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

[Langeveldt]

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.

"Research"... Well... They can say what they like to be honest, and it looks like they have...

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

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? If it takes a player being sent to a University to undergo a barrage of biomechanical tests to clear his name why is it right to criticise an umpire for doing his job as it stood at the time?

As I said before, I think it's a bit early to jump on the 'every bowler chucks' bandwagon as I don't think we all understand exactly what it is they're talking about in regards to hyperextension and adduction. As far as I understand hyperextension is a different thing altogether to an arm bending inwards towards the shoulder and then straightening again, but I'm not too sure what adduction is!? I thought chucking referred to something completely different to hyperextension, but then I don't really know exactly what they've found in regards to each bowler either. (Note: I'm not referring to Murali here in regards to chucking or otherwise..............so keep your shirts on!)

 

[Jono]

"Research"... Well... They can say what they like to be honest, and it looks like they have...

Lol! Who are you to come out and say that?

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.

 

[JustTool]

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

Nothing personal, eh ? Let me guess - you are an 'objective' Aussie ?

 

[Jono]

In fact the only bowler in history to never chuck at all is Ramnaresh Sarwan. I say all wickets should be disallowed and Ramna should take his rightful place as the bowler with most wickets in all forms of the game. What a legend.

LOL! That's gold! He should now be put into both the Test and ODI XI.

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

How about McGrath's and Pollock's too?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nothing personal, eh ? Let me guess - you are an 'objective' Aussie ?

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

 

[Jono]

Well he got the 'objective' part spot on.

 

[Son Of Coco]

LOL! That's gold! He should now be put into both the Test and ODI XI.

How about McGrath's and Pollock's too?

I think there's a difference, which is why Murali was called in the first place. THere's not one generic action for all bowlers, resulting in questionable
looking actions being called. As I said before, I think there's a difference between what they're talking about and chucking, but some people have been quick to jump on it and accuse everyone of throwing, which i don't think is the purpose of the tests in the first place.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well he got the 'objective' part spot on.

haha, yeah if you're an 'objective' anti-Aussie. The posts here that are heavily biased in the other direction are no more objective than those they accuse.

 

[Jono]

I think there's a difference, which is why Murali was called in the first place. THere's not one generic action for all bowlers, resulting in questionable
looking actions being called. As I said before, I think there's a difference between what they're talking about and chucking, but some people have been quick to jump on it and accuse everyone of throwing, which i don't think is the purpose of the tests in the first place.

But they all go over the limit right? Yes? Wasn't that what was argued regarding Murali when it was revealed his doosra went over.

So what's the difference?

 

[Son Of Coco]

But they all go over the limit right? Yes? Wasn't that what was argued regarding Murali when it was revealed his doosra went over.

So what's the difference?

It depends on what the limit referred to when it was first put in place. If it referred to hyperextension as well as the arm bending towards the shoulder and the returning to its original position then yes most seem to be deemed over the limit looking at the new tests.

I've got my doubts that a law written years ago (and only slightly refined recently) would have been taking hyperextension into account as a factor when it was first written as it would have been very difficult to obtain accurate measurements back in the day.

The difference is the way the arm bends I'd imagine. One being quite rightly illegal, and the other being the result of forced exacted on the arm throughout delivery. At least that's what I understand it to be, but then I am far from an expert and know very little about hyperextension etc except what i believe it to be referring to. I think they could possibly be talking about two different angles though. I don't think any of us on here know exactly what hyperextension and adduction refer to though and that's why i think it's a bit silly that comments like 'everyone chucks' 'Murali deserves an apology' and so on are being bandied about, as clearly there's a difference between actions like Chauhan (who played for India a little while back for a game before disappearing - very dodgy action) and your Vaas, McGraths, Pollocks, Akrams and so on. If it's possible to see the report and get an idea of exactly what it is they're referring to then I think it'll be easier to make conclusions - but I don't think that'll happen.

 

[Warne is god]

This decision by the joke that is the ICC to increase the limit to 15 degrees is absolutely pathetic. Everyone has ignored the fact that Murali was found to be 3 TIMES the legal bowling limit. Now if this was Shane Warne or Ashley Giles they would've been banned. Why wasn't Murali banned you ask? Its very simple. He's black. Thats why. The ICC don't want to be seen as being racists so they've decided to let him off. But instead of just letting him off they've extended the limit so that their precious Murali can bowl his beloved Doosra.

If someone was to be pulled over by police and a breath test showed he was 3 times the legal limit his liscence would be taked off him for 1-2 years. Yet Murali has done the EXCAT same thing and instead of a ban he gets the rules changed to suit his delivery.

Perhaps the best comment on this issue came from former Australian great Jeff Thompson. Thommo was on the Melbourne radio station SEN 1116 and when asked about the ICC's decision he replied "This is decision is an absolute bloody joke. He's been found to be breaking the rules and instead of doing something about it the ICC have changed the rules to allow him to bowl the bloody ball. The ICC are a bunch of jacket wearing clowns. The lot of them should be burnt."

Get over yourselves ICC, I can't remember the last useful thing you did. All you seem to do is make stupid bloody decisions that make absolutely no sense.

 

[Slow Love™]

I don't think any of us on here know exactly what hyperextension and adduction refer to though and that's why i think it's a bit silly that comments like 'everyone chucks' 'Murali deserves an apology' and so on are being bandied about, as clearly there's a difference between actions like Chauhan (who played for India a little while back for a game before disappearing - very dodgy action) and your Vaas, McGraths, Pollocks, Akrams and so on. If it's possible to see the report and get an idea of exactly what it is they're referring to then I think it'll be easier to make conclusions - but I don't think that'll happen.

From what I can gather:

hyper-extending is when the elbow moves backwards, past the angle of 180 degrees (i.e., the "non-natural" way, if that makes sense).

adduct and abduct refer to sideways movement of the elbow - I presume one is "inside", and the other "outside", if that makes sense.

The conclusion that Angus Fraser and the rest of the team given the task to look at these issues seem to have come to is that they will not penalize those (like Shoaib) who hyper-extend, abduct or adduct, because they consider them completely involuntary movements, caused by the force of the arm as it rolls over during delivery. So the tolerance levels do NOT pertain to this. They refer to the usual concept of the straightening of the elbow in a throwing action, like you would return a ball in the field.

The reason 15 degrees was chosen was not completely arbitary. According to the study, it's the degree to which an element of excessive straightening is detectable to the naked eye. There also seems to be an assumption that once we get to this level of straightening, there's room for voluntary remedial correction (because the player has some control over that degree, as opposed to the hyper-extending, etc, etc).

If you want more stuff apart from the cricinfo articles, Angus Fraser's articles at the Independent are a good place to start...

http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/story.jsp?story=581257

http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/story.jsp?story=581256

Given that the existing rules were based on the degree of orthodox (for want of a better word) straightening, and NOT hyper-extending, adduction, abduction, etc, I think your questions are resolved, and that it does seem that Murali is no worse than the majority of bowlers out there, past and present. In my opinion, anyway.

I think the only refutation available for those that still want to isolate Murali is that those studying this issue are lying.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

This decision by the joke that is the ICC to increase the limit to 15 degrees is absolutely pathetic. Everyone has ignored the fact that Murali was found to be 3 TIMES the legal bowling limit. Now if this was Shane Warne or Ashley Giles they would've been banned. Why wasn't Murali banned you ask? Its very simple. He's black. Thats why. The ICC don't want to be seen as being racists so they've decided to let him off. But instead of just letting him off they've extended the limit so that their precious Murali can bowl his beloved Doosra.

If someone was to be pulled over by police and a breath test showed he was 3 times the legal limit his liscence would be taked off him for 1-2 years. Yet Murali has done the EXCAT same thing and instead of a ban he gets the rules changed to suit his delivery.

Perhaps the best comment on this issue came from former Australian great Jeff Thompson. Thommo was on the Melbourne radio station SEN 1116 and when asked about the ICC's decision he replied "This is decision is an absolute bloody joke. He's been found to be breaking the rules and instead of doing something about it the ICC have changed the rules to allow him to bowl the bloody ball. The ICC are a bunch of jacket wearing clowns. The lot of them should be burnt."

Get over yourselves ICC, I can't remember the last useful thing you did. All you seem to do is make stupid bloody decisions that make absolutely no sense.

What was I expecting with a username like yours?

Although I think the rules should be more rigid. Why don't they allow flooding of the pitch square, or make Mankading illegal?

 

[Warne is god]

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.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I think if the race for the world record wasn't apparent then Murali would have been banned with impunity.

 

[Warne is god]

The ICCD gave into pressure. Their a bunch of spineless cowards who never do anything right.

 

[Slow Love™]

Perhaps the best comment on this issue came from former Australian great Jeff Thompson. Thommo was on the Melbourne radio station SEN 1116 and when asked about the ICC's decision he replied "This is decision is an absolute bloody joke. He's been found to be breaking the rules and instead of doing something about it the ICC have changed the rules to allow him to bowl the bloody ball. The ICC are a bunch of jacket wearing clowns. The lot of them should be burnt."

That sounds about right for Thommo. Granted, he was a great fast bowler (one of the best of all time), but he wouldn't be the first person I'd go to for a nuanced understanding of the relevant issues. Watching him commentate the game, I don't think he has much of a clue. What did he think of the fact that McGrath and Pollock, as well as Botham and Ambrose, have a similar degree of straightening to that of Murali? Did he have an opinion of that, or was he just plain unaware?

 

[Warne is god]

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.

 

[Dasa]

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.

You just don't get it do you? They were found to be straightening their arms as much as Murali! Scientific evidence, not just looking at video and then deciding "this one chucks, this one doesn't"...