Dissector said:
"Oh, just forget it. I've had it with the whole pathetic thread."
So basically you are going to ignore my questions and refuse to spell out how precisely you would resolve the chucking issue? It's easy to criticise the ICC but rather harder to lay out your own solution , isn't it?
BTW I would be only too happy to ignore the whole chucking issue in this thread. Frankly it is a closed matter now and irrelevant to assessing Murali's record. However it is the Murali bashers who raise it again and again; not that they have any clue what they are talking about.
Dissector said:
Three questions:
1)How exactly would you define a chuck?
2)How would you handle differences of opinion about the legality of a particular bowler's action?
3)How would you deal with bowlers who straighten the elbows a fair amount but whose action looks smooth?
1. The definition of a throw remains unchanged - I suggest you read law 24.3. It is the interpretation of the law and the setting of arbitrary tolerance limits where the problem lies. As recently as 2004, the limits were 5 degrees for a slow bowler, 7.5 for a medium pacer and 10 for a quick. I'm not going to go over old ground again here by arguing for or against them.
2. and 3. I haven't got a clue - and, truth be told, neither do you, do you?.
The biggest problem facing cricket now on this issue is that technology has muddied the waters, not cleared them. Where do kids first play organised cricket? At school in many communities. Unfortunately, in England there are many schools where cricket is no longer part of the curriculum.
Anyway, a kid's first mentor is likely to be a teacher or a coach whose only qualification is a legal clearance to work with kids. No cricket qualification (unless we're talking schools out of the state sector), so when they actually get to playing organised (i.e. not 'Kwik') cricket, they've already been bowling a year or two.
My first coaching was at the age of 11 (at a private boarding school) and he was 'old school' - placed an enormous emphasis on the arm 'brushing the ear' and a 'classic, sideways-on' action (OK, don't laugh). His word was LAW. If I didn't comply, I didn't play - simple as that. I was a speedster - never had any interest in spinning it in those days. That was for puffs - and besides, I hated the sodding game anyway.
Next in the chain were the umpires for the school matches - and they were generally the same people as the coaches anyway (the P.E teacher). When it came to club matches, the umpiring was done from within - until I got involved in playing representative cricket. I played for 30 years, and in that whole time, only ever saw 1 player called for throwing. I reckon I saw a 'dodgy' action 2 or 3 times a season.
I repeat (for the 10th or more) time: how do we prevent the next generation of off-spinners (all bowlers, for that matter) form having questionable actions? That's been my stance all along. I don't give a hoot if you or C_C are having a menage a trois with Murali - that's of no interest to me (all right, it is, but only if I can have the publication rights).
Don't try to goad me into giving you an answer again, please - especially when I don't have the answers. It's nearly as bad manners as you refusing to learn how to use the 'quote' feature.
Go look a lil further back...it's there I assure. I do not post it myself...I'd rather keep you busy.
