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

[Son Of Coco]

Before getting too carried away with the 'every bowler chucks' thing, I think some exact definitions of what they're talking about would be good.......otherwise you're telling me that the guy i played last week with a noticable bend at the elbow with his quicker ball is the same as Pollock who is apparently being measured due to a degree of hyperextension....and I can't see it.

 

[garage flower]

I can say to my Grandchildren, I was part of something special!

Hmmm, it's a wonderful picture. I'm going all misty-eyed just imagining it: "Now then little Bruce and Sheila, I'm going to tell you all about the day Grandad helped to hound the greatest spin bowler in the world out of Australia once and for all..."

 

[Dasa]

Are there any bowlers around that have had a delivery banned and that can now use it then?

No there's not.

Anyone else who's been reported has either subsequently been cleared, or have modified their action.

I mentioned it because of the obvious bias in the news, not because it was Murali. I presume you don't watch Channel Nine Melbourne's 6.30 News Bulletin, so I don't think you'd know what I'm talking about in this case.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I mentioned it because of the obvious bias in the news, not because it was Murali. I presume you don't watch Channel Nine Melbourne's 6.30 News Bulletin, so I don't think you'd know what I'm talking about in this case.

If Murali is the only bowler who has had a delivery cleared then reporting that is not bias in the media, which I believe was marc's point.

 

[garage flower]

Are there any bowlers around that have had a delivery banned and that can now use it then?

No there's not.

Anyone else who's been reported has either subsequently been cleared, or have modified their action.

The fact is that a disproportionate amount of the coverage on this issue focuses - negatively - on Murali, despite the fact that many other bowlers have had their actions questioned, either officially or unofficially.

 

[Dasa]

The point was, they mentioned nothing except for Murali on the news. Didn't even touch on how many other bowlers were found to have bowled illegal deliveries in the past. The report was structured so it would seem that the ICC changed the rules purely for Murali...
...and what annoyed me about Marc's reply was that he went on the attack straightaway (or indirectly questioned my motives in posting what I did) without actually having seen the news report.

 

[marc71178]

If Murali is the only bowler who has had a delivery cleared then reporting that is not bias in the media, which I believe was marc's point.

Exactly.

No other bowler has been told to stop bowling a particular delivery have they, so the media is right in singling out Murali as the main beneficiary.

 

[garage flower]

Exactly.

No other bowler has been told to stop bowling a particular delivery have they, so the media is right in singling out Murali as the main beneficiary.

Not in my view. The big news, surely, is that almost every single bowler in the history of the game straightened their arm to some degree and many current bowlers, it would seem, regularly exceed the "legal" limits previously established by the ICC.

Angus Fraser explains the situation very lucidly in his article in the Independent (http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/story.jsp?story=581257) and doesn't feel the need to single out any current bowler.

Without having seen the news report Dasa mentioned, it would appear that the implication in that report is that the ICC are changing the rules to allow Murali to bowl his Doosra again. If so, it sounds fairly biased to me.

 

[marc71178]

Well that is exactly what's happening when you think about it.

Without this Doosra, the whole thing wouldn't have been looked at.

 

[garage flower]

Well that is exactly what's happening when you think about it.

Without this Doosra, the whole thing wouldn't have been looked at.

No that isn't what's happening (assuming that "that" means the ICC are changing the rules specifically to allow Murali to bowl his Doosra).

The rules are being changed because, in light of this latest research, the previous limits need to be revised because most bowlers exceed them.

It's the research that's exonerating Murali, not the ICC decision-makers.

 

[Waughney]

Will this get more people off Murali's back?

 

[garage flower]

Will this get more people off Murali's back?

Not on the evidence of this thread.

 

[honestbharani]

I cannot believe that people don't even have the good sense to express their apologies to Murali as yet. Yes, he chucks, but apparently so do all the bowlers in the world. If that was the case, and the variation in degrees was not as high as some people think, then I do not see why people are still on Murali's back. The point now is that all bowlers are chucking and all of them come within that 15 degree rule. So that makes Murali's action as illegal as that of Glen McGrath's.

 

[marc71178]

The rules are being changed because, in light of this latest research, the previous limits need to be revised because most bowlers exceed them.

Ah, but why was the research undertaken?

 

[garage flower]

Ah, but why was the research undertaken?

Largely, I suppose, because there has been an ongoing furore over the legality, or otherwise, of Murali's action in particular, culminating in one of his deliveries being banned.

Murali and others felt that he was being singled out unfairly.

Further research has been undertaken, the limits have been revised appropriately and it would appear that Murali has been treated fairly shabbily.

If the ICC were prompted to commission further research into the issue of "chucking" because of the "Murali affair" - so what? Or are you cynically implying that the ICC's motive all along was to clear Murali rather than gain more clarity on the issue of "chucking" as a whole?

 

[Slow Love™]

Well that is exactly what's happening when you think about it.

Without this Doosra, the whole thing wouldn't have been looked at.

You are SO missing the point. Why hinge how we look at the truth of this matter by how the question got raised in the first place?

When it emerges (as it has) that the vast majority of bowlers past and present have been "breaking the laws" when it comes to what constitutes a legal delivery, it SHOULD give us all a big shock, and we ought to reconsider assumptions we might have made (particularly concerning Murali) in the past.

Personally, I've been extremely critical of Murali's action up to this point. I thought he was a chucker. This report surprised the hell out of me. Although I was always in favor of the study, I genuinely thought it would back up my opinion of the facts. Upon reading the results, about the best I can say to Murali IS "sorry, mate, you WERE unfairly targeted." In my defence, I would say that this occurs because of how he looks when he delivers the ball. The visual impression is that the degree of straightening on his part is egregious, but what the research just done tells us is that in fact, he's just in the same ballpark as the other bowlers out there that are breaking the ICC's regulatory guidelines.

Having read this, I don't think we can live in denial on this issue from this point. It's porbably the case that some of the researchers were motivated to pursue this study in order to clear Murali, but if they were right, shouldn't we care more about the objective truth than we do about discrediting them on the basis of their motives (particularly given that what was motivating them was a desire for the truth to be understood)?

That the news reports were still focussed on the "accommodation" of Murali is a little disingenous, really, when what the research actually suggests is that people we've never questioned were in exactly the same boat.

 

[anzac]

and so does the end justify the means in regard to his previous behaviour over the Doosra controversy & the record?????????????

not IMO regardless of the subsequent findings...............

 

[Slow Love™]

and so does the end justify the means in regard to his previous behaviour over the Doosra controversy & the record?????????????

not IMO regardless of the subsequent findings...............

I don't understand the "regardless of the subsequent findings" bit, because the "subsequent findings" are absolutely crucial, given the idea that truth is an ultimate defence.

Does it justify Murali's behaviour around the time of the banning of the doosra (and his initial refusal to stop bowling it)? Not really - he should have complied with the request given the regulations that existed at the time, and waited for the research.

But does it make it more understandable why he was so adamant and belligerent? Hell, yeah. And surely whether or not he was being singled out unfairly surely trumps a temper tantrum he had on the issue, in terms of it's importance to the game (and to us) - I would have thought, anyway.

 

[Steulen]

It is a bit rich to go criticize Murali for being too vocal about his beliefs when it has now been conclusively proven that he was right all along. The least he deserves is a monopoly on the ICC Awards next year and apologies from some quarters. Are you listening, Mr. Hair? Yes, Murali was chucking according to the rules, but so was nearly everyone else. Thus, he was singled out unfairly.

 

[anzac]

I don't understand the "regardless of the subsequent findings" bit, because the "subsequent findings" are absolutely crucial, given the idea that truth is an ultimate defence.

Does it justify Murali's behaviour around the time of the banning of the doosra (and his initial refusal to stop bowling it)? Not really - he should have complied with the request given the regulations that existed at the time, and waited for the research.

But does it make it more understandable why he was so adamant and belligerent? Hell, yeah. And surely whether or not he was being singled out unfairly surely trumps a temper tantrum he had on the issue, in terms of it's importance to the game (and to us) - I would have thought, anyway.

regardless of truth being the ultimate defence you have contradicted yourself by your 2nd para - which is my point..........

I acknowledge your points in paras 1 & 3 - but I still debate the point he was being singled out unfairly...............could it not have been that his action looks more suspect than others (a point already raised by someone else), whereas 'the rest' look legal..............the fact that it now appears that most break the existing rules (incliding past greats) is cause enough to change the current rulings irrespective of Murali's involvement.........

furthermore I do not see the finding as any sort of vindication of Murali or his behavior - the game is governed by rules as is the society we live in...........by claiming that he was 'right' to behave the way he did is nothing short of an endorsement for anarchy................