So the ICC evidence is finally in - and apparently even Glen McGrath chucks...

[Warne is god]

So they tested Lillee did they? When? I didn't know they had that technology in the 70s.

 

[Slow Love™]

And they got this evidence that Lillee, Hadlee, Ambrose and McGrath from...........where? Looking at video? Well if there judging a bowlers legallity by video then Murali should be long gone.

I don't think you're understanding the findings. You seem to be interpreting this to mean that these other bowlers DO violate the tolerance levels, and that Murali DOESN'T.

That's not what anybody is saying. They're saying that all these other bowlers have comparable degrees of straightening to Murali.

So when you say "if there (sic) juding a bowlers legality by video then Murali should be long gone", it makes no sense. Because he is ALSO guilty of breaking the rules as they've been defined up to this point. So the issue then becomes, do you let ALL of them off, or do you ban the lot of them (and maybe strip bowlers like Hadlee, Ambrose, Botham, along with Murali of their records)? Isolating Murali no longer makes sense in this regard, because he's one of many.

 

[Slow Love™]

So they tested Lillee did they? When? I didn't know they had that technology in the 70s.

What, they didn't have cameras? The starting point for any analysis is going to be raw footage, whether it's from now or 30 years ago.

 

[Warne is god]

When did they test Lillee? They struggled to put a spaceship in movies in the 70s let alone do that scientific testing they're doing nowadays.

 

[Warne is god]

What, they didn't have cameras? The starting point for any analysis is going to be raw footage, whether it's from now or 30 years ago.

So they tested him from footage? Gee a great lot of good that would've done.

 

[JustTool]

Bad guess, but keep on with that line of attack and eventually you'll get a hit.

This may be very disappointing to you, but I wasn't talking to you. I already know you and your opinions - nothing original, new or exciting there.

 

[Slow Love™]

Considering that at the time of Murali's calling for throwing all the umpires had to go on was what the action they saw with the naked eye I don't think all the mud been slung at them for doing their job is fair either. Murali was tested and it was reported that his action created 'the optical illusion' of throwing, so if an umpire saw this optical illusion and reported it as such how has he done anything wrong?

BTW, I agree with this. Hair was just doing his job to the best of his ability when he called Murali. If we concede that Murali's action attracts attention, we have to allow for the fact that an umpire would find it suspect.

 

[Slow Love™]

So they tested him from footage? Gee a great lot of good that would've done.

Somehow, I think you are more motivated to have Murali condemned than you are to get to the actual truth.

What's wrong with using actual footage? Footage is about the only way you could have had any idea whatsoever that Murali could be chucking the ball - it was clearly good enough for you to base your judgement on.

Also, your "race comparison" doesn't hold water, either. For example, Ashley Giles was found to be exceeding the tolerance levels, but he wasn't even reported, let alone forced to repair his action.

 

[Warne is god]

Why don't they test Murali from in-game footage? Or are they afraid they might find that he's rotating his arm by 30 degrees?

 

[Slow Love™]

Why don't they test Murali from in-game footage? Or are they afraid they might find that he's rotating his arm by 30 degrees?

Maybe they already have. If not, they certainly should. But what basis do you have to suppose that he might be straightening to such a high degree?

 

[JustTool]

BTW, I agree with this. Hair was just doing his job to the best of his ability when he called Murali. If we concede that Murali's action attracts attention, we have to allow for the fact that an umpire would find it suspect.

Why do you suppose ONLY Hair has a problem with Murali - he started the whole thing anyway ? Anyway, the bottom line was that the majority of umpires, as it turns out, were right and Mr. Hair was WRONG. Imagine if an Sri Lankan umpire had called Brett Lee for chucking - can you imagine all quickly the so-called Aussies Greats would have come out and lambasted the poor umpire. And here, you are making excuses for a sorry umpire - Hair.

 

[JustTool]

Why don't they test Murali from in-game footage? Or are they afraid they might find that he's rotating his arm by 30 degrees?

Because only Aussies have a vendatta against Murali and it isn't enough for the whole world to do stupid things based on imaginary accusations by some biased Aussies. Satisfied ?

 

[Craig]

Murali out of the game for good would be about enough.. As well as the eradication of all his records..

I don't suppose Hannsie Cronje's Test records should be erased?

 

[Slow Love™]

Why do you suppose ONLY Hair has a problem with Murali - he started the whole thing anyway ? Anyway, the bottom line was that the majority of umpires, as it turns out, were right and Mr. Hair was WRONG. Imagine if an Sri Lankan umpire had called Brett Lee for chucking - can you imagine all quickly the so-called Aussies Greats would have come out and lambasted the poor umpire. And here, you are making excuses for a sorry umpire - Hair.

Concerns had been raised from a number of officials as to Murali's action well before he got to Australia, and Hair. As it turns out, Hair WAS wrong, in that Murali wasn't doing something that a lot of other players were, but given the fact that we accept (and the scientists do) that Murali's action "looks" dodgy, Hair was entitled to call him. The ICC should have settled this properly from that point, but failed miserably.

What I will say is that Hair should have refrained from making the comments he did in his biography, years later - that was a bruised ego talking. But as for calling him at the time, if he believed that Murali was throwing, under the guidelines at that point, it was his duty to call him.

As for Brett Lee, well, he was reported for his action, IIRC, and had to do remedial work himself, so I'm not sure what point you're making there.

 

[marc71178]

Nothing will be good enough to get people off Murali's back... but who cares? It's been proven by the only organisation that matters, that Murali was right all along.

But, to play devil's advocate, it's also been proven that these umpires and referees that have had so much vitriol are also right.

It got crazy when Chris Broad was attacked for reporting the doosra, when he was correct in doing so.

 

[marc71178]

Every white spinner around the world would be banned if they bowled like Murali. Warnie, Macgilla, Giles, Mushtaq, Vettori EVERYONE. But OH NO Muralis black, we'd better change the rules.

It is absolutely nothing to do with skin colour.

 

[marc71178]

This may be very disappointing to you, but I wasn't talking to you. I already know you and your opinions - nothing original, new or exciting there.

Oh, the irony you continue to spout.

 

[marc71178]

Anyway, the bottom line was that the majority of umpires, as it turns out, were right and Mr. Hair was WRONG.

Erm, how do you work that out?

At the time, Hair was entirely correct to call him under the rules that were prevalent.

 

[Warne is god]

Anyway, the bottom line was that the majority of umpires, as it turns out, were right and Mr. Hair was WRONG.

Murali was found to be bowling at 3 times the legal limt. How do you figure that Hair was wrong?

 

[Top_Cat]

Warne is God: Murali has an advantage because he's black?!!? Puh-friggin'-lease, being black in this world has NEVER been an advantage. I mean, one could put forward a far more convincing case that it's indeed because he's black that he's been hounded more than any other bowler.

And Langeveldt, brother, you've always been one of my favourite CW posters but geez, this hatred of Murali is bordering on irrational.

As for the chucking issue, it would be physiologically impossible to not throw a little bit, as evidenced by those guys who are considered to be the best, who all have a degree of flexion (not a surprise to me; I'm surprised it was so surprising to so many people!). These tests prove it and all the nay-sayers have been able to say in response is "Well, I trust my eyes." Well guess what? Eyes are human and therefore flawed. Case in point; the concept of parallax error.

The thing is, the chucking issue had to be dealt with from two standpoints; technical and legal. No-one had properly defined what a 'throw' in cricket really was or come up with baseline data to show what a 'legal' delivery was. Guys like the team from UWA are doing what needed to be done and have pretty conclusively shown that all bowlers flex to a certain degree so the concept of 'chucking' needed to be redefined. It's laughable that people are still arguing with it, really.

Second, the former laws would not have withstood a legal challenge. This I always suspected and was re-iterated by Time May (who is a lawyer by training). Something needed to be done to make the laws defendable in court and this is a great effort. Again, all the nay-sayers aren't thinking all of the issues through. Welcome to the professional sporting world!