*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[C_C]

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.

No secret really. All the info is available on the ICC main website article ( its in .pdf format so you'd need adobe acrobat to read it) under the chucking rules criteria.

 

[honestbharani]

I think almost every facet in life will have a judicial entity. Umpire's are employed for their knowledge of the game, written/unwritten. Some laws regard their own interpretation. However, because they have studied the laws and because they're experienced, they're more than qualified to adjudicate and give their own interpretation based on laws.

Chucking is an issue which has been plucked out of understanding and defined broadly (let's agree and saying they're taking the right steps), but it hasn't helped any. Once upon a time, chatting about the legitmacy of a bowler's action was rare...presently it's a daily fable.

That is only because the old law has been proved to be scientifically wrong. It seems almost nobody can bowl without a flex in their arms. That is why the degrees business came in. 5 for spinners and 10 for pacers, it was set at. And then scientists showed that such inequality was wrong, simply because it has been proven that spinners use arm speeds comparable to that of pacers. So, it is now set at 15 degrees, NOT just because of Murali, but because it is the maximum limit which covered the flexes of all bowlers tested at the time. It is also shown that a flex beyond 15 degrees is something that CAN be picked up by the human eye.

 

[honestbharani]

Keyword: Enhancement.

Who/What/Where/How/Which enhancement?

What/Which Enhancement = Getting more decisions right.



How Enhancement = With the aid of technology, the errors can be lessened.



Where Enhancement = In Cricket, obviously.


Who Enhancement = That is not even right grammar.

 

[luckyeddie]

Cane someone tell me how on earth we reduce the number of bowlers coming into test cricket with suspect actions, given that the first time they are ever likely to be tested is after they have been reported - and that only occurs in test matches?

 

[social]

That is only because the old law has been proved to be scientifically wrong. It seems almost nobody can bowl without a flex in their arms. That is why the degrees business came in. 5 for spinners and 10 for pacers, it was set at. And then scientists showed that such inequality was wrong, simply because it has been proven that spinners use arm speeds comparable to that of pacers. So, it is now set at 15 degrees, NOT just because of Murali, but because it is the maximum limit which covered the flexes of all bowlers tested at the time. It is also shown that a flex beyond 15 degrees is something that CAN be picked up by the human eye.

Rate was standardised as variations in pace by the same bowler, e.g. spinner bowling faster ball or seamer bowling slower ball, produced different levels of flex.

Anyway, was ridiculous to have different types of bowlers attempting to conform to different standards.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

It cannot be against proven facts, mate. That is the whole point. It has been PROVEN that everyone bends their arms when bowling. And since some spin bowlers have comparable arm speeds to pace bowlers, having different degree limitations for them won't work. So, the authorities have taken the next best option and introduced the universal 15 degree limit, which umbrellas all current bowlers who were tested. If you are flexing it more, you have to do remedial action. If you still can't fall within the limit, you are out. The game goes on. What is so unfair about this all, I don't understand.

 

[social]

Cane someone tell me how on earth we reduce the number of bowlers coming into test cricket with suspect actions, given that the first time they are ever likely to be tested is after they have been reported - and that only occurs in test matches?

The crux of the issue.

 

[honestbharani]

Cane someone tell me how on earth we reduce the number of bowlers coming into test cricket with suspect actions, given that the first time they are ever likely to be tested is after they have been reported - and that only occurs in test matches?

Simply, by having the testing equipment and qualified personnel in the cricket academies of the respective countries. India are going to get one soon, so I have heard, and I think with almost all nations having a cricket academy each, funds could be given by the ICC to all these countries so that they can set up the facilities in their own academy. THAT would be a step in the right direction.

 

[luckyeddie]

Simply, by having the testing equipment and qualified personnel in the cricket academies of the respective countries. India are going to get one soon, so I have heard, and I think with almost all nations having a cricket academy each, funds could be given by the ICC to all these countries so that they can set up the facilities in their own academy. THAT would be a step in the right direction.

Right - that's going to happen.

 

[social]

Simply, by having the testing equipment and qualified personnel in the cricket academies of the respective countries. India are going to get one soon, so I have heard, and I think with almost all nations having a cricket academy each, funds could be given by the ICC to all these countries so that they can set up the facilities in their own academy. THAT would be a step in the right direction.

Or they could divert funds away from those programmes to finance the legal challenges of bowlers belatedly caught

 

[honestbharani]

Right - that's going to happen.

I hope it does. But I still think this law is better than the old one simply because this one is based on FACTS which have been scientifically proven.

 

[honestbharani]

Or they could divert funds away from those programmes to finance the legal challenges of bowlers belatedly caught

Or those guys could write their autobiography and earn a few bucks... If Hair's thing sold, I am sure these books will too.

 

[luckyeddie]

I hope it does. But I still think this law is better than the old one simply because this one is based on FACTS which have been scientifically proven.

No - it's based upon GOALPOSTS that have been ascientifically moved to satisfy a political agenda.

 

[social]

BTW, off the top of my head, I can only think of one bowler that has been reported and not had to undergo remedial action.

That bowler, Brett Lee, was cleared by a panel including Gavaskar, Holding and Imran (just thought I'd mention that in the inevitable occurrence of C_C raising racial discrimination as the reason).

In other words, every single bowler ever reported, bar Lee, could justifiably have been called by the umpires that reported them and this would have served as a real deterrent.

A potential holiday in WA does not IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

No - it's based upon GOALPOSTS that have been ascientifically moved to satisfy a political agenda.

Nope. If the goalpost was 13 degrees, I can so easily argue it was set up for McGrath. The goal post was 15 because it covered all bowlers who were tested. In that aspect it was fair. And Murali's doosra has only around a 10 degree flex anyway, after he corrected his action, after being reported earlier.

 

[honestbharani]

BTW, off the top of my head, I can only think of one bowler that has been reported and not had to undergo remedial action.

That bowler, Brett Lee, was cleared by a panel including Gavaskar, Holding and Imran (just thought I'd mention that in the inevitable occurrence of C_C raising racial discrimination as the reason).

In other words, every single bowler ever reported, bar Lee, could justifiably have been called by the umpires that reported them and this would have served as a real deterrent.

A potential holiday in WA does not IMO.

I don't think Murali or Shoaib underwent remedial actions when they were reported the first time. Remember "hyper extension"?

 

[social]

I don't think Murali or Shoaib underwent remedial actions when they were reported the first time. Remember "hyper extension"?

Shoaib certainly did (spent a deal of time in WA with Lillee and others) and Murali has had more face-lifts than Burt Reynolds.

The point is that threat of a report isnt acting as a deterrent and the processes are unlikely to be in place to catch potential offenders at the most crucial point in their development.

 

[Ikki]

It cannot be against proven facts, mate. That is the whole point. It has been PROVEN that everyone bends their arms when bowling. And since some spin bowlers have comparable arm speeds to pace bowlers, having different degree limitations for them won't work. So, the authorities have taken the next best option and introduced the universal 15 degree limit, which umbrellas all current bowlers who were tested. If you are flexing it more, you have to do remedial action. If you still can't fall within the limit, you are out. The game goes on. What is so unfair about this all, I don't understand.

Mate, for every reply you bring the same flawed law and for that I have to give you the same reply of mine. What I am questioning is the action as a whole. Unfortunately the scope of the law is very limited in terms of definition. You can stretch each argument back to "but you can't tell because of yada yada flex...yada yada angle..yada yada". When I've opposed this law...go look...I defined what I consider a chuck and what I oppose in terms of the law. We're getting nowhere we're you make the argument about a point I HAVEN'T even brought up.

It's like this...

1- I argue about X.
2- You reason that Y is Y because of A.
3- I say I'm not talking about Y...I'm talking about X and how A is actually incorrect.
4- Then you reply and say no, it's the best thing we've got and it makes it equitable to ALL bowlers. And you further your argument about Y when I'm still talking about X.

I know I'm confusing...but we're just on different pages...

 

[Ikki]

I hope it does. But I still think this law is better than the old one simply because this one is based on FACTS which have been scientifically proven.

No - it's based upon GOALPOSTS that have been ascientifically moved to satisfy a political agenda.

In Eddie we trust.

 

[Ikki]

Nope. If the goalpost was 13 degrees, I can so easily argue it was set up for McGrath. The goal post was 15 because it covered all bowlers who were tested. In that aspect it was fair. And Murali's doosra has only around a 10 degree flex anyway, after he corrected his action, after being reported earlier.

That's the point though. Where I was referring to a cultural assumption and understanding. To have limited to (as said by you) 13 would clear someone like McGrath as it SHOULD because his action has always been deemed correct. Someone like Murali, and many others nowadays, would not have been. Because there was in error of definition, a revised law was created where to be "equitable" it now circumferences even Murali in it's legality.

EDIT: Let me add before some people fly in here and say "under the old rule McGrath was guilty as well". That I am talking about PURE traditional understanding of what is deemed the correct action. We're trying to define it...fine...but in the limitations of this...we've brought in an outcast to proper bowling. Not because it is unorthadox...because it's incorrect. People will FLOOD now and say "no no no...Murali is legal and the law was wrong"....but in ALL honestly...who here looking back a decade would have EVER thought his action to be legal...in the cultural understanding of all. I'd really have a hard time believing in anyone saying they thought his action being fine BACK THEN. And worse the SL cricketing institution allowing him to bowl at a higher level knowing his action would more than likely cause an outrage. Even WORSE doing that when they had NO scientific data to call upon.

What were they working with then? A hunch? Give me a break..