*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Ikki]

Oh I got it. The point is, under the original laws with what we know about natural human movement now, that McGrath wouldn't have been called is a function of lack of information, not a correct decision. The old law said that no bending then subsequent straightening was allowed. It made no distinction between natural or deliberate flexion because it was predicated on the assumption that any flexion must have been deliberate. Therefore, by the letter of the law and allowing for the fact no-one can bowl without natural flexion, everyone 'chucked'. This isn't a measure saying every deliberately threw it highlighted a logical deficiency in the law itself. Hence it has now been rectified.

Oh god...you're really missing a lot of my posts while posting something I've already answered to. Yes by the LETTER OF THE LAW which was WRITTEN it was flawed and in such a way that even someone who was culturally accepted like McGrath is guilty in chucking. What I argued that what was not written YET adhered to was the correct interpretation of what it was to bowl. Now you can go on and cast doubt on whatever points you like simply because it wasn't written...but if you really think that there wasn't a clear idea on what it was to bowl...then I really gotta hope others have more sense.

 

[Ikki]

The downside is that umpires are now not able to correctly judge (to acceptable standards) whether a bowler throws in real-time. Why? No-one can, at full-speed, see a bowler bowling with 10 degrees of flexion and another with 16 degrees and be able to tell the difference with certainty. This obviously creates problems with delays in adjudication but personally, I'd rather get it right and avoid ending someone's career unnecessarily and sacrifice real-time (but ultimately non-precise) adjudication by on-field umpires.

A myth. Some spinners have quicker arm-speeds than pace-bowlers at Test-level even. This is the crux of the point; it is an illusion that you can actually determine whether a bowler is flexing illegally or not, regardless of whether you think you can. The human eye has limits and you're effectively arguing that yours exceeds them. With some spinners it may be a little bit easier if you're lucky but even then, not to a satisfactory level of precision were I the bowler in question. Even with someone who has eagle-eyes, I'd be demanding lab tests before any determination is made on the legality or otherwise of my bowling. You may THINK you can tell but I bet if I conducted an experiment where I was able to eliminate natural bias (by showing footage of both pace and spin bowlers but only showing you the arm itself so you couldn't tell which was which), you'd be wrong more often than you were right by some distance. It's not a criticism of you, it's that NO-ONE can be as precise as standards require.

I didn't argue about umpires being able to tell the flexion angles or anything of biomechanical relevance. If you're answering me and my beliefs, refer to my interpretation of what it means to chuck. In that, you know it IS possible to tell...and if you think just because a spinner can have a fast arm-action no one can tell...I'd like to introduce you to "slow-motion replay".

 

[Top_Cat]

What I argued that what was not written YET adhered to was the correct interpretation of what it was to bowl.

So you have some 'cultural definition' of what it is to bowl and everyone 'seems' to conform to it. With added information (i.e. scientific analysis), it's determined that the 'culture' had to change because it was wrong. What what's your response? Insistance that the 'culturally-agreed' way of bowling was correct and that bowlers today conform to the old way, despite evidence that that the old method is missing information about 'what it is to bowl'.

What the.....?

Excuse me if I take what you're saying as trying to make data fit a theory rather than coming up with a theory that fits your data.

but if you really think that there wasn't a clear idea on what it was to bowl...then I really gotta hope others have more sense.

Like the ICC who saw so much 'sense' in the original laws that it changed them?

And before you arrogantly assume that I've never played the game in my life like you did with C_C, I can tell you any assertion would be wrong.

 

[Top_Cat]

I didn't argue about umpires being able to tell the flexion angles or anything of biomechanical relevance. If you're answering me and my beliefs, refer to my interpretation of what it means to chuck. In that, you know it IS possible to tell...and if you think just because a spinner can have a fast arm-action no one can tell...I'd like to introduce you to "slow-motion replay".

You're not serious are you?

So you'd have me believe you can tell whether a bowler bowls within the 15 degree limit just based on a slow-mo replay without using any measuring instruments of any kind?

Geez, forget it. It's pretty clear there's no point in continuing if you believe that. You may as well believe you can tell the distance between planets by measuring between the two objects in the sky with your thumb and index finger and saying "The distance is........THIS much."

 

[Ikki]

So you have some 'cultural definition' of what it is to bowl and everyone 'seems' to conform to it. With added information (i.e. scientific analysis), it's determined that the 'culture' had to change because it was wrong. What what's your response? Insistance that the 'culturally-agreed' way of bowling was correct and that bowlers today conform to the old way, despite evidence that that the old method is missing information about 'what it is to bowl'.

What the.....?

Excuse me if I take what you're saying as trying to make data fit a theory rather than coming up with a theory that fits your data.



Like the ICC who saw so much 'sense' in the original laws that it changed them?

And before you arrogantly assume that I've never played the game in my life like you did with C_C, I can tell you any assertion would be wrong.

No 'mate' with you I have the assumption that you lack reading-comprehension. I'll try to explain this for the nth time: What was 'culturally' accepted was not wrong in it's interpretation of what it was to bowl. The attempt to define it was however. This definition was flawed...what you're implying that everybody that bowled in the world was incorrect.

 

[social]

I did and all I found of relevance was an article almost two years old when the bowling flexion limits were 5 degrees and even then it says;

After the tests, conducted with state-of-the-art technology at the Biomechanics Laboratory in UWA, the conclusion in the Bowling Report is that "Mr. Muralitharan be permitted to continue bowling his `doosra' at least until a valid data base is collected on the various spin bowling disciplines. The relatively minor level of elbow extension following remediation over the period from arm horizontal to release is not believed to give Mr. Muralitharan an unfair advantage over batsmen or other bowlers".

That's a direct quote from the UWA report.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/04/29/stories/2004042905562200.htm

The response was that obviously 5 degrees for spinners and 10 for pace bowlers was too small a margin considering measurements of mean flexions of most bowlers so the decision was made to increase it to 15 degrees. That was common-sense. At that point there wasn't a data set which was extensive enough to determine what the flexion limits should have been. Once the data was collected, the 15 degree limit came along.

Even the original UWA report was done before the 15 degree limit came along;

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2004/may/15murali.htm

Either way, still no mention of anyone saying it's impossible to bowl the doosra inside of the limits. Again, an example?

Mate, if I can find it (and it is a full transcript of everything relating to Murali's latest test) anyone can

 

[Ikki]

You're not serious are you?

So you'd have me believe you can tell whether a bowler bowls within the 15 degree limit just based on a slow-mo replay without using any measuring instruments of any kind?

Geez, forget it. It's pretty clear there's no point in continuing if you believe that. You may as well believe you can tell the distance between planets by measuring between the two objects in the sky with your thumb and index finger and saying "The distance is........THIS much."

This response is really asinine. Either that of you're purposefully misconstruding what I am saying in which it is rather sinister. I have no argument in umpires not being able to tell the difference in flexion while real-time bowling is taking place. What I am arguing is that an umpire can tell who is chucking or not. However, we both have different definition on what it is to chuck or bowl properly...and in this argument...you're reading an English manual with an Italian tongue.

 

[Top_Cat]

Mate, if I can find it (and it is a full transcript of everything relating to Murali's latest test) anyone can

I typed in exactly what you said to in entirety and when it didn't work, I tried a few combinations. Nothing. So are you going to provide a link or continue dodging?

 

[Top_Cat]

This response is really asinine. Either that of you're purposefully misconstruding what I am saying in which it is rather sinister. I have no argument in umpires not being able to tell the difference in flexion while real-time bowling is taking place. What I am arguing is that an umpire can tell who is chucking or not. However, we both have different definition on what it is to chuck or bowl properly...and in this argument...you're reading an English manual with an Italian tongue.

Yet I'm not the only one to apparently misconstrue what you've said. Ever think that what you're saying is the problem or are you above that sort of 'debate' caper?

As for this;

What I am arguing is that an umpire can tell who is chucking or not.

Think about that for a second; if this was actually the case, why would anyone, least of all the ICC, change the rules and insist on very expensive biomechanical testing? Logically, this statement cannot be true. That's aside from the fact that the response of the human eye, even in a young person with 20/20 vision (let alone an aging umpire), does not, repeat, NOT possess the requisite precision to determine whether a bowler chucks or not. There is mountains of scientific evidence to support this and I've not read anything to support your position. Prove me wrong. Please.

 

[Ikki]

Yet I'm not the only one to apparently misconstrue what you've said. Ever think that what you're saying is the problem or are you above that sort of 'debate' caper?

As for this;

What I am arguing is that an umpire can tell who is chucking or not.

Think about that for a second; if this was actually the case, why would anyone, least of all the ICC, change the rules and insist on very expensive biomechanical testing? Logically, this statement cannot be true. That's aside from the fact that the response of the human eye, even in a young person with 20/20 vision (let alone an aging umpire), does not, repeat, NOT possess the requisite precision to determine whether a bowler chucks or not. There is mountains of scientific evidence to support this and I've not read anything to support your position. Prove me wrong. Please.

The ICC are looking for a full-definition in what it is to bowl legally. All the testing has been done and not by any stretch of the imagination have they done anyone a favour (a few spinners could contest this). In this understanding you're arguing that while this current definition is far off what it really means to define what a proper bowl is, at least in biomechanic limitations, and to me this is stupider than the assumption that everybody was chucking the ball.

Not only is there a problem with the current legislation determining what is a proper bowl, there is a lack of definition in regards what it is to chuck. The definition is pretty broad at the moment and many an action will (a forecast if you will) arise out of nowhere to challenge this ideal acknowledgement in what it is to bowl. However, EVEN THEN there will be this argument and people will bring examples as "well we used to bowl under arm and that changed" and so the sport will never have any strong footing and will change more drastically than it should.

Now, a lot of people in opposing this legislation do not go further and just admit that the actions are legal now based on the current limitations. Would they agree with the bowling actions of a number of players? I think you're privy to an ultimate answer in this thread. Even those that DO support it digress into arguing about status-quo and a more of 'it's better than nothing' mindset.

Where you lie is beyond me....

 

[Ikki]

Yet I'm not the only one to apparently misconstrue what you've said. Ever think that what you're saying is the problem or are you above that sort of 'debate' caper?

Yourself and C_C. What quality company you keep.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yourself and C_C. What quality company you keep.

And Dasa, one of the more respected and knowledgeable posters on CW.net.

Funnily enough, both C_C and I are scientists. And, I might add, don't agree on everything (hoo boy, I remember when he first got here). The above is a snide and childish remark and you've just solidified in my mind that I'm done with you at this point. Take it as a win, take it how you like, I don't care.

 

[social]

I typed in exactly what you said to in entirety and when it didn't work, I tried a few combinations. Nothing. So are you going to provide a link or continue dodging?

OK, I'll provide it when I get time to search the web.

However, even the quotes you provide are about tolerance levels not bowling actions.

BTW, as a cricket fan, tell me youre not disappointed to see Shabbir, Botha and Perera plying their trade in the most recent televised matches.

 

[Ikki]

And Dasa, one of the more respected and knowledgeable posters on CW.net.

Funnily enough, both C_C and I are scientists. And, I might add, don't agree on everything (hoo boy, I remember when he first got here). The above is a snide and childish remark and you've just solidified in my mind that I'm done with you at this point. Take it as a win, take it how you like, I don't care.

So you're walking away as if you're the bigger man? I'm sorry mate, I did not start the aggressive ramblings with you. I tried to explain myself and my point. You took it almost personal and went on not understanding what I was saying, worse, misconstruding it. I have seen many members post as well...I'll have my opinion of who is knowledgeable and you can have yours.

 

[Top_Cat]

BTW, as a cricket fan, tell me youre not disappointed to see Shabbir, Botha and Perera plying their trade in the most recent televised matches.

I'm disappointed they're there, yes, but in the case of Botha, I'll reserve judgement (as difficult as it is) until he's tested. Shabbir, I feel, has been abandoned a bit. I don't think they're doing what they do out of malice, though. In my opinion, they need help and support, not condemnation.

 

[Jono]

BTW, as a cricket fan, tell me youre not disappointed to see Shabbir, Botha and Perera plying their trade in the most recent televised matches.

I see I'm not the only one who picked up on Perera's dodgy action as well. It wasn't pretty.

 

[social]

I'm disappointed they're there, yes, but in the case of Botha, I'll reserve judgement (as difficult as it is) until he's tested. Shabbir, I feel, has been abandoned a bit. I don't think they're doing what they do out of malice, though. In my opinion, they need help and support, not condemnation.

Coaches and administration need condemnation not the players.

Perera could be fixed easily.

Murali spent a week at the UWA and they changed his action to such a degree that the flexion involved in the delivery of his doosra decreased from a mean of 14.2 to under 9.

Officials seem to take the attitude of "no idea whether it's 5 or 15. Let the UWA decide."

Pathetic.

 

[honestbharani]

But I think this will improve with time. The new rules have been in place only for a couple of years or so now. I think every national academy should get the testing procedure and a few biomechanists and then, they can test their first class bowler over there and so on.

 

[Deja moo]

Good argument.

First you say that Botha has never met Harbi

Where/when have I ever said that ? Dont dig a deeper hole for yourself.

Heres where I first make a direct comment on the issue of whether they've met or not.

I may or may not be a good debater, but I certainly can comprehend simple logic. Can't say the same about you when I see you come up with that sort of conclusion.

Now it's

OOOOh! Botha and Harbi in same sentence = Harbi is a chucker

Debating obviously wasnt offered at your school.

And you're trying to prove what exactly by putting forward your own implications?

 

[marc71178]

I see I'm not the only one who picked up on Perera's dodgy action as well. It wasn't pretty.

I remember it from the last SL tour of England (2002?)