*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Slow Love™]

I think the main point is that the throwing situation is no clearer today than it was when Murali was called.

The only thing research has proven is that the naked eye is incapable of detecting flexion of less than 15 degrees.

These two statements completely contradict each other. Not that you've been reluctant to do this. And research has also shown that the vast majority of bowlers are at least straightening their arms to some degree, whether you want to acknowlege it or not. You've also conceded this already in agreeing that the original laws were wrong.

Given that primary authority still vests in on-field umpires, this has become the new threshhold point but does nothing to alleviate the problem as the eye still only registers whether the arm straightens or not. It does not register degrees.

Further, the ICC admits that lab testing is not reliable and has not to date validated any match situation testing. As such, injured parties will always protest in the manner that Murali and his supporters have and will always win a reprieve.

How does this affect Murali today?

Murali would never be called today. As has been the case for the past several years, he'd be sent to a lab, cleared, and bowl again soon thereafter without anyone being any the wiser as to whether he was legal or not.

However, he will justifiably carry the stigma of being the last man called for throwing for the remainder of his career.

Fair? - if you believe in the umpire's authority, it has to be.

In accordance with the law - every time.

Here, once again, in spite of agreeing to the argument that Murali was unfortunate, as you DID PREVIOUSLY, you retreat to the position that whatever the umpire calls is correct, regardless of it's validity. A principle that you break with great frequency and aplomb when it comes to every other out or not-out decision during a match.

You're not even holding your own argument together, because your basic intention, regardless of what you've said or agreed to previously seems to be to throw out constant non-sequiturs, William Shatner style, in an attempt to outlast your interlocuters (which may well prove successful, given that those your're debating are more interested in what the facts may be than you are). Fine. I'm willing to defend Hair, but I'm not really interested in ignoring the information anybody willing to be rational has learned since '96.

 

[Slow Love™]

My point is the same as CC's, except that I am still amazed at how CONVINCED Hair seems to be of the matter. IT is generally accepted that the chucking call should be done from the square leg end, which he didn't. I have spoken to Venkat a couple of times (chance meetings in a temple) and the second time, I cornered him long enough to talk about the Murali issue. And he said what I have posted earlier. He was not convinced if Murali was chucking. His action was dodgy but then again, there have been so many actions which were dodgy, perhaps in varying degrees. And he didn't wanna call the fellow for chucking when he wasn't 100% sure. I am still not sure if Hair was SO much better than the other umps at that time that he was SURE about something that so many of his contemporaries (many of them more illustrious than he ever was) were.

It's not necessarily about being a better umpire all round though - clearly calling Murali was always going to be an extremely hot issue, and I genuinely think that Hair was one of the few umpires around who was willing to do so.

So I won't excoriate Hair for doing so, because I think a lot of umpires would rather just not have the trouble, and in hindsight, it's easy to see the reasons why. But it''s a judgement call that I believe he may certainly have made in good faith. And I'm still not convinced that square leg is so superior as a position to detect any kind of degree below the current levels. If you're suspicious though, it's OK, further debate on it is probably beating a dead horse for me, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Slow Love™]

Oh, and social, one more thing,

I was confused at your assertion that the ICC doesn't accept the research, or that they hadn't "validated any match situation testing". I thought I remembered that at the time of the introduction of the new tolerance levels, they directly mentioned it as a major reason for the rule change (obviously, otherwise there would be no reason to do it).

Anyway, I dug this up at the ICC's website, and indeed it's the case.

Radical overhaul to tackle illegal bowling actions (Feb, 2005)

The new regulations will deal with the reality established during the ICC research program that most bowlers are likely to straighten their arm to a level undetectable by the naked eye during the bowling action.

All bowlers will be permitted to straighten their bowling arm up to 15 degrees which has been established as the point at which any straightening will become visible to the naked eye.

"The expert panel viewed footage obtained during the ICC Champions Trophy 2004 and other research presented by various biomechanical experts gathered during their studies of bowlers in clinical and match conditions."- Malcolm Speed

It certainly sounds to me as if they accept the research. Would you disagree?

 

[Jono]

He wrote a book because, at the time, he had basically been forced out of umpiring by Murali defenders within the ICC and he saw it as a way of supplementing his retirement income.

Damn he must have reeled the big bucks in then. Why would you bother going back to umpiring when you can write books platinum selling books like that.

 

[social]

Oh, and social, one more thing,

I was confused at your assertion that the ICC doesn't accept the research, or that they hadn't "validated any match situation testing". I thought I remembered that at the time of the introduction of the new tolerance levels, they directly mentioned it as a major reason for the rule change (obviously, otherwise there would be no reason to do it).

Anyway, I dug this up at the ICC's website, and indeed it's the case.

Radical overhaul to tackle illegal bowling actions (Feb, 2005)

The new regulations will deal with the reality established during the ICC research program that most bowlers are likely to straighten their arm to a level undetectable by the naked eye during the bowling action.

All bowlers will be permitted to straighten their bowling arm up to 15 degrees which has been established as the point at which any straightening will become visible to the naked eye.

"The expert panel viewed footage obtained during the ICC Champions Trophy 2004 and other research presented by various biomechanical experts gathered during their studies of bowlers in clinical and match conditions."- Malcolm Speed

It certainly sounds to me as if they accept the research. Would you disagree?

They reviewed it but declared it invalid as far as being definitive proof that, say, bowler A was operating within accepted tolerance levels.

The onus continues to be on the umpire, in the first instance, with lab testing in controlled conditions being the final arbiter.

 

[social]

These two statements completely contradict each other. Not that you've been reluctant to do this. And research has also shown that the vast majority of bowlers are at least straightening their arms to some degree, whether you want to acknowlege it or not. You've also conceded this already in agreeing that the original laws were wrong.


Here, once again, in spite of agreeing to the argument that Murali was unfortunate, as you DID PREVIOUSLY, you retreat to the position that whatever the umpire calls is correct, regardless of it's validity. A principle that you break with great frequency and aplomb when it comes to every other out or not-out decision during a match.

You're not even holding your own argument together, because your basic intention, regardless of what you've said or agreed to previously seems to be to throw out constant non-sequiturs, William Shatner style, in an attempt to outlast your interlocuters (which may well prove successful, given that those your're debating are more interested in what the facts may be than you are). Fine. I'm willing to defend Hair, but I'm not really interested in ignoring the information anybody willing to be rational has learned since '96.

The statements do not contradict each other as the laws in place in '96 are now supported by processes that, whilst an improvement, are:

a. still subject to the performance of the naked eye;

b. open to abuse during lab testing; and

c. scarcely provide an appropriate punishment to the fielding team during the match in which the possible offence took place.

In relation to (c), take the case of Shabbir Ahmed's last 2 reports. In both of these matches, he played a pivotal role (particularly vs Eng, where he was instrumental in the victory) without fear of sanction during the course of the match.

Given that lab testing "proved" (such at it can) that he was bowling with an illegal action at the time of the first offence (I havent heard whether he's been tested following the latest report), the opposition should feel rightly aggrieved. If similar results are received this time around, Eng are well within their rights to feel that the match result was a farce.

In relation to umpiring decisions, you are missing the point.

When a batsman is given out lbw after edging the ball first, that is an umpiring error and the umpire is rightly subject to criticism.

When a bowler operates with less than 15 degrees of flexion in his action, it has been clinically proven that it is impossible for the umpire to detect that flaw and, as such, he has no alternative but to declare the action legal as there is no evidence to the contrary. In this instance, an umpire is beyond reproach.

 

[Slow Love™]

They reviewed it but declared it invalid as far as being definitive proof that, say, bowler A was operating within accepted tolerance levels.

The onus continues to be on the umpire, in the first instance, with lab testing in controlled conditions being the final arbiter.

Oh, please. They implemented just about every recommendation of the expert panel as a result of the ICC research program. It wasn't designed as proof to say that this bowler or that bowler was specifically operating within accepted tolerance levels. It was designed to show that that most bowlers were straightening the arm to varying measures below 15 degrees, and the ICC accepted that information (and acted upon it), as my direct quotes from the ICC's report show.

 

[social]

Oh, please. They implemented just about every recommendation of the expert panel as a result of the ICC research program. It wasn't designed as proof to say that this bowler or that bowler was specifically operating within accepted tolerance levels. It was designed to show that that most bowlers were straightening the arm to varying measures below 15 degrees, and the ICC accepted that information (and acted upon it), as my direct quotes from the ICC's report show.

What are you on about?

If you read the report,which you obviously havent, the project was specifically aimed at slow bowlers as they had never been been analysed in match situations before by this technology.

It was not "designed to show that most bowlers were....." It was simply part of on-going data collection and experimentation with new technology

The ICC took no action against any bowler as a result of any of the data collected and specifically stated that it would not be valid for such a purpose anyway.

And as for the measures adopted, try the most important one - legality of bowler's action is still assessed in the first instance by the umpire with the naked eye. Without his recommendation, data collection and tolerances levels become largely redundant.

 

[Slow Love™]

What are you on about?

If you read the report,which you obviously havent, the project was specifically aimed at slow bowlers as they had never been been analysed in match situations before by this technology.

It bares no relevance to how a bowler is regarded today and the ICC took no action on any of the data collected.

And as for the measures adopted, try the most important one - legality of bowler's action is still assessed in the first instance by the umpire with the naked eye. Without his recommendation, it's irrelevant what or how data is collected.

Man, you have to be one of the most disingenuous debaters at this forum.

I quoted already, from a report at the ICC's website, in a post to which you gave a bullcrap response about it not being intended to prove that bowler A was at X specific level of straightening (which it was never intended to do! It was also not solely research done at the Champions Trophy, although that research was certainly also considered):

The new regulations will deal with the reality established during the ICC research program that most bowlers are likely to straighten their arm to a level undetectable by the naked eye during the bowling action.

All bowlers will be permitted to straighten their bowling arm up to 15 degrees which has been established as the point at which any straightening will become visible to the naked eye.

"The expert panel viewed footage obtained during the ICC Champions Trophy 2004 and other research presented by various biomechanical experts gathered during their studies of bowlers in clinical and match conditions."- Malcolm Speed.

IT'S THE ENTIRE REASON THE TOLERANCE LEVELS WERE CHANGED. So please cut out this rubbish that the ICC took no action on any of the data collected.

Enough. My eight year old half-sister has a higher standard of debate than this.

 

[social]

Man, you have to be one of the most disingenuous debaters at this forum.

I quoted already, from a report at the ICC's website, in a post to which you gave a bullcrap response about it not being intended to prove that bowler A was at X specific level of straightening (which it was never intended to do! It was also not solely research done at the Champions Trophy, although that research was certainly also considered):

The new regulations will deal with the reality established during the ICC research program that most bowlers are likely to straighten their arm to a level undetectable by the naked eye during the bowling action.

All bowlers will be permitted to straighten their bowling arm up to 15 degrees which has been established as the point at which any straightening will become visible to the naked eye.

"The expert panel viewed footage obtained during the ICC Champions Trophy 2004 and other research presented by various biomechanical experts gathered during their studies of bowlers in clinical and match conditions."- Malcolm Speed.

IT'S THE ENTIRE REASON THE TOLERANCE LEVELS WERE CHANGED. So please cut out this rubbish that the ICC took no action on any of the data collected.

Enough. My eight year old half-sister has a higher standard of debate than this.

How can it be the entire reason for change when other evidence was required to corroborate its' finding.

Sorry, I'll keep it simple.

That footage was only part of the story.

BTW, just what are you trying to prove here?

That the laws were changed?

Earth to sloooooooooooooooow love, it happened last year

 

[Slow Love™]

BTW, your edits to continually redefine your claims are quite amusing. Nobody's claiming that the findings of the research were to be used for action against any bowler, that's just a straw man you inexplicably built. The claim is that indeed, the ICC accepted the research and acted upon it, contrary to your claims.

 

[Slow Love™]

How can it be the entire reason for change when other evidence was required to corroborate its' finding.

Sorry, Ill keep it simple.

That footage was only part of the story.

Imbecile

Are you referring to the Champions Trophy study? Of course it was only part of the story. That, and the rest of the ongoing research by scientists commissioned (and accepted) by the ICC as part of their research program into bowling actions is what lay behind the policy change.

 

[social]

BTW, your edits to continually redefine your claims are quite amusing. Nobody's claiming that the findings of the research were to be used for action against any bowler, that's just a straw man you inexplicably built. The claim is that indeed, the ICC accepted the research and acted upon it, contrary to your claims.

No my claim was that the footage was useless for the pruposes of determining the validity or otherwise of a bowlers' action - a fact backed up by the ICC itself who stated that any potential actions against a bowler arising out of performances in the Champions Trophy would not have access to this footage as it was not appropriate for this purpose.

Anyway, I have absolutely no idea what point youre trying to make with any of this.

 

[Anil]

Anyway, I have absolutely no idea what point youre trying to make with any of this.

not speaking for s_l, but the point that comes through clearly after reading through your "points" is you are incredibly biased on this subject and you will say just about anything to "prove" your point.....

 

[parttimer]

not speaking for s_l, but the point that comes through clearly after reading through your "points" is you are incredibly biased on this subject and you will say just about anything to "prove" your point.....

Another one who kisses the behind of S_L.... how many others are out there who knows

 

[Dasa]

Another one who kisses the behind of S_L.... how many others are out there who knows

Where on earth did that come from? Is it kissing someones behind to agree with what is the only factually correct conclusion? Is it kissing someones behind to support them when they're arguing against someone who is incredibly biased and will say almost anything to denigrate the reputation of one of the best bowlers the world has ever seen?

 

[parttimer]

Where on earth did that come from? Is it kissing someones behind to agree with what is the only factually correct conclusion? Is it kissing someones behind to support them when they're arguing against someone who is incredibly biased and will say almost anything to denigrate the reputation of one of the best bowlers the world has ever seen?

Funny how anyone who thinks Murali is a chucker is decried by all and sundry round here as totally biased and out of step with reality. I'd say the problem lies with you PC pple out there

 

[Dasa]

Funny how anyone who thinks Murali is a chucker is decried by all and sundry round here as totally biased and out of step with reality. I'd say the problem lies with you PC pple out there

When something has been scientifically proven as being INCORRECT, it's pretty stupid to keep espousing your former belief as some sort of fact. It's akin to saying the world is flat - it has been scientifically proven incorrect and to continue believing in something like that is ignorant, arrogant (if you think you know better than trained scientists) and frankly plain idiotic.
It has nothing to do with political correctness or otherwise...it's just to do with the non-acceptance of facts because the facts contradict your biased and uninformed point of view.

 

[parttimer]

When something has been scientifically proven as being INCORRECT, it's pretty stupid to keep espousing your former belief as some sort of fact. It's akin to saying the world is flat - it has been scientifically proven incorrect and to continue believing in something like that is ignorant, arrogant (if you think you know better than trained scientists) and frankly plain idiotic.
It has nothing to do with political correctness or otherwise...it's just to do with the non-acceptance of facts because the facts contradict your biased and uninformed point of view.

Scientifically proven not to chuck? I don't know about that. Quite irrelevant in my eyes anyway, as someone who bowls like that would never make the side of a non subcontinent side.

 

[social]

Where on earth did that come from? Is it kissing someones behind to agree with what is the only factually correct conclusion? Is it kissing someones behind to support them when they're arguing against someone who is incredibly biased and will say almost anything to denigrate the reputation of one of the best bowlers the world has ever seen?

Make sure you have your facts straight before you accuse someone of bias.

It is a scientific fact that almost every bowler in history was guilty of throwing under the legislation in place in 1996.

Murali was bowling in 1996.

He was called for throwing.

He was subsequently scientifically proven to contravene these laws (hardly surprising, given that it was almost impossible not to).

Therefore, the call was correct.

His doosra was also found to breach the modification of these laws that took place in 2000.

However, since a further modification of these rules in 2004 to increase the tolerance levels to 15 degrees flexion for all bowlers, he has not been reported.

Biased or factual?