*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[social]

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.

Sorry but no definitive research has been undertaken on McGrath's action (or any other previously considered legal paceman for that matter) so I suggest that you try another comparison.

Better still, before drawing conclusions from other people's work, I suggest that you determine whether it has been validated or not.

Comprendez, n'est pas?

That's french for jackass btw

 

[Slow Love™]

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.

Look, it's really not that complicated. The reason the tolerance level was increased was as a result of the in-game research. And umpires are no longer calling throwing on the field, but bowlers are being reported by the match referee for analysis if they think there's a chance the action is suspect (ie, above 15 degrees of straightening). No, it's not a perfect system, but that's how it works, and I'm sure you've seen it in action. I'm not sure I know what argument you're making, or even how this refutes what's already been said.

 

[Slow Love™]

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.

Yeah, one of the worst things I've seen happen on a cricket field (his grappling physically with an international umpire).

Plus, a couple of years ago he and his brother beat the crap out of some schoolkids who wandered into his backyard to retrieve their cricket ball. Not a nice guy.

 

[social]

Look, it's really not that complicated. The reason the tolerance level was increased was as a result of the in-game research. And umpires are no longer calling throwing on the field, but bowlers are being reported by the match referee for analysis if they think there's a chance the action is suspect (ie, above 15 degrees of straightening). No, it's not a perfect system, but that's how it works, and I'm sure you've seen it in action. I'm not sure I know what argument you're making, or even how this refutes what's already been said.

I think the main point is that the throwing situation is no clearer today than it was when Murali was called.

The only thing research has proven is that the naked eye is incapable of detecting flexion of less than 15 degrees.

Given that primary authority still vests in on-field umpires, this has become the new threshhold point but does nothing to alleviate the problem as the eye still only registers whether the arm straightens or not. It does not register degrees.

Further, the ICC admits that lab testing is not reliable and has not to date validated any match situation testing. As such, injured parties will always protest in the manner that Murali and his supporters have and will always win a reprieve.

How does this affect Murali today?

Murali would never be called today. As has been the case for the past several years, he'd be sent to a lab, cleared, and bowl again soon thereafter without anyone being any the wiser as to whether he was legal or not.

However, he will justifiably carry the stigma of being the last man called for throwing for the remainder of his career.

Fair? - if you believe in the umpire's authority, it has to be.

In accordance with the law - every time.

 

[C_C]

drivel biomechanics defence

For the umpteenth time, do you really not get the idea that you have no clue about what you are saying here ?
For everyone's sake, kindly understand what you speak of before you question the validity of it. And for your information, your reasoning is erroneous, as its been categorically proved here.

Sorry but no definitive research has been undertaken on McGrath's action (or any other previously considered legal paceman for that matter) so I suggest that you try another comparison.

Since you seem to know more than biomechanics experts about what constitutes 'definitive' in relation to movements of the arm and its capabilities/behaviour, kindly state what criterias and what error margins you consider as 'definitive' and substantiate your reasoning behind it.
Otherwise, just do us all a favour and LEARN what you are talking about !

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

No it was not the only thing done. In ICC champion's trophy few years ago, several bowlers of different bowling types were investigated and the margin of error achieved in those measurements are quite close to Murali's margin of error in lab conditions.
But apparently you seem to think you know more about margin of errors than scientists, how the arm behaves better than biomechanists and how optical 2-d projections work better than electronic engineers.
All the power to you.
You seem to be arguing simply for the sake of it and arrogantly holding on to your illogical viewpoint despite bucketloads of facts to prove otherwise- perhaps you dont understand these facts which is why you are so adamant at holding on to your erroneous views.

But i suppose i will have to re-evaluate my opinions about science and what constitutes a legitimate scientific survey. ( btw- even if ICC doesnt accept it, its still irrelevant to the validity of the research- the ICC chiefs arn't exactly science experts themselves)
I will also, apparently it would seem, have to consider the rather frightening possibility that George Bush Jr. is the foremost authority in nuclear physics on this planet.

 

[C_C]

Fair? - if you believe in the umpire's authority, it has to be.

In accordance with the law - every time.

Contradictory.
The entire purpose of law is to be fair, which is essentially doing the right thing. And which is why you have all charges dismissed against certain 'convicted murderers' in light to NEW EVIDENCE .

I will not debate this matter further with you until you gain more knowledge about what you speak. For it would be a waste of my time. A bit like trying to convince a total duncehead religious fanatic that the Earth cannot be 7000 years old.
Now, grow up and go learn !

 

[Maison]

Yeah, one of the worst things I've seen happen on a cricket field (his grappling physically with an international umpire).

Plus, a couple of years ago he and his brother beat the crap out of some schoolkids who wandered into his backyard to retrieve their cricket ball. Not a nice guy.

err, who does that, no wonder warney hates him...

oh well, ranga could hate warne for his 'dodgy marriage'

 

[social]

CC

So your validating a report that wasnt accepted by the ICC without ever having read it.

That really sums you up.

In fact, let's sum up your argument to date.

You claim that Murali should not have been no-balled 10 years ago because a report (that was not validated by the body that commissioned it and which youve never read) claims that the flexion apparent in Murali's action 8 years later (identified in lab testing that was subsequently discredited by the ICC) is not appreciably greater than that exhibited in Glenn McGrath's action (despite the fact that he's never been tested).

As a result, it's all horribly unfair.

Sheer Genius

Your honor,

can you please tell me which village is missing theor idiot?

 

[social]

Contradictory.
The entire purpose of law is to be fair, which is essentially doing the right thing. And which is why you have all charges dismissed against certain 'convicted murderers' in light to NEW EVIDENCE .

I will not debate this matter further with you until you gain more knowledge about what you speak. For it would be a waste of my time. A bit like trying to convince a total duncehead religious fanatic that the Earth cannot be 7000 years old.
Now, grow up and go learn !

Where is the new evidence?

Dont tell me that youre relying on a report that hasnt been accepted and that youve never read.

As a scientist, I might have expected more.

As an engineer, that's par for the course.

 

[C_C]

Where is the new evidence?

Dont tell me that youre relying on a report that hasnt been accepted and that youve never read.

As a scientist, I might have expected more.

As an engineer, that's par for the course.

*promises himself this is the last post on this thread on this topic*

1. You know f-all about scientists and engineers - that much is evident. So kindly shut up about what is par for whom- you don't have the knowledge or information to make that determination.

2. Don't assume that i havn't read the report.

3. ICC's acceptance ( they are NOT a scientific body) is irrelevant to the validity of the report- its a bit like saying if Bush govt. doesnt accept scientific proof of global warming, then global warming doesnt exist.

Now, i am gonna f-off this conversation where you are arguing without a clue simply for the sheer arrogance of your viewpoint( which is not based on facts OR understanding the process- just some arbitary and ludicrous notions you hold and think are better at than experts).

PS: Whether you accept the facts or stick to your ludicrous notions, the fact remains that arm speed is independent of bowling speeds. Which is why murali has an extremely fast arm action ( measured- info is out there and you can find it if you look) but bowls quite slow and Akram had one of the fastest arm action ever despite mostly bowling in the high 80s/low 90s zone.
But i wouldnt expect someone as arrogant as you to accept observed and credible data. You are too caught up in your opinion and your mind is already made up without understanding a lick of what you are talking about.
And next time you deciede to belittle a scientist in matters of science, i would ask YOU to demonstrate some knowledge of science first. A farmer has no business instructing a scientist in science just like how a scientist has no business instructing a farmer on how to milk his cows.

 

[social]

*promises himself this is the last post on this thread on this topic*

1. You know f-all about scientists and engineers - that much is evident. So kindly shut up about what is par for whom- you don't have the knowledge or information to make that determination.

2. Don't assume that i havn't read the report.

3. ICC's acceptance ( they are NOT a scientific body) is irrelevant to the validity of the report- its a bit like saying if Bush govt. doesnt accept scientific proof of global warming, then global warming doesnt exist.

Now, i am gonna f-off this conversation where you are arguing without a clue simply for the sheer arrogance of your viewpoint( which is not based on facts OR understanding the process- just some arbitary and ludicrous notions you hold and think are better at than experts).

Brilliant

But what more could you expect from a man that claims spinners have higher arm speed than pace bowlers.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I am not saying what Hair did was COMPLETELY wrong. But it was very suspicious. First of all, he called him from the bowler's end, which was funny in itself and secondly, he must have ATLEAST considered that it was a close issue. He was saying CATEGORICALLY that Murali was chucking. Lots of explayers and media shared this view, but there is a reason why those blokes are not umpires. The other umpires knew that it was not something BEYOND DOUBT that he was chucking and they didn't call him. Are you saying that Hair is a better umpire than Bird, Shep and Venkat?

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I honestly always felt that his chucking was within some permitted limits, esp. after the second incident. And I always ALSO felt that a lot of other blokes were getting away with straightening their elbow, India's Manoj Prabhakar being a prime example.

 

[honestbharani]

Murali won't ever be treated as one of the best ever here in Aus i think, cos if he were born here he'd have never played test cricket. He woulda been laughed off the park

Feeling proud of rejecting geniuses, eh?

 

[honestbharani]

The issue being discussed is not whether Murali's action contravenes the modified law, which it apparently doesnt, but whether it was justified to call him nearly a decade ago under a different interpretation of the law.

And, btw, dont point the finger at Aus exclusively. It was hardly a localised phenomenon.

There were/are more number of Aussies who disrespect him and treat him in a way he doesn't deserve to be, than there in other countries. That is as obvious as Hair making the correct call seems to be for you.

 

[honestbharani]

Good job on defending Hair. He copped alot of flak he didn't deserve. I mean, on first watching Murali you think, holy crap how is it they allow this guy to bowl? As you've said the rule at that time was that if the umpire felt the bowler was chucking then he should call no-ball. What is amazing, is that other umpires didn't do the same.

I have always thought the same thing about Brett Lee. How the hell was he allowed to bowl in 1999?

 

[Maison]

I have always thought the same thing about Brett Lee. How the hell was he allowed to bowl in 1999?

er :/

well because it didnt look 'blatantly obvious', besides say i have selective memory, but i dont remember lee's action having any "glitches" ?

 

[honestbharani]

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.

My point is the same as CC's, except that I am still amazed at how CONVINCED Hair seems to be of the matter. IT is generally accepted that the chucking call should be done from the square leg end, which he didn't. I have spoken to Venkat a couple of times (chance meetings in a temple) and the second time, I cornered him long enough to talk about the Murali issue. And he said what I have posted earlier. He was not convinced if Murali was chucking. His action was dodgy but then again, there have been so many actions which were dodgy, perhaps in varying degrees. And he didn't wanna call the fellow for chucking when he wasn't 100% sure. I am still not sure if Hair was SO much better than the other umps at that time that he was SURE about something that so many of his contemporaries (many of them more illustrious than he ever was) were.

 

[honestbharani]

er :/

well because it didnt look 'blatantly obvious', besides say i have selective memory, but i dont remember lee's action having any "glitches" ?

His action was as blatant as Manoj Prabhakar's was. I still talk about that big flex in Prabhakar's elbow at the point of his delivery, with which he got his outswing. Brett Lee's action at that time was almost the same, except that he ran in longer, and his jump was higher and he bowled at a much quicker pace.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

The umpire stands a yard or two behind the sticks, doesn't he? And add to that the length of the popping crease, and that bowlers like Murali and Kumble basically bowl with front on actions, which means their whole back would be covering what is in front of them and add to that the way Murali bowls his deliveries (his arm never goes all that high, as his is a bent elbow action), there is enough room for doubt, which is what I am saying from the start. Hair MAY have had no ulterior motives, but it isn't obvious that he had no ulterior motives.