*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[social]

Let's make it clear who I am addressing here, because a little while ago I tried very hard to address one of your posts, then someone else answered my reply. It's a long story but I was then accused of 'barging into the thread'. So this is for you, C_C, and you alone - your own private reply.

Murali was called for throwing by umpires who had their own political agenda.

Sorry for butting in but I know both umpires personally.

One, and one alone, had a personal agenda.

The other's integrity is beyond reproach.

 

[luckyeddie]

I apologise if i've (mistakenly it seems) accused you of being anti-murali. This thread is cumbersome enough to keep up with everyone's perspectives and sometimes i lose my cool. But according to the ICC laws- both current and old ones- bowling with a bent elbow in itself is not a crime and never was a crime. You could bowl legally while having your elbow at a 90 degree crooked angle provided you can keep that angle steady ( and within 15 degrees of current limits).

As per kids copying Murali- well that is to be expected and they do so at their own peril and lack of coaching infrastructure. Players like Murali cannot be cultivated nor taught- much the same as batsmen like Thommo,Viv, Sehwag,Lara, Rohan Kanhai, etc. For none of them have the 'textbook' technique to their trade. I would delegate blame to the coaching system for this.

No need to apologise.

Let's have a look at 24.3 as she is written.

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

62 words, but you could get 62000 different interpretations of those words if you asked 62000 different people. Never mentions the word 'bent' or 'crooked', only mentions 'straightened' once.

This is how it used to read:

The ball must be bowled (not thrown or jerked), and be delivered underhand, with the hand below the elbow. But if the ball be jerked, or the arm extended from the body horizontally, and any part of the hand be uppermost, or the hand horizontally extended when the ball is delivered, the Umpires shall call "No Ball".

But that was changed 140 years ago to accommodate overarm bowling - a change that came about because of unrelenting pressure from within the game that was now becoming a sport as opposed to a sunday afternoon recreation on the Vicarage lawn.

Now I'm not (despite what you may have read elsewhere) harking back to the 'good old days' - but I tell you what - the one thing going for the old law was that it was CLEAR - it said what you could do, and what you couldn't - and why the umpires at the time had no problem in no-balling round-arm or overarm. There was no other interpretation possible.

I don't know whether the implication of the 'new' law is that the arm must be straight, or what the intentions of the members of the MCC who drafted it were - but it sure as hell was accepted that was the case - until the last 10 years.

I really have nothing more to say on the matter.

 

[luckyeddie]

Sorry for butting in but I know both umpires personally.

One, and one alone, had a personal agenda.

The other's integrity is beyond reproach.

I apologise - it was not my intention to cast aspersions towards Darrell Hair - when the spittle flies, sometimes it gets in the way of the issues.

 

[C_C]

Sorry for butting in but I know both umpires personally.

One, and one alone, had a personal agenda.

The other's integrity is beyond reproach.

Personal contact with someone often goes hand in hand with 'clouded vision and conflict of interest' .

 

[social]

Personal contact with someone often goes hand in hand with 'clouded vision and conflict of interest' .

As does racial discrimination.

 

[C_C]

6 - 7 degrees?

Are you kidding me?

That's like saying Carl Lewis and Douglas Bader run in a similar fashion.

As for your other claim:

Malcolm Speed, CEO of the ICC at the time, issued the following statement at the time of the release of the new assessment procedures (5 Feb, 2005)

"it is simply not possible to go back and use old footage to analyse the actions of bowlers from previous generations..."

No doubt, having been proven wrong AGAIN, you'll resort to your usual racial discrimination argument as the statement was issued by an Australian.

I would hazard a guess that Malcolm Speed, the inept CEO of ICC, is talking outta his backside on this one as old footage CAN be used provided a consistent and accurate margin of error is available. The old footages show flexion with 3 degrees accuracy. Anycase, i dont wish to debate how much the old bowlers flexed- however it is NOT open to doubt whether they did flex their elbow ( and thus chuck according to the-then definition of the law) or not.


PS: I said at worst it is 6-7 degrees, ie, taking the highest range of values as derived from the margin of error. At best it is 2-3 degrees difference, when the lowest range is considered. Logic dictates that for this comparison to hold valid one has to take the mean of the ranges.
Not that you'd have a clue in that regard.

 

[C_C]

As does racial discrimination.

Err...riiiight. Thats even stupider than personal bias. But whatever !

 

[C_C]

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

This definition leads to the conclusion that the straightening of the elbow joint is what the sanction is against, not the initial angle of the arms. Ie, you could start with any elbow position provided that you dont partially or completely straighten your elbow.

 

[social]

I apologise - it was not my intention to cast aspersions towards Darrell Hair - when the spittle flies, sometimes it gets in the way of the issues.

No biggie.

Some people tend to look back and assume that the climate was similar to today.

When Murali and the Sri Lankans toured Aus way back when, neither he nor the team was perceived as being any threat whatsoever.

Murali, in fact, was just an ordinary trundler.

Unfortunately, he had the most horrible looking action.

It actually came as no surprise that he was called because he was apparently operating in flagrant breach of the rules.

However, it did horrify the Aus public that such a thing had happened here and SL (Ranatunga in particular) did nothing to alleviate the problem.

By the end of the tour (when Emerson got involved), sympathy lay fairly with Murali and the umpire was actually booed at the Gabba (I was there) for taking things too far.

Murali and Hair were victims.

Ranatunga, Murali's coaches and the cricketing hierarchy must shoulder virtually all the blame for that summer.

 

[social]

I would hazard a guess that Malcolm Speed, the inept CEO of ICC, is talking outta his backside on this one as old footage CAN be used provided a consistent and accurate margin of error is available. The old footages show flexion with 3 degrees accuracy. Anycase, i dont wish to debate how much the old bowlers flexed- however it is NOT open to doubt whether they did flex their elbow ( and thus chuck according to the-then definition of the law) or not.


PS: I said at worst it is 6-7 degrees, ie, taking the highest range of values as derived from the margin of error. At best it is 2-3 degrees difference, when the lowest range is considered. Logic dictates that for this comparison to hold valid one has to take the mean of the ranges.
Not that you'd have a clue in that regard.

Didnt you say that it required a no. of cameras at different angles to obtain an accurate impression.

Sorry, my mistake, that's only when it suits your argument.

 

[C_C]

Didnt you say that it required a no. of cameras at different angles to obtain an accurate impression.

Sorry, my mistake, that's only when it suits your argument.

Yes it does. Multiple camera angles are available for some old footages.

 

[C_C]

Murali and Hair were victims.

Ranatunga, Murali's coaches and the cricketing hierarchy must shoulder virtually all the blame for that summer.

Yes they were the victims but kudos to Murali, Ranatunga and the coaches for sticking to the just cause and exonerating Murali is decisive fashion, along with sparking the interest that led to the total re-working of the old law, owing to its glaring and newly exposed flaws.

 

[social]

Yes it does. Multiple camera angles are available for some old footages.

OK, so youre right and the ICC and its panel of experts (including biomechanists) are wrong.

All hail C_C.

 

[social]

Yes they were the victims but kudos to Murali, Ranatunga and the coaches for sticking to the just cause and exonerating Murali is decisive fashion, along with sparking the interest that led to the total re-working of the old law, owing to its glaring and newly exposed flaws.

Murali is legal under the new tolerance levels.

He has never been exonerated for charges laid under laws in place at the time.

BTW, think twice before defending Ranatunga. Not even his own countrymen stoop that low.

 

[C_C]

OK, so youre right and the ICC and its panel of experts (including biomechanists) are wrong.

All hail C_C.

It was biomechanists themselves who determined that players of old chucked as well.
The ICC personnel themselves are not qualified- no more qualified than you, which is zilch in itself.
In anycase, even if i grant the point that no set measurements were taken on old time players, it cannot be disputed that they flexed their elbows- as concluded by biomechanists.

 

[C_C]

Murali is legal under the new tolerance levels.

He has never been exonerated for charges laid under laws in place at the time.

BTW, think twice before defending Ranatunga. Not even his own countrymen stoop that low.

I support Ranatunga standing by Murali, not some of his other excesses.
And Murali was exonerated retroactively since the law itself was flawed and revealed to be so- in a court case, if the law is found to be wanting, the case is automatically dropped.

 

[social]

It was biomechanists themselves who determined that players of old chucked as well.
The ICC personnel itself are not qualified- no more qualified than you, which is zilch in itself.

Total crap as usual.

Speed was quoting from a report prepared by biomechanists.

Given that you apparently have a direct line into the ICC regarding matters that suit your arguments, I thought you would have known that.

Phone lines are obviously down from Fantasy Island.

 

[C_C]

Total crap as usual.

Speed was quoting from a report prepared by biomechanists.

Given that you apparently have a direct line into the ICC regarding matters that suit your arguments, I thought you would have known that.

Phone lines are obviously down from Fantasy Island.

Again, widen your education. Angus Fraser wrote a rather famous piece for an english newspaper, outlining the findings of the ICC committee on chucking of which he was a part of, along with Holding and several othes. And in that piece, he made it amply clear that the biomechanists concluded that the old time players chucked as well.
Like i said, instead of spewing crap about a topic you have no grasp of, try educating yourself for a change. The subject matter isnt very intellectually demanding.

 

[Top_Cat]

This thread reads like;

"You suck."

"No, YOU suck."

"NO, YOUUUUUU SUCK!"

"NUH-UH, YOU SUCK MORE THAN ANYONE!"

"WELL YOU'RE THE SUCKIEST SUCK WHO EVER SUCKED!"

*from the terraces*

CLOSE THE THREAD!!

That voice is getting louder, people.

 

[Ikki]

Okay...so we concur...Shane Warne is the better bowler. You can close the thread now.