What do you base this on? Murali's doosra had been cleared by the ICC iirc. If you're basing it on what you see, then the the ICC's current rules would say that you are wrong everytime. The fallability of judging actions with the naked eye was the whole reason the rules got put in place in the first place.silentstriker said:
define legal and illegal here.silentstriker said:
What I personally constitute to be chucking. I realize that it is legal by the 15 degree rule.honestbharani said:
My issue with that is that if an action is cleared in the lab, and he bowls with that for five out of six deliveries, but then decides to chuck one...can the umpire no ball him?shortpitched713 said:
Yes, if he feels the bowler is chucking the ball as defined by the revised law. Although, considering the sensitivity of the issue, he better be damn sure.silentstriker said:
He's not.silentstriker said:
I realize he can, but will he?nightprowler10 said:
Like I said, he better be damn sure.silentstriker said:
Even if he is, will he, and is it a good thing for his career to do so? Would you? Because I probably wouldn't.nightprowler10 said:
Considering the history of the issue, if he is obviously chucking, I would warn him first, but yes I would call him blatant chucking.silentstriker said:
You're a braver man than I, then. I wouldn't take a chance with my international career, personally. Because how could I prove it?nightprowler10 said:
Read my post again, blatant chucking. Really, if it is obvious enough you wouldn't need to prove it. And to answer your next question, I never held it against Hair to no ball Murali. It was his arrogance on the issue that got on my nerves.silentstriker said:
Not about Hair, I never liked him anyway. And he also no balled Murali after agreeing to refer all chucking to the referee. He was in it for himself.nightprowler10 said:
