*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Dasa]

And the whole issue is still shrouded in emotions which naturally produces polarised and, at times, ludicrous positions.

However, what you cannot do is defend Murali's action in this regard. He has been tried and convicted but escaped punishment because the ICC is toothless in the face of Asian pressure.

Seems like a ludicrous position to me.

 

[parttimer]

Murali won't ever be treated as one of the best ever here in Aus i think, cos if he were born here he'd have never played test cricket. He woulda been laughed off the park

 

[social]

Yes, i agree with that.
What i disagree with is Social's perspective that everything was done well and he thinks that Murali's action is obviously more dodgy than the rest based on optical illusions, not facts.
I think that in hindsight, Murali got a real raw deal and it was unfair to victimise him. I cannot fathom why someone would hold a viewpoint that Murali got let off easy given that he does nothing that others dont do.

BS

Your adherence to this nonsensical notion of optical illusions flies in the face of documented, scientific fact.

Hair was proven 100% correct to call Murali when he did yet suffered sanctions and discrimination because of it.

Murali, on the other hand, was allowed to continue to ply his trade in all parts of the world despite being in breach of the rules as they stood at that time.

The others of whom you speak did not even come into consideration until 2003/2004 because no-one had undertaken that type of analysis until that time. And, in any event, such research was hardly relevant to what happened on the field as degrees of flexion inherent to most actions is not visble to the naked eye which, according to the rules in place at the time, is the sole arbiter.

Murali's action is apparently legal now.

It was definitely not legal at the time it was called.

McGrath's action is apparently legal now.

It was definitely legal at the time Murali was called because whatever flexion present could not be detected with the naked eye.

 

[social]

Seems like a ludicrous position to me.

Really?

Its generally accepted that Hair made the correct decision to no-ball Murali.

The rules that Murali was found to contravene remained in place for another 8 or so years.

From the time he was called, how did Murali change his action to conform with the rules in place at the time?

Answer: Not only didnt he change his action but he actually exaggerated the problem by introducing a doosra that was an even more blatant infringement of those rules. As a result, he was banned from bowling the doosra for a period.

Was he forced to face up to his original accusers again?

Answer: No. In response to pressure from the Sri Lankan Cricket Board and other Asian countries, the ICC refused to appoint Darrel Hair to any matches in which Murali was a participant. Whilst Hair can be said to be partly to blame for this by releasing a book on the subject, the fact that he is still on the ICC's elite umpiring panel indicates that his integrity is beyond reproach and, as such, he should have been umpiring matches in which Murali was a participant.

Whilst the old rules remained in force, Murali was definitely a protected species and faced nothing like the sanctions imposed upon past cricketers convicted of similar infractions.

 

[dinu23]

i have to salute CC and all the others here who have come to murali's defence in this tread. personally, i have given up convincing people who still think murali chucks, because there always will be guys who'll think he does, specially in australia. It doesn't really matter what they think because murali's action is no more illegal than Mcgrath, pollock etc.

 

[social]

i have to salute CC and all the others here who have come to murali's defence in this tread. personally, i have given up convincing people who still think murali chucks, because there always will be guys who'll think he does, specially in australia. It doesn't really matter what they think because murali's action is no more illegal than Mcgrath, pollock etc.

The issue being discussed is not whether Murali's action contravenes the modified law, which it apparently doesnt, but whether it was justified to call him nearly a decade ago under a different interpretation of the law.

And, btw, dont point the finger at Aus exclusively. It was hardly a localised phenomenon.

 

[parttimer]

Good job on defending Hair. He copped alot of flak he didn't deserve. I mean, on first watching Murali you think, holy crap how is it they allow this guy to bowl? As you've said the rule at that time was that if the umpire felt the bowler was chucking then he should call no-ball. What is amazing, is that other umpires didn't do the same.

 

[social]

Good job on defending Hair. He copped alot of flak he didn't deserve. I mean, on first watching Murali you think, holy crap how is it they allow this guy to bowl? As you've said the rule at that time was that if the umpire felt the bowler was chucking then he should call no-ball. What is amazing, is that other umpires didn't do the same.

Politics

 

[C_C]

BS

Your adherence to this nonsensical notion of optical illusions flies in the face of documented, scientific fact.

Would you care for me to explain to you how optical illusions work, given the light spectrums and multiple motion on multiple planes of movement ?

Hair was proven 100% correct to call Murali when he did yet suffered sanctions and discrimination because of it.

Yes he did simply because he was wrong in his conclusions.

Murali, on the other hand, was allowed to continue to ply his trade in all parts of the world despite being in breach of the rules as they stood at that time.

As it should've been- the law itself was flawed and thank God Murali and his supporters exposed this.

The others of whom you speak did not even come into consideration until 2003/2004 because no-one had undertaken that type of analysis until that time. And, in any event, such research was hardly relevant to what happened on the field as degrees of flexion inherent to most actions is not visble to the naked eye which, according to the rules in place at the time, is the sole arbiter.

Incorrect. Rules state that no flexion is allowed, nothing on the methodology of the application.

Murali's action is apparently legal now.

It was definitely not legal at the time it was called.

McGrath's action is apparently legal now.

It was definitely legal at the time Murali was called because whatever flexion present could not be detected with the naked eye.

It was not legal at that time but neither was any other bowler's. You dont pronounce legality based on the level of sensetivity of the measuring tools- you pronounce it based on the letter and spirit of the law. If the tools were found insufficient, you change the tools and correct your mistakes- ie, apologise to Murali for any inconvinience caused due to a faulty rule and incompetent tools to determine that.

 

[social]

Would you care for me to explain to you how optical illusions work, given the light spectrums and multiple motion on multiple planes of movement ?



Yes he did simply because he was wrong in his conclusions.


As it should've been- the law itself was flawed and thank God Murali and his supporters exposed this.



Incorrect. Rules state that no flexion is allowed, nothing on the methodology of the application.



It was not legal at that time but neither was any other bowler's. You dont pronounce legality based on the level of sensetivity of the measuring tools- you pronounce it based on the letter and spirit of the law. If the tools were found insufficient, you change the tools and correct your mistakes- ie, apologise to Murali for any inconvinience caused due to a faulty rule and incompetent tools to determine that.

You seem to be insistent on making a fool of yourself in this regard. But anyway, that's your problem.

1. Murali was identified as a chucker by Hair under the old laws, called as such and subsequent investigations proved this to be the case.

Where's the optical illusion?

If anything, optical illusion is a term that can be applied to the actions of virtually every other bowler. They were never identified with the naked eye yet technology has proven the naked eye to be wrong.

2. Hair was right. Lies and misstatements wont change this fact.

3. The law has been exposed - just 8 years too late for Murali.

4. Wrong. Umpire on the field was the sole arbiter.

5. Congragulations! Your hindsight is 20/20.

As usual, I'm forced to bring an engineer back to reality.

 

[C_C]

1. Murali was identified as a chucker by Hair under the old laws, called as such and subsequent investigations proved this to be the case.

The optical illusion that exgaggerated his kink and stuck him out like a sore thumb while others were let go scot free not because of the degree or extent or even nature of the transgression but simply because of the arbitary question of aesthetics.

If anything, optical illusion is a term that can be applied to the actions of virtually every other bowler. They were never identified with the naked eye yet technology has proven the naked eye to be wrong.

Wrong. Optical illusions happen in complex motions or natural phenomena and the degree of its projection is the sole factor in its detection.

2. Hair was right. Lies and misstatements wont change this fact.

Hair was right about one bowler and wrong about 100 others. Not very competent. And decisions from an incompetent source is irrelevant.

3. The law has been exposed - just 8 years too late for Murali.

And in light of the latest evidence, Murali needs to have all charges,innuendos and snide remarks ( such as a tainted bowler and all other various bullcrap) removed in reference to him.

4. Wrong. Umpire on the field was the sole arbiter.

In a matter in which he isnt qualified to arbitrate. Not the failing of the bowlers, its the failure of the system.

5. Congragulations! Your hindsight is 20/20.

And ? History and reputation is built on hindsight, not foresight.

As usual, I'm forced to bring an engineer back to reality.

With fuzzy reasoning, pure media brainwashing and incorrect impression about what is an optical illusion and wht isnt ?
Please.

 

[Slow Love™]

Yes, i agree with that.
What i disagree with is Social's perspective that everything was done well and he thinks that Murali's action is obviously more dodgy than the rest based on optical illusions, not facts.
I think that in hindsight, Murali got a real raw deal and it was unfair to victimise him. I cannot fathom why someone would hold a viewpoint that Murali got let off easy given that he does nothing that others dont do.

Yeah, maybe it's time to restate our arguments. I'm with you on all of this. The point I wanted to make was that, although Murali most definitely copped a raw deal, I think that Hair's decision at the time was quite defendable, and to a degree he's also copped his share of unfair criticism after the fact (usually from people extrapolating from contemporary evidence that he had no access to). IMO, it's not fair to single him out as incompetent.

My position on Murali is pretty similar to Tom Halsey's. I used to think he was a chucker, until the evidence showed that many other players who we thought had flawless actions were comparably straightening their arms.

Now I have nothing against the guy and he is indeed, one of the world's greatest bowlers.

 

[C_C]

I think that Hair's decision at the time was quite defendable, and to a degree he's also copped his share of unfair criticism after the fact (usually from people extrapolating from contemporary evidence that he had no access to). IMO, it's not fair to single him out as incompetent.

I have absolutely no problem with Hair's decision at that time. Which is why i've said nothing about Hair barring the obvious : That he is not competent enough to make that call and neither is anyone else- simply because chucking ( be it absolutist or degree-based) is not something that can be detected reliably with the naked human eye.
My position is, while Hair was totally justified in making the call, his call is absolutely irrelevant right now. Therefore, perhaps both of them deserve apologies.

 

[Slow Love™]

Murali's action is apparently legal now.

It was definitely not legal at the time it was called.

McGrath's action is apparently legal now.

It was definitely legal at the time Murali was called because whatever flexion present could not be detected with the naked eye.

This is poor reasoning, mate. The law was that there could be no straightening of the arm. If McGrath ever straightened his arm (and scientific evidence suggests that he did), he was breaking the law.

The problem was twofold:

a) The law was in fact, unable to be policed accurately or fairly, because it was based on the premise that the majority of (or closer to "all") bowlers weren't straightening their arms, and

b) the umpire on the field of play was unable to discern that many bowlers were in fact transgressing the laws, so they were merely adjudicating based on the apparent egregiousness of an action to the naked eye.

Suggesting that McGrath's action was legal ONLY because it wasn't called is fallacious. It would be like stating that every decision made on a cricket field by an umpire is correct, regardless of evidence to the contrary, simply because that's the decision they made.

Seeing as you're generally happy to be critical of umpiring decisions (not that there's anything wrong with that), you should be able to appreciate the difference.

 

[Slow Love™]

I have absolutely no problem with Hair's decision at that time. Which is why i've said nothing about Hair barring the obvious : That he is not competent enough to make that call and neither is anyone else- simply because chucking ( be it absolutist or degree-based) is not something that can be detected reliably with the naked human eye.
My position is, while Hair was totally justified in making the call, his call is absolutely irrelevant right now. Therefore, perhaps both of them deserve apologies.

Then we're on pretty much exactly the same page. Isn't that nice for a change?

 

[C_C]

Then we're on pretty much exactly the same page. Isn't that nice for a change?

Kumbaya Kumbaya
lalalala

 

[social]

I have absolutely no problem with Hair's decision at that time. Which is why i've said nothing about Hair barring the obvious : That he is not competent enough to make that call and neither is anyone else- simply because chucking ( be it absolutist or degree-based) is not something that can be detected reliably with the naked human eye.
My position is, while Hair was totally justified in making the call, his call is absolutely irrelevant right now. Therefore, perhaps both of them deserve apologies.

Youve got no problem with his decision other than he's incompetent?

Talk about a back-handed complement

 

[social]

This is poor reasoning, mate. The law was that there could be no straightening of the arm. If McGrath ever straightened his arm (and scientific evidence suggests that he did), he was breaking the law.

The problem was twofold:

a) The law was in fact, unable to be policed accurately or fairly, because it was based on the premise that the majority of (or closer to "all") bowlers weren't straightening their arms, and

b) the umpire on the field of play was unable to discern that many bowlers were in fact transgressing the laws, so they were merely adjudicating based on the apparent egregiousness of an action to the naked eye.

Suggesting that McGrath's action was legal ONLY because it wasn't called is fallacious. It would be like stating that every decision made on a cricket field by an umpire is correct, regardless of evidence to the contrary, simply because that's the decision they made.

Seeing as you're generally happy to be critical of umpiring decisions (not that there's anything wrong with that), you should be able to appreciate the difference.

Unlike other instances where the umpire is called into play, we are talking about a case where umpires had literally tens of thousands of opportunities to make a call. It's not split second - it's over after over, year after year, bowler after bowler.

Why, then, do you think Murali was singled out?

Luck of the draw?

Racial discrimination?

Or merely the fact that he was the most blatant chucker (as defined under the superseded laws) that there's been in history.

Perversely, I agree with you both when you say that, given today's laws, what happened 10 years ago is largely irrelevant. But for people such as C C to claim that it should never have happened and to base this argument on data collected in non-controlled environments years after the event is absolute nonsense.

 

[C_C]

Youve got no problem with his decision other than he's incompetent?

Talk about a back-handed complement

But it is the truth - Hair was incompetent in making the call, simply because his eyes were not good enough to judge a chuck. Its like how i am incompetent in operating a nuclear power facility.

 

[C_C]

Why, then, do you think Murali was singled out?

Because of his unique physiology - a permanently bent arm along with hyperflexible wrists, his action is truly unique and unfortunately, aesthetics determined the extent of fairplay, not literal application of the rules ( or even in the spirit of the law).