Is Murali a 'Chucker' ???

[SJS]

I've supported the umpires' right to call Murali for chucking under the old system, because I think that at the time, it was a reasonable thing for them to do.

But, to me, science has shown us that these decisions are made too arbitrarily. I realise that there was much attention on Murali already, but given (according to the info being released) that the difference in degrees of straightening between he and other bowlers seems to be low, and the amount of straightening visible to the eye is 15 degrees and above, I think we can be assured that the fuss over Murali has pretty much come down to the visual impact of his bent elbow, more so than a perceptible straightening of his arm.

I don't believe that the chucking controversy is the biggest issue of importance facing cricket today (even if it spawns the most controversy), but these are decisions that can end people's careers (I wonder what Ian Meckiff might have to say about recent events) - and livelihoods in some countries. I don't think they should be decided by arbitrary calls and different umpires' judgements, IF the technology is available to give us a clearer picture of the truth. Otherwise, it's comparable to matters of faith and tradition such as the earth being flat. It worked fine for hundreds of years, but that didn't mean it was right.

If a bowler chucks in a test match, what can the technology do about it ?

Technology, the one available so far, can only be used in a lab condition with the bowler wired up. When it comes to bowlers who chuck only some deliveries, wilfully and to bowl faster or get more purchase etc., they need never be caught in a lab situation. How does this determine who is chucking and how does it prevent people from chucking in match situations ?

 

[Son Of Coco]

If a bowler chucks in a test match, what can the technology do about it ?

Technology, the one available so far, can only be used in a lab condition with the bowler wired up. When it comes to bowlers who chuck only some deliveries, wilfully and to bowl faster or get more purchase etc., they need never be caught in a lab situation. How does this determine who is chucking and how does it prevent people from chucking in match situations ?

If this is the case, what have we gone through all of this talk about degree changes and '99% of people chuck' for then? How have they come to the conclusion that bowlers have been throwing in the past, and how did they get '99%' of bowler in to be tested with wires?

 

[odyssey]

OK my opinion:
Everybody keeps referring to the ICC and there findings, how many degrees this and that...i think it's irrelevant.
+ It is a lot harder to bowl the way he does, i have tried in the nets and it's a lot more difficult.
But simply...I don't think he's a chucker because his arm is actually permanently bent....
That explains why it looks like he bowls illegaly...as his arm is bent. But it's always like that. And it doesn't lock straight. Cos it can't.....
Look at this link if you don't believe me...

http://www.muralifans.com/The_truth.htm

& it's even been confirmed by independant assessments/diagnosis/tests with professors & biomechanics experts with no association to Murali or Cricket.
I guess the issue becomes.... should you allow someone with an arm deformity to play cricket?
I say yes. As it's only slightly different from a normal bowling action & probably harder to bowl with something like that. And you can't be discramantory.

Did anybody actually read this?

 

[Slow Love™]

If a bowler chucks in a test match, what can the technology do about it ?

Technology, the one available so far, can only be used in a lab condition with the bowler wired up. When it comes to bowlers who chuck only some deliveries, wilfully and to bowl faster or get more purchase etc., they need never be caught in a lab situation. How does this determine who is chucking and how does it prevent people from chucking in match situations ?

That's not true though. The whole point of the Champions Trophy study was to test bowling actions in match conditions, using new highspeed cameras.

I refer you to McGrath's comments (in case you haven't seen them), which I reproduced in another thread:

McGrath was also in favour of standardising the testing procedure and said, "At least you've got a benchmark. I know they go into the lab afterwards, which, to me, is nothing like a match situation. You can do whatever you want and change your action. But when you're out in the middle, if they can have a standard testing procedure ... I'm all for it.

"When I found out that the testing could be done in match situations with high-speed cameras, and a few of us had already been tested, I started thinking it was a good idea."

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/NOV/103179_AUS_17NOV2004.html

 

[Son Of Coco]

OK my opinion:
Everybody keeps referring to the ICC and there findings, how many degrees this and that...i think it's irrelevant.
+ It is a lot harder to bowl the way he does, i have tried in the nets and it's a lot more difficult.
But simply...I don't think he's a chucker because his arm is actually permanently bent....
That explains why it looks like he bowls illegaly...as his arm is bent. But it's always like that. And it doesn't lock straight. Cos it can't.....
Look at this link if you don't believe me...

http://www.muralifans.com/The_truth.htm

& it's even been confirmed by independant assessments/diagnosis/tests with professors & biomechanics experts with no association to Murali or Cricket.
I guess the issue becomes.... should you allow someone with an arm deformity to play cricket?
I say yes. As it's only slightly different from a normal bowling action & probably harder to bowl with something like that. And you can't be discramantory.

This is another misconception though, just because someone's arm is bent at the start doesn't mean it isn't a throw. If your arm starts bent, bends more during the delivery, and the returns to its original position it's a throw.....Murali's arm isn't locked in place so the argument that he can't throw cause of a bent arm is not valid.

On a sidenote, I don't believe his normal delivery is thrown, so this is not an anti-Murali piece for those of you revving the engines for another blast.

 

[SJS]

If this is the case, what have we gone through all of this talk about degree changes and '99% of people chuck' for then? How have they come to the conclusion that bowlers have been throwing in the past, and how did they get '99%' of bowler in to be tested with wires?

I would like to see the evidence before commenting on it. The report as available so fsr does not say enough.

At best they have access to videos of the bowlers in the modern era. But they have always had them. I think the tests have been done on a select sample and considering that even those who, to the naked eye seem to be bowling very fairly, seem to bend to a degree has made them come to this conclusion. Its impossible for them to say this with certainity for 99% of all bowlers ever. It just isnt logical. It is at best an 'educated' hypothesis.

 

[Slow Love™]

Did anybody actually read this?

It's fine, but remember that the issue has never been whether Murali can lock his arm straight or not - it's always been about whether he straightened it by any degree.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I would like to see the evidence before commenting on it. The report as available so fsr does not say enough.

At best they have access to videos of the bowlers in the modern era. But they have always had them. I think the tests have been done on a select sample and considering that even those who, to the naked eye seem to be bowling very fairly, seem to bend to a degree has made them come to this conclusion. Its impossible for them to say this with certainity for 99% of all bowlers ever. It just isnt logical. It is at best an 'educated' hypothesis.

I agree with you completely regarding seeing more evidence, we haven't been exposed to a great deal yet.

 

[C_C]

I think you'll find Warne wasn't tested...

i think you'll find i've explained clearly( i am an engineer btw) how video evidence is enough to pronounce warne as a chucker. Like i said before, if you have a question/doubt involving the scientific techniques undertaken by people who are authorities in the field, please prove their logic wrong.

Warne_is_God: your inconsistency is stunning. Lets see...Murali is a chucker coz he straightens his elbow more than the 5 degree tolerance level. McGrath who straightens his elbow beyond the tolerance level is however not. Eh ?

 

[Slow Love™]

If this is the case, what have we gone through all of this talk about degree changes and '99% of people chuck' for then? How have they come to the conclusion that bowlers have been throwing in the past, and how did they get '99%' of bowler in to be tested with wires?

Aaaaargh.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I must say I agree entirely with SJS on this one. The scientific definition of exactly what constitutes a throw can never be used on the cricket field by an umpire because it requires a bowler to be in a lab, and the fact that a bowler passes a test in a lab in no way guarantees they will not throw on the cricket field.

This issue, like most other things which can not be clearly solved by technology like edges and lbws must be left in the hands of the field umpire, and the only tools the umpire can use are his eyes and his knowledge of the laws of cricket. A match referee can report a suspect action to the ICC and they can investigate it, but the fact is bowlers who appear to start with a bent arm and straighten it as Murali does will always be the ones who are most likely to be called for throwing. McGrath and Pollock will never be called because nothing to the naked eye suggests that there is anything wrong with their action.

And, for what it is worth, nothing I have read suggested at any time that Warne was part of this ICC test, nor has he ever been reported for having a suspect action or called for throwing, therefore there is no reason to declare him a chucker.

 

[Slow Love™]

I must say I agree entirely with SJS on this one. The scientific definition of exactly what constitutes a throw can never be used on the cricket field by an umpire because it requires a bowler to be in a lab, and the fact that a bowler passes a test in a lab in no way guarantees they will not throw on the cricket field.

Would this still be true if the testing was done in match conditions using high-speed cameras, as the report suggests, and McGrath confirms? I know that at least some of it was done during the ICC Champions Trophy (as was announced before the fact).

 

[C_C]

And, for what it is worth, nothing I have read suggested at any time that Warne was part of this ICC test, nor has he ever been reported for having a suspect action or called for throwing, therefore there is no reason to declare him a chucker.

Au contraire.
His bowling action was scrutinised in video-feeds and he was found to have more-than-allowable levels of flexion.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Well India itself has a billion people...

On the murali subject. Yes, he chucks. Why? Because he starts off with a straightened arm and bends it....

Do you have working eyes?

For starters, that isn't a "chuck", that's hyperextension, and that isn't what Murali does anyway...

 

[C_C]

Do you have working eyes?

For starters, that isn't a "chuck", that's hyperextension, and that isn't what Murali does anyway..

its NOT hyperextension. Hyperextension and chuck are totally different things.
When you chuck, you bend your elbows outwards. Hyperextension is when you bend your elbows inwards and is medically excusable. ICC said that 99% bowlers are chuckers- meaning they bend their elbows outwards

 

[Neil Pickup]

its NOT hyperextension. Hyperextension and chuck are totally different things.
When you chuck, you bend your elbows outwards. Hyperextension is when you bend your elbows inwards and is medically excusable. ICC said that 99% bowlers are chuckers- meaning they bend their elbows outwards

Does Cloete ever mention the direction of bend?

 

[vic_orthdox]

just wondering, after the previous ruling about murali's doosra (that it was illegal, but the rest of his repetoire could be bowled), what would have happened if he bowled it? surely the umpire couldn't pick it. would he have just called it a no ball once he saw the ball spin the other way? it seems as though all these laws being used to police bowlers are impossible to implement.

also, 15 degrees is a fairly minute amount in reality. have a look at it on a protractor.

 

[C_C]

just wondering, after the previous ruling about murali's doosra (that it was illegal, but the rest of his repetoire could be bowled), what would have happened if he bowled it? surely the umpire couldn't pick it. would he have just called it a no ball once he saw the ball spin the other way? it seems as though all these laws being used to police bowlers are impossible to implement.

probably. Thats a grey area.
Technically, the umpire at the wicket cannot call you for chucking- thats the perogative of the umpire at the square leg. I guess the square leg umpire would call Murali IF he could spot the doosra.

 

[C_C]

Does Cloete ever mention the direction of bend?

Considering the hoo-haa kicked up by ICC around Akhtar's hyper-extension, i am fairly certain that if the direction of the bend was inwards(hyper-extension), ICC would've mentioned it.

 

[marc71178]

Who gives a toss what you believe marc.

By replying, you clearly do.