*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

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.

Again, dont leap to conclusions before learning about it.
My figures are not based on the average tv program doing something slick, but the ICC study undertaken during the ICC champion's trophy few years back.
The margin of error for those measurements are +/- 2 degrees while Murali's margin of error ( in the biomechanical nets of Perth) is +/- 1 degree.
Murali's effective range i belive is between 13 and 15 degrees while McGrath's effective range is between 10 and 14 degrees. There is considerable overlap and i really dont want to get into the conclusions of an analysis from a significant overlap in sample space sizes.
Just take my word for it that it leads to the conclusion that their actions have remarkably similar levels of flexion and should you wish not to take my word for it, feel free to confirm it with someone with the proper expertise in the given field.

As much as i would like to, i cannot give you a comprehensive science lecture here.

PS: Michael Schumacher - Ross Brawn is a very apt and logical analogy to great bowler- biomechanist.

 

[social]

Again, dont leap to conclusions before learning about it.
My figures are not based on the average tv program doing something slick, but the ICC study undertaken during the ICC champion's trophy few years back.
The margin of error for those measurements are +/- 2 degrees while Murali's margin of error ( in the biomechanical nets of Perth) is +/- 1 degree.
Murali's effective range i belive is between 13 and 15 degrees while McGrath's effective range is between 10 and 14 degrees. There is considerable overlap and i really dont want to get into the conclusions of an analysis from a significant overlap in sample space sizes.
Just take my word for it that it leads to the conclusion that their actions have remarkably similar levels of flexion and should you wish not to take my word for it, feel free to confirm it with someone with the proper expertise in the given field.

As much as i would like to, i cannot give you a comprehensive science lecture here.

PS: Michael Schumacher - Ross Brawn is a very apt and logical analogy to great bowler- biomechanist.

Please provide the time and date of McGrath's testing.

 

[C_C]

Please provide the time and date of McGrath's testing.

I've pointed you to the source and i am neither inclined, nor do i have the time to spoon feed you everything. Start by looking into the ICC website and talk to appropriate experts, progress to the report and then form your own decision. You'd find that there were many bowlers who were tested during that tournament with a +/- 2 degree of error margin.If you want knowledge, you have to spend some effort seeking it. And if you dont have knowledge on this, kindly desist from forming an opinion without knowing anything about it.

 

[social]

I've pointed you to the source and i am neither inclined, nor do i have the time to spoon feed you everything. Start by looking into the ICC website and talk to appropriate experts, progress to the report and then form your own decision. You'd find that there were many bowlers who were tested during that tournament with a +/- 2 degree of error margin.

So what youre saying is that McGrath was tested from outside the boundary ropes.

Kindly construct a sentence using the following words.

CC's

credibility

is

of

out

window

the

 

[C_C]

So what youre saying is that McGrath was tested from outside the boundary ropes.

Kindly construct a sentence using the following words.

Irrelevant whether McGrath was tested from 2 feet, 20 feet, 200 feet, with a chip planted on how bone or while sitting on another planet.
What is relevant is the margin of error in the measurement.
For that relates to how accurately you are measuring your data and that is the whole point- accurately measuring your data, not being in intimate close contact with the source of your data.

Like i said, if you think my credibility is out of the window, kindly talk to someone who is an expert on this topic as i have and then try to understand what he is saying.

And the very least you can do, given that i've told you that i am an engineering student ( and you are not an expert in the relevant field of instrumentation), not dispute my knowledge of uncertainty analysis. That is the fundamental bedrock of any person in the field of science doing any sort of study.

 

[Slow Love™]

Please provide the time and date of McGrath's testing.

I know you didn't ask me, and I probably couldn't come up with the time and dates of Murali's testing, but this might be useful, I guess:

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/141718.html

McGrath: "When I found out that the testing could be done in match situations with high-speed cameras, and a few of us had already been tested, I started thinking it was a good idea. It already shows that people like myself and Shaun Pollock who people say have pretty sound actions, that we have a bit of a flex of 10-12 degrees."

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

Or is that just an innocent coincidence?

What do you reckon it should have been - 13 degrees to make sure McGrath and Pollock were OK?

 

[social]

Irrelevant whether McGrath was tested from 2 feet, 20 feet, 200 feet, with a chip planted on how bone or while sitting on another planet.
What is relevant is the margin of error in the measurement.
For that relates to how accurately you are measuring your data and that is the whole point- accurately measuring your data, not being in intimate close contact with the source of your data.

Like i said, if you think my credibility is out of the window, kindly talk to someone who is an expert on this topic as i have and then try to understand what he is saying.

And the very least you can do, given that i've told you that i am an engineering student ( and you are not an expert in the relevant field of instrumentation), not dispute my knowledge of uncertainty analysis. That is the fundamental bedrock of any person in the field of science doing any sort of study.

2 cameras from outside the boundary at 250 frames per second.

I get 4 * the coverage at home.

Fancy a scientist trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Well, I never.

 

[social]

Thanks for pointing the ICC's web-site out to me CC

The ICC's own biomechanists estimate that the human eye cant pick up flexion below 15 degrees.

Makes you wonder how Murali is so obvious.

Also interesting how the players give no credibility to lab testing as it is too easy to "change your action."

Puts a whole new perspective on the validity of remedial action.

Explains why Lawson etc are repeat offenders.

 

[C_C]

2 cameras from outside the boundary at 250 frames per second.

I get 4 * the coverage at home.

Fancy a scientist trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Well, I never.

Or fancy someone with no clue about whats going on trying to invalidate people who are authorities in this field of study ?
Like i said and i will say again - kindly learn the basic principles in place here and irrelevant of how many numbers you present ( without having much understanding of it), what matters is the margin of error in the final variable for determining the study's validity, not what is the shutter speed of the camera ( for example, shutter speed is irrelevant without resolution of the cameras in question along with frame by frame analysis from super-imposing and simultaneously analysing multiple frames of reference for the exact same time-frame of the analysis.

Your coverage at home in tv is irrelevant as a tv is projecting a 2-dimensional image of a 3-dimensional image ( should you wish to get into images and complex variable analysis- such as analytic functions, i suggest you educate yourself in basic calculus first. Function mapping happens to be one of my strong suits, given that i am an electrical/electronics engineer).
It is irrelevant to an analysis done with simultaneous and multiple camera angles to accurately map a 3-d motion.

You are bordering on the absurd right now- challenging the validity of a scientific research without posessing any information or expertise in the field.
Like i said, try to learn about it and be open to information - information that is required and information that you lack.
I am gonna discontinue this discussion right now, as you are arguing simply for the sake of it, without understanding the processes before drawing your conclusion from it, based on your absurd notions and ideas about biomechanics.

 

[C_C]

Thanks for pointing the ICC's web-site out to me CC

The ICC's own biomechanists estimate that the human eye cant pick up flexion below 15 degrees.

Makes you wonder how Murali is so obvious.

Also interesting how the players give no credibility to lab testing as it is too easy to "change your action."

Puts a whole new perspective on the validity of remedial action.

Explains why Lawson etc are repeat offenders.

Because what you see is the product of three joints, two of which can move in two planes and the third in three planes. The effective interactions of the motion of these joints in unision, in different planes, form an overall optical illusion. An optical illusion is the image of something when it really isnt there, such as the 'watery patch' near the horizon of a desert, aka a mirage.

Essentially the difference is aesthetics. No one is saying that Murali has a beautiful action, but it is every bit as valid and legal as the most beautiful action in world cricket today.

You are simply hell-bent on repeating the mantra that Murali's action is shady when facts prove that it is no more shady than McGrath's.

Now kindly educate yourself on this before you keep spouting nonsense and draw conclusions about something you dont understand. A bit like George Bush trying to draw conclusions about the nuclear processes in a nuclear power plant without knowing basic nuclear physics. I have very little inclination to debate someone who is hell-bent on arguing something he does not understand. Over and out.

 

[Slow Love™]

2 cameras from outside the boundary at 250 frames per second.

I get 4 * the coverage at home.

Fancy a scientist trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Well, I never.

I don't know if you think you've done a grand job in arguing your case, but if you do, you're likely the only one. You've been shown to be at best uninformed and at worst plain wrong when it comes to whether bowlers were transgressing the old laws, what research has been done (and what the new laws actually are!) and then you shout "AHA! I win!" when you find that there's been testing done in real match conditions, despite constantly pooh-poohing laboratory tests because they don't replicate what happens in real match conditions.

Um... OK then. Not worth it.

 

[Deja moo]

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.

meh. In other words, you have absolutely no explanation for how the umpire reached his conclusion by means of anything other than guesswork or plain preconceptions. Figures .

 

[Deja moo]

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.

Its looking at it from a practical pov. Just standing behind the stumps personally while a bowlers bowling is enough see how Hairs claims of being able to judge Murali well were pretty much ********. Besides, arent his eyes supposed to be on the crease at the point of delivery to detect over-stepping ? Look at it whichever way, hes been guilty of incompetence on many counts.

I could umpire a game, stand with eyes closed, and declare a batsman out lbw. Now the mere fact that a batsman could actually, by extreme coincidence, happen to be leg-before in that instance wouldnt give my methods any more credibility than they deserve. I couldnt go parrotting about how I ahppened to be right even though my methods were worth donkeys balls. This isnt a multiple-choice exam where I could toss a coin and get away with an A on my report card. Umpiring deals with methodology, and Hair hasnt an inch of ground to stand on when it comes to that, simply because he cannot credibly explain the journey to his conclusion.

 

[Slow Love™]

Its looking at it from a practical pov. Just standing behind the stumps personally while a bowlers bowling is enough see how Hairs claims of being able to judge Murali well were pretty much ********. Besides, arent his eyes supposed to be on the crease at the point of delivery to detect over-stepping ? Look at it whichever way, hes been guilty of incompetence on many counts.

I could umpire a game, stand with eyes closed, and declare a batsman out lbw. Now the mere fact that a batsman could actually, by extreme coincidence, happen to be leg-before in that instance wouldnt give my methods any more credibility than they deserve. I couldnt go parrotting about how I ahppened to be right even though my methods were worth donkeys balls. This isnt a multiple-choice exam where I could toss a coin and get away with an A on my report card. Umpiring deals with methodology, and Hair hasnt an inch of ground to stand on when it comes to that, simply because he cannot credibly explain the journey to his conclusion.

Yeah, but obviously I'm not defending social's argumentative technique (and I rate his engineer/scientist trashtalking a C- ). You're avoiding my question a tad.

What I'm asking is, assuming that an umpire in the field could accurately discern an arm straightening (which all umpires previous and the governing body did assume), would you really be so better off standing a length of a pitch away and an additional 14 metres horizontally outwards? I'm not really that convinced. For instance, Ranatunga wanted Emerson to stand forward from his regular position so that he couldn't see Murali's action.

 

[social]

Or fancy someone with no clue about whats going on trying to invalidate people who are authorities in this field of study ?
Like i said and i will say again - kindly learn the basic principles in place here and irrelevant of how many numbers you present ( without having much understanding of it), what matters is the margin of error in the final variable for determining the study's validity, not what is the shutter speed of the camera ( for example, shutter speed is irrelevant without resolution of the cameras in question along with frame by frame analysis from super-imposing and simultaneously analysing multiple frames of reference for the exact same time-frame of the analysis.

Your coverage at home in tv is irrelevant as a tv is projecting a 2-dimensional image of a 3-dimensional image ( should you wish to get into images and complex variable analysis- such as analytic functions, i suggest you educate yourself in basic calculus first. Function mapping happens to be one of my strong suits, given that i am an electrical/electronics engineer).
It is irrelevant to an analysis done with simultaneous and multiple camera angles to accurately map a 3-d motion.

You are bordering on the absurd right now- challenging the validity of a scientific research without posessing any information or expertise in the field.
Like i said, try to learn about it and be open to information - information that is required and information that you lack.
I am gonna discontinue this discussion right now, as you are arguing simply for the sake of it, without understanding the processes before drawing your conclusion from it, based on your absurd notions and ideas about biomechanics.

And why dont you read the ICC's own report.

Firstly, it was an experiment specifically relating to slow bowlers' actions.

Secondly, the ICC admitted that it had no validity at all.

Thirdly, the ICC confirmed that the principal adjudicator as to the validity of a bowler's action remained the umpire on the field.

In other words, for the past 20 or so pages, you've been sprouting rubbish about McGrath and anything else that you could think of in a futile attempt to turn back the clock.

 

[Deja moo]

Yeah, but obviously I'm not defending social's argumentative technique (and I rate his engineer/scientist trashtalking a C- ). You're avoiding my question a tad.

What I'm asking is, assuming that an umpire in the field could accurately discern an arm straightening (which all umpires previous and the governing body did assume), would you really be so better off standing a length of a pitch away and an additional 14 metres horizontally outwards? I'm not really that convinced. For instance, Ranatunga wanted Emerson to stand forward from his regular position so that he couldn't see Murali's action.

I have no idea regarding the square leg position tbh. The fact that I have never stepped onto one of those big Aussie grounds doesnt help matters .. And, I dont quite understand your last sentence too, sl. Do you mean forward from his position behind the wickets, or forwards from his square leg position ? And I'm not sure I understand what you're stating as Ranatungas intent too, for if he wants to actually obstruct the umps' view, hes really overstepping his brief, isnt he ?

 

[social]

I don't know if you think you've done a grand job in arguing your case, but if you do, you're likely the only one. You've been shown to be at best uninformed and at worst plain wrong when it comes to whether bowlers were transgressing the old laws, what research has been done (and what the new laws actually are!) and then you shout "AHA! I win!" when you find that there's been testing done in real match conditions, despite constantly pooh-poohing laboratory tests because they don't replicate what happens in real match conditions.

Um... OK then. Not worth it.

READ THE LAWS.

It is absolutely irrelevant what research has been done.

Unless the umpire on the field recommends otherwise, there is never a case to answer.

In this regard, nothing has changed since '96.

The only thing that has changed is that a tolerance level of 15 degrees has been imposed BUT even the ICC admits that it is almost impossible to administer as labratory conditions are different to match conditions.

Enjoy.

 

[Slow Love™]

I have no idea regarding the square leg position tbh. The fact that I have never stepped onto one of those big Aussie grounds doesnt help matters .. And, I dont quite understand your last sentence too, sl. Do you mean forward from his position behind the wickets, or forwards from his square leg position ? And I'm not sure I understand what you're stating as Ranatungas intent too, for if he wants to actually obstruct the umps' view, hes really overstepping his brief, isnt he ?

The incident where Ranatunga "manhandled" Emerson was when he tried to shift him closer to the stumps (at the bowlers' end) so that he had far less room to see Murali's action at the point of delivery. And yeah, you could call that Ranatunga overstepping his brief.

 

[Deja moo]

The incident where Ranatunga "manhandled" Emerson was when he tried to shift him closer to the stumps (at the bowlers' end) so that he had far less room to see Murali's action at the point of delivery. And yeah, you could call that Ranatunga overstepping his brief.

muddled thinking all round.. I was aware of only the finger wagging and the walking off.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ranatunga is actually one of the few international cricketers I really don't have any respect for. The way he handled the entire Murali affair and the relations with the Australian team (who were certainly not at fault) over it was just shocking.

He was a solid ODI batsman and a good captain, but as a sportsman I don't think very much of him at all.