Martin Crowe attacks officials, chuckers & Bangladesh/Zimbabwe

[JASON]

Do you actually believe the things that you write on here?

Why do you not believe it ? Having lived in both countries I know what these people think and how their stupid minds work.

 

[Smudge]

I know what these people think and how their stupid minds work.

How ironic...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Why do you not believe it ? Having lived in both countries I know what these people think and how their stupid minds work.

So did Bishen Bedi criticise Murali because he wanted to be an aussie too?

 

[JASON]

So did Bishen Bedi criticise Murali because he wanted to be an aussie too?

Are we wasting time on this same Bishen Bedi who kept quiet when his fellow Sikh Harbhajan's action was questioned and then hailed Harbhajan ?

Bedi is known in Indian cricket circles as a sore loser who is capable of singing any tune for his Supper , I would not waste time on him or his opinions .

He will play any tune depending on the hand that winds (or feeds) him.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Are we wasting time on this same Bishen Bedi who kept quiet when his fellow Sikh Harbhajan's action was questioned and then hailed Harbhajan ?

Bedi is known in Indian cricket circles as a sore loser who is capable of singing any tune for his Supper , I would not waste time on him or his opinions .

He will play any tune depending on the hand that winds (or feeds) him.

I'm not defending his opinions or criticising them or anything else. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to claim that Martin Crowe is using Murali as an example of crickets tolerance of dodgy bowling actions because he "wants to be an aussie". Plenty of huge names in cricket have made the exact same argument he is making, when they obviously have no connection to Australia whatsoever.

 

[Lostman]

You might be right there, but then I think we're really talking about the borderline Murali-type cases there. The Murali issue was always going to be a convoluted one, because of his birth defect, and also because of the disgraceful captain he had at the time. .

Did you actually see the parts where murali was called in the game? during 96 and 99 he was called for bowling legbreaks. If anything that alone shows the bias of the umpire to call him no matter what he bowled, Arjuna had every right to do what he did, and his actions to back up a team mate in the face of the one of the most biased acts was the greatest thing he did on a cricket field.

 

[silentstriker]

Did you actually see the parts where murali was called in the game? during 96 and 99 he was called for bowling legbreaks. If anything that alone shows the bias of the umpire to call him no matter what he bowled, Arjuna had every right to do what he did, and his actions to back up a team mate in the face of the one of the most biased acts was the greatest thing he did on a cricket field.

Agreed.

 

[chipmonk]

Most people who oppose the current laws (myself included) would prefer a system which could be implemented by the umpire on the field. The most serious problem with current chucking laws is that they simply have no relevance to the actual matches in which chucking might occur. If a bowler changes his action during a match and takes a match-winning haul of wickets, how does the current system respond? And even if a bowler chucks all the time and wins a game or a series and is banned afterwards, what is the recourse for the team that was the victim?

The old system, however flawed it may have been, was based on an umpire's perception of a bowling action rather than a specific degree of flexion, and could be implemented on both teams in any given match. The fact is, based on the original laws on the subject, a bowler who has a classical action with 12 degrees of flexion is not a chucker, while a bowler with an action that appears to be a throw and 10 degrees of flexion is. It might not be perfect, but at least it could be enforced.

Pardon me, But I think this your logic is full of holes .... Before Murali was called in australia he played 23 tests in which umpires around the world did not call him, So why beleive he is a chucker simply because one umpire does ???

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Did you actually see the parts where murali was called in the game? during 96 and 99 he was called for bowling legbreaks. If anything that alone shows the bias of the umpire to call him no matter what he bowled, Arjuna had every right to do what he did, and his actions to back up a team mate in the face of the one of the most biased acts was the greatest thing he did on a cricket field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J5hjUuE_m0&search=murali chucking

A leg break, is it?

And yes, incidentally, I did see the games in which Murali was called. I'm not actually discussing whether or not he should have been called. Ranatunga's behaviour was consistently disgraceful throughout the whole incident because he showed absolutely no respect for the umpires, the opposition or the game. Manhandling an umpire because you disagree with a decision they have made is the ultimate sin in sport, and he should have been banned for some time because of it. His behaviour towards the Australian team was shameful, as was dragging his whole team down with him by threatening to forfeit matches over umpiring decisions he didn't agree with.

Whether or not you agree with Hair or Emerson's decisions, they certainly didn't deserve to be treated as they were, and nobody deserved to sit through Ranatunga's tantrums on the subject.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Pardon me, But I think this your logic is full of holes .... Before Murali was called in australia he played 23 tests in which umpires around the world did not call him, So why beleive he is a chucker simply because one umpire does ???

Haha, what? Nothing in the post you quoted says that I think Murali is a chucker. I'm not talking about Murali at all, I'm talking about the rules that define what is a throw and what is not, and how they can be enforced. Talk about trying to start a fight without even reading the post.

 

[chipmonk]

Haha, what? Nothing in the post you quoted says that I think Murali is a chucker. I'm not talking about Murali at all, I'm talking about the rules that define what is a throw and what is not, and how they can be enforced. Talk about trying to start a fight without even reading the post.

Guess not surprsingly you missed the point again ...... What about the umpires who did NOT call him 23 tests before ?

 

[chipmonk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J5hjUuE_m0&search=murali chucking

A leg break, is it?

And yes, incidentally, I did see the games in which Murali was called. I'm not actually discussing whether or not he should have been called. Ranatunga's behaviour was consistently disgraceful throughout the whole incident because he showed absolutely no respect for the umpires, the opposition or the game. Manhandling an umpire because you disagree with a decision they have made is the ultimate sin in sport, and he should have been banned for some time because of it. His behaviour towards the Australian team was shameful, as was dragging his whole team down with him by threatening to forfeit matches over umpiring decisions he didn't agree with.

Whether or not you agree with Hair or Emerson's decisions, they certainly didn't deserve to be treated as they were, and nobody deserved to sit through Ranatunga's tantrums on the subject.

Well I did watch the games too and even before the games their were reports that Murali will be targeted. Ranatunga was absolutely brilliant in backing up his player to the hilt ! Especially as this was after Murali being tested quite a few times, And the whole Sri Lanka team was behind his stand against evidently biased officials.

Furthermore your comment about Ranatunga by his actions was "dragging his whole team down" is utter tosh and deluded thinking. Its a matter of record The whole Sri Lanka cricket team was behind their captain including the management and board was 100 % behind thier captain and Murali.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Guess not surprsingly you missed the point again ...... What about the umpires who did NOT call him 23 tests before ?

Who knows? Maybe they weren't sure, maybe they were scared of having their careers virtually ruined like Hair, maybe they didn't think he chucked the ball. Doesn't really have any bearing on the rule. Throwing is always going to be a difficult rule to enforce, and always has been. The difference is that a decade ago it actually could be enforced, and (theoretically) you wouldn't have the likes of Botha and Shabbir bowling for an entire series without reprimand.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well I did watch the games too and even before the games their were reports that Murali will be targeted. Ranatunga was absolutely brilliant in backing up his player to the hilt ! Especially as this was after Murali being tested quite a few times, And the whole Sri Lanka team was behind his stand against evidently biased officials.

Furthermore your comment about Ranatunga by his actions was "dragging his whole team down" is utter tosh and deluded thinking. Its a matter of record The whole Sri Lanka cricket team was behind their captain including the management and board was 100 % behind thier captain and Murali.

Obviously there was talk he would be targetted before the match. It was one of the most discussed issues in Australia that summer, whether or not Murali would be called, who would do it and so on. It's certainly not any kind of proof that Hair was biased against Murali before seeing him bowl. Regardless, whether or not it was right to call Murali really isn't the issue. Umpires have made poor or unfair decisions in the past, and most cricketers have the decency not to react the way Ranatunga did. Obviously there are others like Colin Croft etc who are just as bad.

Anyway, It is most certainly dragging the whole team down if, as a captain, you move to forfeit a match or series because of a personal issue with the officials. It doesn't matter if the team was behind him or not, the fact is that his actions in his confrontations with umpires, claiming some sort of conspiricy between the opposition team and the officials without any evidence and threatening to forfeit matches based on umpiring decisions he disagreed with were disgraceful. Rantaunga's actions took 'dissent' to levels which have pretty much never been seen in international cricket outside of very occasional famous incidents, and the fact that he got away with it is a major blight on the record of the officials at the time.

Obviously the team supported him because he was the captain and they wanted to support Murali as well, and his actions turned out quite well for both the Sri Lankan team and Murali, but that doesn't make them right.

 

[Lostman]

how exactly was hair's career ruined? last i checked he was still an elite umpire in the icc panel and he also made himself a fortunte from the book deal that came after it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

how exactly was hair's career ruined? last i checked he was still an elite umpire in the icc panel and he also made himself a fortunte from the book deal that came after it.

It wasn't ruined, but it's pretty obvious why one might fear it as a repercussion for doing what Hair did. Hair was dropped off the elite panel and Sri Lanka refused to participate in any matches in which he officiated. Obviously he's revived his career since then, but it certainly took a significant blow because of what he did. As far as Emerson and McQuillan are concerned, they are long gone.

 

[Lostman]

there was no such thing as an elite panel in 96. so how was he dropped from it then? Sl didnt want to participate in matches that he officiated becasue in his book he said he would call murali again, and this was after he was cleared the 1st time.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

there was no such thing as an elite panel in 96. so how was he dropped from it then? Sl didnt want to participate in matches that he officiated becasue in his book he said he would call murali again, and this was after he was cleared the 1st time.

No, he was left out of the Elite panel when it was formed, after being on the equivalent body of umpires and a test regular before that. Obviously that decision was related to the animosity held towards him from the Sri Lankans, as he was at the time the most experienced Australian test umpire ever, and quite popular with the other nations as well. I'm not actually suggesting that anyone should feel sorry for the guy, but it's quite obvious that calling Murali had a significant adverse impact on his career, as it did for the other guys who called him as well.

 

[chipmonk]

Who knows? Maybe they weren't sure, maybe they were scared of having their careers virtually ruined like Hair, maybe they didn't think he chucked the ball. Doesn't really have any bearing on the rule. Throwing is always going to be a difficult rule to enforce, and always has been. The difference is that a decade ago it actually could be enforced, and (theoretically) you wouldn't have the likes of Botha and Shabbir bowling for an entire series without reprimand.

oh ..... so now you are a mind reader ? is it ? The umpires did not call him because they were afraid of the flack

The fact is these umpires are professionals that did NOT call him who are the vast majority. Just because one "rotten egg" umpire calls him ..... whats the logic of negating all previous umpires ? unless of course you come out with some ridiculas notion like "murali started chucking only after the 23rd test".

This is why cricket needs a scientific methodology in making these decisions. I am quite certain that in another 5-7 years time cricket will have "on the field Real time" camaras that can measure flexation on the spot. untill that time we have to be content with the current process which at least is fair by the rules. But cricket will not regress back to the dark agers.

perhaps maybe they were NOT biased, or they needed more scientific evidence to be sure and be consistant before judgement.

 

[chipmonk]

Obviously there was talk he would be targetted before the match. It was one of the most discussed issues in Australia that summer, whether or not Murali would be called, who would do it and so on. It's certainly not any kind of proof that Hair was biased against Murali before seeing him bowl. Regardless, whether or not it was right to call Murali really isn't the issue. Umpires have made poor or unfair decisions in the past, and most cricketers have the decency not to react the way Ranatunga did. Obviously there are others like Colin Croft etc who are just as bad.

Anyway, It is most certainly dragging the whole team down if, as a captain, you move to forfeit a match or series because of a personal issue with the officials. It doesn't matter if the team was behind him or not, the fact is that his actions in his confrontations with umpires, claiming some sort of conspiricy between the opposition team and the officials without any evidence and threatening to forfeit matches based on umpiring decisions he disagreed with were disgraceful. Rantaunga's actions took 'dissent' to levels which have pretty much never been seen in international cricket outside of very occasional famous incidents, and the fact that he got away with it is a major blight on the record of the officials at the time.

Obviously the team supported him because he was the captain and they wanted to support Murali as well, and his actions turned out quite well for both the Sri Lankan team and Murali, but that doesn't make them right.

I see .... so as a Good Captain Ranatunga's duty/reaction Should be that .... Even though his bowler has been subjected to multifarious test's clearing his action by the ICC in addition to murali being accepted by fans and officials all around the world, He as the captain should bow down to a overtly biased official from a hostile envioranment/country where he was warned not to play murali as he will risk his carrier, and meekly surrender , Perhaps destroying a genious cricketing career on the way ! Right ??? Ok sure Pal