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

[anzac]

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.

no it doesn't - it's a matter of perception.............

to the naked eye Murali's action looked suspect - even one of the people who had tested him previously acknowledged as much...............

whereas the real shocker is that those bowlers across the board who were thought to have silky smooth actions were also found to be over the limits - but only found to be under examination by high speed cameras filming at 10x the speed of TV images..............

which raises the question as to how did they test the former greats if the above is correct??????

 

[Slow Love™]

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................

Why do you keep prefacing your arguments with "regardless of the most important point you make"...?

I think you're concentrating on minor issues, and not the major one, which is that Murali IS vindicated in his defence of his own action (this being that he was being singled out unfairly when numerous other bowlers were in violation of the laws), given the facts we now have.

I don't think this debate is entirely about Murali's petulance when the doosra was banned, but if that the only point we're debating, then there's no need, because (re my second para, previous post), we obviously agree that he should have waited for his case to be proven rather than insisting on bowling it anyway (even if he changed this tune later).

But in terms of vindicating him in terms of the substance of his claims, it undoubtedly does. While I also acknowledge that the way his action looked attracted attention, we have to acknowledge that this study should have taken place much earlier. We were content to isolate Murali because we (perhaps blindly) accepted that other bowlers couldn't be straightening their arm to similar degrees. To ignore this now is akin to the Australian Prime Minister saying that, even knowing what he does now, he'd still have supported the invasion of Iraq on the WMD pretext. At some stage, we have to concede that the evidence shows us we were wrong.

Also, claiming he was "right" in his objections, isn't an endorsement for anarchy - it's just acknowledging that he actually had an argument which ended up to have more basis in truth than his accusers.

 

[BoyBrumby]

An issue that needs to be addressed is just why Murali was singled out for extra scrutiny.

He does have an iffy looking action, but he's far from alone in that. Current players whose action looks dodgy to that naked eye include Lee, Ahktar, Jermaine Lawson & James Kirtley. I'm sure there are others.

I do think a few ex-players, a couple of umpires & one prime minister have some serious questions to ask themselves.

 

[nightprowler10]

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/NOV/099009_WCI_10NOV2004.html

Extensive research conducted by the International Cricket Council has revealed that 99% of bowlers in the history of cricket have been chuckers. The study was undertaken in the wake of the furore surrounding Muttiah Muralitharan, whose doosra was banned earlier this year after Chris Broad, the match referee for the Tests against Australia, reported it to the ICC.

But an article by Derek Pringle in The Daily Telegraph suggests that Murali is no different from the vast majority of his fellow players. The current law states that there should be no straightening or partial straightening of the bowling arm during delivery, and research conducted with precise instrumentation has revealed that even bowlers like Glenn McGrath and Shaun Pollock, considered examplars of the classical action, occasionally go over the prescribed tolerance limit, bending their arms by as much as 12 degrees.

The tolerance levels had been set at five degrees for spinners, seven-and-a-half for medium-pacers, and 10 for quick bowlers, a scenario that had invited much criticism from past greats like Ian Chappell. But the study conducted by three prominent biomechanics experts suggests that the human eye can only detect a kink in the action if the straightening is more than 15 degrees.

As Angus Fraser - one of six former Test cricketers on the committee that reviewed illegal bowling actions in Dubai recently - wrote in The Independent, even the likes of Fred Trueman, Dennis Lillee, Curtly Ambrose, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, and Ian Botham were found to have exceeded the straightening-limit set by the ICC.

The biomechanics men - Dr Marc Portus, Professor Bruce Elliott and Dr Paul Hurrion - used cameras shooting at 250 frames per second – ten times the speed of a TV camera – to illustrate phenomena like adduction and hyperextension which can convince an observer watching without the aid of technology that the bowler is chucking.

Research was also undertaken during the ICC Champions Trophy in England, where it was found that 13 of the 23 bowlers filmed straightened their arms more than the current permissible levels. Ramnaresh Sarwan, he of the fairly innocuous legspin, was the only man observed who didn't straighten his arm at all.

Based on these findings, the ICC is to extend the tolerance limit to 15 degrees for all bowlers, regardless of whether they bowl at Shane Warne's pace or Shoaib Akhtar's. Match officials will still be expected to note down suspicious actions, and pass on the information to the ICC. But unlike before, remedial action will now be the sole preserve of a new body to the set up to help bowlers with the rehabiliation process.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds fair enough to me. I've doubted Murali's legitimacy in the past, but these figures can't be ignored, IMO.

So....does this mean Shoaib Malik is cleared?

 

[garage flower]

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.

The quote in bold is exactly what I was trying to say (perhaps stated a little more eloquently by Slow Love) and the entire post echoes my sentiments completely.

Whatever the ICC's motives for commissioning the research, the results show that Murali and his supporters were right to feel that he had been singled out unfairly and that his "optical illusion" defence is, in fact, valid.

 

[nightprowler10]

The quote in bold is exactly what I was trying to say (perhaps stated a little more eloquently by Slow Love) and the entire post echoes my sentiments completely.

Whatever the ICC's motives for commissioning the research, the results show that Murali and his supporters were right to feel that he had been singled out unfairly and that his "optical illusion" defence is, in fact, valid.

Do you think its possible that Malik's action being reported to ICC and then PCB not finding anything wrong with it might have triggered the research?

 

[Legglancer]

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

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

Perhaps Marc would rather prefer everyone be "Blissfully Ignorant" so some individuals can perpetuate their obtuse and skewed arguments rather than studying the subject sufficiently before Rushing to Judgement !

Jesus said " those without sin cast the first stone"

 

[garage flower]

Do you think its possible that Malik's action being reported to ICC and then PCB not finding anything wrong with it might have triggered the research?

To be honest I wasn't especially engrossed in the issue at the time, but as we're saying that's less relevant than the findings of the research.

 

[marc71178]

Do you think its possible that Malik's action being reported to ICC and then PCB not finding anything wrong with it might have triggered the research?

Weren't thte tests carried out before he was reported?

 

[nightprowler10]

Weren't thte tests carried out before he was reported?

I guess that would make sense. Malik's action was reported a month ago, i think, and the research would've taken longer than that.

 

[maxpower]

To get a better positive response ICC should list all the bowlers they have found to chuck once in a while, and also if they have the technology then try to get some research done on past bowlers who have retired, coz them geezers will not shut up coz they think they were flawless.

 

[JustTool]

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.

You are juvenile in your comments. I think McGrath is the main beneficiary because of the ignorance of laws he was NEVER wven questioned or challeneged before like he should have been. And Murali is the main sufferer because laws were unfairly applied ONLY to him. Get it ? Or that is too hard for you to comprehend since it is beyond simpl-minded Murali bashing ?

 

[Langeveldt]

Will this get more people off Murali's back?

Afraid not mate....

 

[Sanz]

Yeah nothing is going to be enough for some people.

 

[Langeveldt]

Yeah nothing is going to be enough for some people.

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

 

[Sanz]

That might be enough for you, but I can guarantee that would be not enough for some people. To make them happy, Murali must die.

 

[Legglancer]

That might be enough for you, but I can guarantee that would be not enough for some people. To make them happy, Murali must die.

What A Shame !

 

[Slow Love™]

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

But on what possible basis?

 

[Langeveldt]

That might be enough for you, but I can guarantee that would be not enough for some people. To make them happy, Murali must die.

lol, what on earth? You being serious?? I hate the guy to pieces on the cricket field.. But thats going too far!

 

[Tom Halsey]

Once again, Murali gets a huge benefit. If this was David Leatherdale who was in question I'm positive they wouldn't have done the research and his carear would have been over.