Not true for every single bowler bowling off-cutters but enough to suggest that speed is not a factor, arm speed is).

Like i said, kindly inform yourself about the biomechanical principles that govern this kind of motion. And while i am no expert in it, i did look into it and applied my knowledge of physics to get a decent understanding of the phenomena.

 

[social]

And on a good day, McGrath straightens his arm an average of 12 degrees during the course of delivery.
Your point ?
There is a very good reason why ICC scrapped the ridiculous '5 deg for spinner/10 deg for fast bowlers' rule and made it a general rule based on the upper median range of the flexion values.
And that reason is simply the fact that bowling speeds do not correlate to arm flexion, but arm speed most definately does in a critical fashion.

Which is why when some of the fast bowlers were bowling off-cutters/leg cutters ( deliveries that are 5-6mph slower than their stock balls) their flexion angles were higher. Simply because their arm speeds also happened to go up. ( Not true for every single bowler bowling off-cutters but enough to suggest that speed is not a factor, arm speed is).

Like i said, kindly inform yourself about the biomechanical principles that govern this kind of motion. And while i am no expert in it, i did look into it and applied my knowledge of physics to get a decent understanding of the phenomena.

Kindly explain to me how McGrath's degree of flexion is in any way, shape or form related to Murali being no-balled in '96.

Murali got caught.

He was guilty.

He didnt get punished.

Case over.

 

[social]

1. By that logic, you'd want to uphold the incarceration of Galeleo as a just thing since according to the old laws of his time, he was grossly in error. That is essentially the same analogy you are using.

2. I also, respectfully suggest that you seek to inform yourself about the principles behind the rotation of the arm and stress related flexion at the pivot points before you form an opinion.
Your observation, that Murali cannot have the same arm speed as McGrath is categorically wrong and anyone who's bowled seriously can tell you that how fast your rotate your arm has very little bearing to how fast you bowl. Which is why Akram ( and lately Agarkar) has/had one of the fastest arm actions in history of cricket- faster arm actions than bowlers considerably faster than them ( such as Akhtar, Lee, etc.)
And if Vaas is a chucker in your books, Lee most definately should be considered a chucker as well and so too should be McGrath.
Please educate yourself in the matter before forming an opinion simply out of your perceptions and instincts.

Obviously you know precious little about bowling.

Hardly surprising, the last great Canadian/enginner/asian fast bowler was ...............

 

[C_C]

For example, why is it that 15 degrees is an appropriate tolerance level for spin bowlers whereas bowlers of other types are subject to more stringent guidelines?

Yet again, your information is false.
The appropriate tolerance level for spinners are not subject to any more stringent guidelines than pacers.
According to the ICC article, 'Regulations for the review of bowlers reported with suspect illegal bowling action', which is accessible from the ICC website, subsection ' ICC standard analysis protocols' , section six :

"This should be set at a maximum of 15 degrees 'Elbow extension' for all bowlers of all types of deliveries.This specifically refers to the extension of the forearm relative to the upper arm to the straight position.Elbow hyperextension or adduction is not included in the 15-degree tolerance threshold"


And if you bother reading through the article, you'd find that all bowlers are subject to the same tests and have to meet the same criteria to pass the 'chucking test'. Atleast,that is what the law says.

In short, your abovementioned comment( that i quoted) is patently false.

 

[Slow Love™]

My only point is that Murali was correctly called for no-balls in '96 given the evidence available.

Likewise, other bowlers were deemed legal on the same criteria.

Yes, but incorrectly. Once you accept that all bowlers were transgressing, you realise why the rules had to be changed - it was a choice of introducing a realistic limit or banning/suspending them all. My main point is that it's wrong to isolate Hair, because everybody was chucking according to the old rules - but all the umpires judged their deliveries as legal, and didn't call them. In that, you, C_C and I seem to agree.

But you also seem to be arguing that, because the other bowlers weren't called, their deliveries were legal in hindsight. That's plainly irrational. Their deliveries were illegal, it's just that they weren't caught.

Should advances in technology hae proven that the results of those laws are unsustainable, change them.

As for the current laws, who knows?

For example, why is it that 15 degrees is an appropriate tolerance level for spin bowlers whereas bowlers of other types are subject to more stringent guidelines?

I didn't think they were. I was under the impression that 15 degrees was the level of tolerance for all bowlers.

 

[social]

Yet again, your information is false.
The appropriate tolerance level for spinners are not subject to any more stringent guidelines than pacers.
According to the ICC article, 'Regulations for the review of bowlers reported with suspect illegal bowling action', which is accessible from the ICC website, subsection ' ICC standard analysis protocols' , section six :

"This should be set at a maximum of 15 degrees 'Elbow extension' for all bowlers of all types of deliveries.This specifically refers to the extension of the forearm relative to the upper arm to the straight position.Elbow hyperextension or adduction is not included in the 15-degree tolerance threshold"

Sorry, I was wrong.

I'm not as up to speed on throwing regulations as I should be because Aus has no-one that requires constant defending.

BTW, slightly convenient that the threshold is just above Murali's level?

Or is that just an innocent coincidence?


And if you bother reading through the article, you'd find that all bowlers are subject to the same tests and have to meet the same criteria to pass the 'chucking test'. Atleast,that is what the law says.

In short, your abovementioned comment( that i quoted) is patently false.

 

[C_C]

Obviously you know precious little about bowling.

Hardly surprising, the last great Canadian/enginner/asian fast bowler was ...............

I know very little about how to bowl well, but i do understand the science and fundamental principles governing the process.
In other words, i cant do it very well but i understand it - just like a mechanical engineer can sure build a car but be a very lousy driver of the car itself.
And Canadian/Englineer/Asian/blahblah is irrelevant to the discussion as you simply being an australian doesnt make you know more about the principles at hand.
Tone down your ego and i suggest you face facts.
And remember one thing - just because you can 'do' something does not mean you understand the governing principles behind it. Which is why a great bowler need not know anything about how his arm is moving and behaving, subjected to what kind of forces, etc and the biomechanist who does need not know how to bowl at all.
Just like how Michael Schumacher can drive a car far better than Ross Brawn but he knows f-all about how the car works compared to Ross Brawn.

PS: On a side note, i used to play cricket in high school and i can bowl any delivery apart from the reverse swinger ( i was a medium pace bowler, so obviously i cannot bowl spin very well). However, i dont have the line and length to bowl successfuly at higher levels.
In short, i can pretty much bowl what i want to but i spray it around considerably.

 

[C_C]

BTW, slightly convenient that the threshold is just above Murali's level?

Like i said, if you bother reading through the article and educating yourself, ( while confirming with accurate sources), the same article, subsection ' ICC standard analysis protocols', section 3.1, the particular setting ( 15 degrees) is due to the average range of carry angles in human beings.
You can check up on its significance if you kept reading and trying to understand it.

 

[C_C]

Kindly explain to me how McGrath's degree of flexion is in any way, shape or form related to Murali being no-balled in '96.

Murali got caught.

He was guilty.

He didnt get punished.

Case over.

Irrelevant. That does not make McGrath's action in 96 legitimate according to the letter of the law. Merely he got away with it owing to faulty and erroneous detection methods where the law itself was erroneous.
Try to get your head around to that.

 

[Slow Love™]

No, it isnt. Simply because he wasnt in the best of positions to make that call.

You cannot judge a throw/non-throw from the position behind the stumps. You can BS everyone and claim you did, but unless you're in two places at the same time, you simply couldnt have made that call.

In other words, the umpire was operating either on incomplete evidence (even for a naked-eye analysis), or on the basis of a preformed opinion, which is not what an umpire is supposed to do. So, its for you to choose which of the two, incompetence or plain bias, he was guilty of.

Obviously knowing what we do now, I happen to think that the field umpires aren't really equipped to judge a degree of flexion inside 15 odd degrees full stop, but out of curiosity, what leads you to be so certain of this premise? I'm not sure how superior a view an umpire has of a minute degree of straightening in a bowler's arm from 20 metres down the strip and another 14-15 metres out horizontally at square leg.

 

[social]

I know very little about how to bowl well, but i do understand the science and fundamental principles governing the process.
In other words, i cant do it but i understand it - just like a mechanical engineer can sure build a car but be a very lousy driver of the car itself.
And Canadian/Englineer/Asian/blahblah is irrelevant to the discussion as you simply being an australian doesnt make you know more about the principles at hand.
Tone down your ego and i suggest you face facts.
And remember one thing - just because you can 'do' something does not mean you understand the governing principles behind it. Which is why a great bowler need not know anything about how his arm is moving and behaving, subjected to what kind of forces, etc and the biomechanist who does need not know how to bowl at all.
Just like how Michael Schumacher can drive a car far better than Ross Brawn but he knows f-all about how the car works compared to Ross Brawn.

Michael Schumacher is a very, very poor example.

Try someone else.

And why youre at it, dont act as if estimates of McGrath's flexion are definitive.

The guy has never been tested and all estimates were made from a distance of over 100 metres in non-controlled conditions.

As an example, NZ TV tried to apply degrees of flexion to all bowlers during this years NZ_Aus series.

They tested McGrath, and despite wearing a long sweater, they proudly announced that, in the space of an over, it varied between 2 and 9 degrees.

Those guys obviously went to the same school as you biomechanists.