Wisden on Murali's Action

[smash84]

His action in 2010 was diabolical so I'd hate to see what it had "deteriorated" to.

By always wasn't a chucker I meant not a chucker by ICC standards. Although his action in 2010 England vid that i posted above does look much "cleaner"

 

[miscer]

Let's be clear - before 2004 Murali chucked the ball according to the law of the time.

Then the law was changed at Murali's request so that he no longer chucked the ball according to the revised law.

The contention is whether a cricket law should be changed just to accomodate a specific player? The excuse for changing the law was that a straightening of less than 15 degrees is not 'visible to the naked eye'. That arbitrary number of 15 sounds dodgy to me. But I'm happy to be wrong.

To be CRYSTAL clear - prior to 2004 every bowler including mcgrath chucked. You realize this right? Every bowler extended elbows >10 degrees.

 

[TheJediBrah]

To be CRYSTAL clear - prior to 2004 every bowler including mcgrath chucked. You realize this right? Every bowler extended elbows >10 degrees.

This is a myth. Also you realise you're responding to a post nearly a decade old?

 

[Bahnz]

And a poster who’s been banned for about 5 years.

 

[Migara]

Is this even a debte?

 

[miscer]

This is a myth. Also you realise you're responding to a post nearly a decade old?

On which basis is that a myth?

 

[honestbharani]

On which basis is that a myth?

On the basis that its a fact that proves him wrong.

 

[TheJediBrah]

no u

 

[Burgey]

A rare occasion where watson was absolutely right

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What vested interests interest? He was tested in every possible way and came out clean. Do you hold a similar scepticism towards the theory of evolution or the usefulness of vaccines?

Turns out all these years later that vaccines don’t work either.

 

[Gob]

Time to throw this thread to the bin

 

[Migara]

Turns out all these years later that vaccines don’t work either.

May be we haven't found a vaccine to protect against dumbness.

 

[Line and Length]

The fact remains that numerous international cricketers (CB Fry, Tony Lock, Charlie Griffith, Ian Meckiff, Bruce Yardley to name just some) were called for throwing under a rule that allowed a maximum of 5 degrees bend. That same rule was in place when umpires Hair and Emerson correctly called Muralitharan for throwing.
I was never comfortable when the powers that be extended the maximum to 15 degrees to accommodate one particular bowler (whose doosra was delivered with a 14 degree bend).
As an umpire it was frustrating to see blatant 'chuckers' allowed to operate without on-the-spot sanctions (no ball) and having to go through a process of reporting to the governing body to have the bowler scrutinized at a later stage.
I accept that Muralitharan's action was legal under a new law, but why was the law changed?

 

[honestbharani]

I was never comfortable when the powers that be extended the maximum to 15 degrees to accommodate one particular bowler (whose doosra was delivered with a 14 degree bend).

That is just not true. Every bowler had a bend that was greater than 5 degree. So if the limit was set at 13 it would have been to ensure one bowler would still be banned? The researchers concluded that 15 degree was the lowest limit it can be visible to the naked eye. Murali and Shoaib having hyperextension does not mean umpires' biased calls were right. That was blatant bias on the part of Hair and bias + cheating on the part of Emerson.


Remember the amazing umpiring standards of Australia? This was in a World Cup, no less where they actually had third umpires.

 

[Line and Length]

That is just not true. Every bowler had a bend that was greater than 5 degree. So if the limit was set at 13 it would have been to ensure one bowler would still be banned? The researchers concluded that 15 degree was the lowest limit it can be visible to the naked eye. Murali and Shoaib having hyperextension does not mean umpires' biased calls were right. That was blatant bias on the part of Hair and bias + cheating on the part of Emerson.


Remember the amazing umpiring standards of Australia? This was in a World Cup, no less where they actually had third umpires.

I don't believe it was either bias or cheating. It was simply enforcing the rule as it existed at the time. I may have exaggerated when I said "the powers that be extended the maximum to 15 degrees to accommodate one particular bowler" but the fact remains the rules was changed following Murali being called. Perhaps one should ask, "Why wasn't the rule changed in the early '50s when four international players were called for throwing? Or in the early '60s when seven were called?"

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Time to throw this thread to the bin

Make sure your arm is under 15 degrees.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't believe it was either bias or cheating. It was simply enforcing the rule as it existed at the time. I may have exaggerated when I said "the powers that be extended the maximum to 15 degrees to accommodate one particular bowler" but the fact remains the rules was changed following Murali being called. Perhaps one should ask, "Why wasn't the rule changed in the early '50s when four international players were called for throwing? Or in the early '60s when seven were called?"

Because that was the trigger incident that prompted actual research on the false premises and beliefs that have clouded reality for years? Why is that a bad thing?

And it was definitely cheating when Emerson did it as I dont even think you were allowed to call those no-balls from that end, forget him actually knowing anything about the degree of the bend, which was, by then, enforced.

 

[Line and Length]

To each his own opinion. Let's agree to disagree and bin a topic that has been done to death. I only jumped in as a relative newby who hadn't commented before.

 

[Red]

Wonder what Watson’s up to nowadays

 

[Daemon]

Probably celebrating Australia's borders being closed