*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

I think the argument being made about the fallability of Umpires enriching the game is a valid one. Whether you dislike antics that you have ACTUALLY catelogued as cultural, the fact is it makes the game even sweeter. One bad decision and it gives a struggling team some hope...and if they happen to climb the mountain and win...it makes the game even more memorable...whether you're from the winning side or losing side. Decisions will come and go for everyone.

Yourself reason individual skills and bowling variation as your preference of entertainment...but really ask yourself...what is the difference between a century against Bangladesh and a century against England in the Ashes final test? Really...umpiring decisions can carry the same emotive response. I agree that umpires are not the attraction...yet one step turns into two and two into three.

Here is a catch-phrase:

Sorry that simply doesnt fly.
A vocation cannot have inconsistent legislating and still be considered credible. Umpiring errors challenge the credibility of cricket. I wonder if you'd be so forgiving if you were standing trial in a court of law if a judge made an 'error' against you.
The fundamental quest in sports is to eliminate one's errors- thats what leads to the excellence in sports. And by extension of that most basic definition, errors CANNOT be condoned and accepted in the legislative body of the sport or the sport loses its credibility-i would prefer cricket not turning into WWF style wrestling fiasco and i think majority agree with me in this regard.

 

[Ikki]

Fair enough. You feel free to define the question of chucking however you wish but whether it is possible to duplicate such rules into motion is a matter of science, thus NOT your domain.
I dont care what you set the flexion limits at, the ONLY way to verify it consistently and accurately is through science, not arbitary notions of cricketing culture.

We're talking about a legal action. Agreed, the field of biomechanics is not my field. Yet without knowing the equation I know the sum. When the day comes where the equation, AS YOU WISH IT PROVED, is discovered and it equates with the sum of general understanding. Then that is a law I'll be proud to support.

 

[C_C]

Whew...amazing...you're really ignorant...I'm surprised really that I underestimated you.

Instead of giving me an emotive response, GIVE me a reason why i should automatically assume Hair to be a paragon of virtue, when just about everyone admits that Australia was a highly racist nation barely 2-3 decades ago and Hair is a product of that environment ?
Ofcourse, it doesnt automatically cast him as a racist but it does justify keeping a skeptical and close eye at his behaviour. And i'd like you to present reason to the contrary.
If i am to assume that Hair is a paragon of virtue by default, why arnt former WWII German soldiers assumed to be non-Nazi by default ?
Until you can answer that satisfactorily, all you have is an impulsive reaction to a pertinent question, not a credible one.

 

[C_C]

We're talking about a legal action. Agreed, the field of biomechanics is not my field. Yet without knowing the equation I know the sum. When the day comes where the equation, AS YOU WISH IT PROVED, is discovered and it equates with the sum of general understanding. Then that is a law I'll be proud to support.

No, you dont know the sum. You THINK you do but your eyes are fooling you. Thats the whole bloody point.
You are NOT qualified to determine if someone is chucking or not with your naked eye or is that too much for you to accept the limitations of the human eye ?

 

[Ikki]

Sorry that simply doesnt fly.
A vocation cannot have inconsistent legislating and still be considered credible. Umpiring errors challenge the credibility of cricket. I wonder if you'd be so forgiving if you were standing trial in a court of law if a judge made an 'error' against you.
The fundamental quest in sports is to eliminate one's errors- thats what leads to the excellence in sports. And by extension of that most basic definition, errors CANNOT be condoned and accepted in the legislative body of the sport or the sport loses its credibility-i would prefer cricket not turning into WWF style wrestling fiasco and i think majority agree with me in this regard.

You talk as if every dot ball has a story to tell. In a judicial capacity, wrong decisions are made and some even prejudicial. This is a sport played for entertainment, whether it be the viewer or the competitor. You need to tone down your argument son. This is cricket, this is not a matter of human rights. Cricket will have it's own laws and that will make it distinct in it's own boundaries.

 

[C_C]

How can one conclusively argue against a law created to broaden restrictions for a player? When legislation is passed and that is what you deem gospel...how on earth can one challenge any notion you may hold? Justice is usually blind, in this case it knew what it was doing.

Because if a law is deemed to have fundamental flaw in it, the law is reviewed. The chucking law was not in dispute before Murali simply because the authorities got away with it, themselves being duped ( along with the common populace) by a baseless opinion on whether someone chucked or not. An opinion that was neither substantiated with facts about the human body nor consistently applied. Murali fiasco bought forth the tremendous shortcomings of the said law and it was changed.

 

[Ikki]

Instead of giving me an emotive response, GIVE me a reason why i should automatically assume Hair to be a paragon of virtue, when just about everyone admits that Australia was a highly racist nation barely 2-3 decades ago and Hair is a product of that environment ?
Ofcourse, it doesnt automatically cast him as a racist but it does justify keeping a skeptical and close eye at his behaviour. And i'd like you to present reason to the contrary.
If i am to assume that Hair is a paragon of virtue by default, why arnt former WWII German soldiers assumed to be non-Nazi by default ?
Until you can answer that satisfactorily, all you have is an impulsive reaction to a pertinent question, not a credible one.

Do you know why Australian's admit that? Because they were. Yet 30 years ago they gave the aboriginals the right to vote and ever since have been giving them more rights, native title, you name it. Yet it does not mean that every Australian was beer bottling every aboriginal on the street. They were not given equal rights, due to ignorance, and have rectified that. For you to assume that SUCH a situation STILL exists in this nation is ridiculous. Australia is one of the most multi-cultured nations in the world. I'm sure you have many a kin living in it's borders and living a good life.

If there is one principle Australians hold true amongst others is that they give everybody a fair go. We all call ourselves lucky to live in this country.

Yet you blabber as if such a distinction, such a trait still exists and exemplify it to a cricket referee....where are you going with this? You're wrong, there just isn't any two ways about it.

 

[C_C]

You talk as if every dot ball has a story to tell. In a judicial capacity, wrong decisions are made and some even prejudicial. This is a sport played for entertainment, whether it be the viewer or the competitor. You need to tone down your argument son. This is cricket, this is not a matter of human rights. Cricket will have it's own laws and that will make it distinct in it's own boundaries.

Whether it is played for entertainment or with high stakes, rules MUST be enforced to the highest possible degree of accuracy. I dont care what are cricket's laws in the slightest. Woulnt care a toss if cricket merged with baseball. But what i do care about is the highest possible level of compitence in legislating those laws. Not an airfy fairy, inconclusive and erratic body enforcing the laws. By that reasoning, you might as well have an astrologist telling if a batsman should be given out or not.
PS: Dont 'son' me. I am not your son and neither am i inclined to be referred to in that capacity by you. I would appreciate it if you desisted from patronising me.

 

[Ikki]

Because if a law is deemed to have fundamental flaw in it, the law is reviewed. The chucking law was not in dispute before Murali simply because the authorities got away with it, themselves being duped ( along with the common populace) by a baseless opinion on whether someone chucked or not. An opinion that was neither substantiated with facts about the human body nor consistently applied. Murali fiasco bought forth the tremendous shortcomings of the said law and it was changed.

So now we have a law that still does not constitute equity and gives a broad interpretation and lack of discrimination (in a cricketing context, so you're not confused), and we're all supposed to like it....ey...get a grip mate.

 

[Ikki]

Whether it is played for entertainment or with high stakes, rules MUST be enforced to the highest possible degree of accuracy. I dont care what are cricket's laws in the slightest. Woulnt care a toss if cricket merged with baseball. But what i do care about is the highest possible level of compitence in legislating those laws. Not an airfy fairy, inconclusive and erratic body enforcing the laws. By that reasoning, you might as well have an astrologist telling if a batsman should be given out or not.
PS: Dont 'son' me. I am not your son and neither am i inclined to be referred to in that capacity by you. I would appreciate it if you desisted from patronising me.

Granted. I see you're point...but for you to say... " I wouldn't care a toss if cricket merged with baseball" with beyond a doubt demonstrates your position. It is not in cricket's best interests, and you my friend, have really no business attempting to rationalise the importance of science. Really, no one gives a toss about science if it does not compliment cricket, and intentions like your own are irrelevant to the sport.

 

[C_C]

Do you know why Australian's admit that? Because they were. Yet 30 years ago they gave the aboriginals the right to vote and ever since have been giving them more rights, native title, you name it. Yet it does not mean that every Australian was beer bottling every aboriginal on the street. They were not given equal rights, due to ignorance, and have rectified that. For you to assume that SUCH a situation STILL exists in this nation is ridiculous. Australia is one of the most multi-cultured nations in the world. I'm sure you have many a kin living in it's borders and living a good life.

If there is one principle Australians hold true amongst others is that they give everybody a fair go. We all call ourselves lucky to live in this country.

Yet you blabber as if such a distinction, such a trait still exists and exemplify it to a cricket referee....where are you going with this? You're wrong, there just isn't any two ways about it.

If OZ gives everybody a fair go, why did Steve Waugh claim a bump catch from Lara again ? How is OZ giving a fair go to the refugees in OZ again ?
And the racist attitudes in western nations are product of centuries worth of idiotic ignorance, colourfully masked as 'renessance/age of enlightenment'. I am NOT convinced that such a centuries-old fundamental nature can be irradicated in matter of decades and I myself have seen several proof, personally, to the contrary.

Hair is a product of THAT racist Australian culture, that permiated it 2-3 decades ago. People are a product of the environment they are nurtured in and the older you get, the less adapatable you get. I see no reason to assume that Hair is a goodie-two-shoe-anti-racist-humanist, given the general climate of his formative years. Infact, given the prevalence of racism in Australia during the time when Hair was a kid/youngster, i would require reason to belive that he doesnt share that vast and still predominant mindset of his peers.

PS: I have worked off and on in Canada Place, Vancouver - it is a cultural spot along with the biggest cruise-ship terminal in western Canada. Handles thousands of tourists every day in the summer and just a little less in the winter. Most Australians i've come across appoaching 50 or beyond it are singularly racist. I've also been privvy to private conversations ( not by will-sometimes its hard NOT to overhear what a buncha people are chatting on the other side of a one-way glass window) and its singularly racist. The youth, especially under 30 group i've come across are much the same as Canadians- seldom do i see prejudice and most often i see gregarious behaviour. As a result, i am not inclined to paint every 50-something Aussie as a quintessential racist but i am not inclined to happily assume them to be non-racist either.

 

[C_C]

So now we have a law that still does not constitute equity and gives a broad interpretation and lack of discrimination (in a cricketing context, so you're not confused), and we're all supposed to like it....ey...get a grip mate.

It does constitute equity, as it is consistent in its methodology, which can be reliably re-created every single time. You are arguing human perception against machine performance. Get a grip, dude.

 

[Ikki]

If OZ gives everybody a fair go, why did Steve Waugh claim a bump catch from Lara again ? How is OZ giving a fair go to the refugees in OZ again ?
And the racist attitudes in western nations are product of centuries worth of idiotic ignorance, colourfully masked as 'renessance/age of enlightenment'. I am NOT convinced that such a centuries-old fundamental nature can be irradicated in matter of decades and I myself have seen several proof, personally, to the contrary.

Hair is a product of THAT racist Australian culture, that permiated it 2-3 decades ago. People are a product of the environment they are nurtured in and the older you get, the less adapatable you get. I see no reason to assume that Hair is a goodie-two-shoe-anti-racist-humanist, given the general climate of his formative years. Infact, given the prevalence of racism in Australia during the time when Hair was a kid/youngster, i would require reason to belive that he doesnt share that vast and still predominant mindset of his peers.

PS: I have worked off and on in Canada Place, Vancouver - it is a cultural spot along with the biggest cruise-ship terminal in western Canada. Handles thousands of tourists every day in the summer and just a little less in the winter. Most Australians i've come across appoaching 50 or beyond it are singularly racist. I've also been privvy to private conversations ( not by will-sometimes its hard NOT to overhear what a buncha people are chatting on the other side of a one-way glass window) and its singularly racist. The youth, especially under 30 group i've come across are much the same as Canadians- seldom do i see prejudice and most often i see gregarious behaviour. As a result, i am not inclined to paint every 50-something Aussie as a quintessential racist but i am not inclined to happily assume them to be non-racist either.

You're an idiot mate...worse...you're racist. Goodnight.

 

[C_C]

Granted. I see you're point...but for you to say... " I wouldn't care a toss if cricket merged with baseball" with beyond a doubt demonstrates your position. It is not in cricket's best interests, and you my friend, have really no business attempting to rationalise the importance of science. Really, no one gives a toss about science if it does not compliment cricket, and intentions like your own are irrelevant to the sport.

I dont give a toss if cricket merged with baseball, because in the grand scheme of things, sports are one of the most irrelevant and insignificant persuits of humanity.
As in, i am largely apathetic to its success/failure, much the same way i am largely apathetic to the success or failure of some meaningless business venture.
But that doesnt equate to an irresponsible approach as you are depicting. The irresponsible approach, IMO, lies with you, as you cling to old and antiquated ideas when they need serious re-defining.

PS: As for importance of science-i dont have to rationalise it.The sole reason we are talking about this and debating this is because of science.Enough said. However, if you don't like science, feel free to live in a cave.

 

[C_C]

You're an idiot mate...worse...you're racist. Goodnight.

Wow. Nice response.
Like i said- when you quit making a purely emotive response and give me a logical reason, i will pay attention.

Simple questions : You run across a 70 year old Russian soldier from Russia ( ie, not immigrated). Do you assume he is a communist or not ?

You run across the Queen's butler from Buckingham Palace. Do you assume that he is a loyalist or not ?

If i run across a 50 year old Aussie, why should i assume that he is a humanist with zero racist inclinations, given that not only is it a logical longshot ( given the prevalence of racism in OZ 30-40 years ago, when this said chap was growing up), it is contradictory to the personal experiences i've had ?

PS: I dont have a problem with white folks. I do have a problem with the potrayal of Euro-American/Australian culture. For facts and reason do not back up the media 'we are the good guys' image.

 

[aussie]

oh my this thread has gone way offtopic, you people need to come back.

 

[luckyeddie]

Not bad - 9 or 10 weeks to finally manage to plumb the depths I think we all secretly knew it would reach.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Just wondering - from what point and till when does the 15 degrees apply? Like, is it from when the bowling arm is parallel, or perpendicular to the ground? And between then and the release of the ball, or when the arm travels so far, etc.?

 

[luckyeddie]

Just wondering - from what point and till when does the 15 degrees apply? Like, is it from when the bowling arm is parallel, or perpendicular to the ground? And between then and the release of the ball, or when the arm travels so far, etc.?

I've been asking so many questions about the mechanics and the results of the testing myself - unfortunately the only person quoting figures ignores those (IMO) perfectly reasonable questions.

I guess it's a secret.

 

[social]

Just wondering - from what point and till when does the 15 degrees apply? Like, is it from when the bowling arm is parallel, or perpendicular to the ground? And between then and the release of the ball, or when the arm travels so far, etc.?

From the point the bowling arm reaches shoulder level to the moment the ball is released.

Umpires are to ignore hyper-extension (such as evident in Lee and Akhtar) and sideways movement of the elbow (whatever the hell that means).