Yeah. That's how it seems to me also. Not really a huge shock is it? It's not exactly an uncommon view that the ICC abandoned the original spirit of the law when they made the changes. Can't see why anyone would be stunned that it's one Gilchrist held.
It's been dealt with, as Richard said. Some people just don't like how. That was going to be the case either way.
Well, by the old law, even McGrath chucked, so do you keep going with the old or change it to something that makes sense? This is irrelevent to Murali.
It's all a question of degree though.
Umpires have no business calling bowlers IMO, unless they're baseball pitcher style 40-odd degrees plus flexation stuff. We know how poor the eye is at judging things like arm straightening and we know that many bowlers have been unfairly victimised because their actions look worse than others when in reality there's little difference. Calling a bowler in a game is potentially disastrous for their career, and can often turn-out to be a mistake. Any action on suspect actions must be discreet and behind-the-scenes.
The "old law" never specifically mentioned any degree of flexion until pressure came on to apply some kind of scientific measurement to what a "throw" was. The "old law" dealt with a particular standard kind of bowling action, and the umpire's interpretation of the bowler's action in relation to it. Essentially, whether or not the umpire felt the bowler was straightening his arm to attempt to gain some sort of advantage. It was a law based around intent, not X degree of elbow flexion.
Murali has chucked. So has other 99% of all International bowlers. Including McGrath and Brett Lee.
OK, so the old law had different degree allowable for fast bowlers and slow bowlers. People who study this for a profession said it is not possible for the human eye to accurately determine flex below 15 degrees.
Absolute rubbish. The law is that the Umpires call what they believe to be a throw.
I don't really see this "the original spirit" stuff myself. About the only thing I can see it might allude to would be "if the arm looks bent then the bowler's a chucker, if it doesn't then he's not", which as research has shown is ridiculous, as it's based on flawed observations.
That's my point. He would have never come under suspicion despite breaking the old law. If you thought that was OK, that's fair enough.
Laughable comparison.
This. Nailed it.
Any cricketer (or cricket watcher) with an ounce of experience can spot someone whose arm appears more bent than another's, but as I say, I don't really think these things should be based on what the action looks like. Instead I think it should be based on what it is.
It's a scientific fact that some people's action 'looks' better than it is, and others 'worse'. If the point of contention is the bent of the elbow, then you can't trust a person on the field. It's very easy for the eyes to be misled. It's irrelevent if you can 'spot' a blatant chucker.
Key point; what they 'believe' to be a throw and what actually was turned out to be different things when the slow-mo cams were turned on.
Maybe. But what about the not-so-blatant ones? What constituted a throw needed quantification because opinion and judgement varies so much between umpires so as to render the policing of the law essentially guesswork. Coincidence that the rise of tech associated with this came about with rumblings about changing of the law? Nope.
Another case of glorifying "old cricket". The game has changed and perceptions have changed. If something is to be established without doubt, science is the best tool available. Just because some umpire sees it differently through his tinted glasses, means nothing. Scientific studies have established beyond doubt that the earlier threshold for bend of arm was absolute rubbish. And so the law had to be changed, otherwise Murali and another 99% bowlers would have been chucking and thus the game would have become a joke.
