Wisden on Murali's Action

[Pratters]

Osman Samiuddin on the 15 degree rule:

Yet from the ICC's thinking, beyond a precise cut-off point of 15 degrees, a bowler has enhanced his chances and employs an unfair advantage; else why would punishment be necessary? Shoaib Malik has been advised not to bowl his doosra because it is borne of an excessively bent action and presumably holds a greater wicket-taking threat. But if he bowls one, say at 18 degrees and takes a wicket, why punish him and not a Murali or a Harbhajan who bowl one at 13 degrees and doesn't take a wicket? How have we judged the advantage five degrees has provided? The intent in both cases is surely the same. Under current legislation, intent is either ignored completely, or through punishment, already assumed. Neither surely is fair.

Plainly, a value has been assigned to cheating when nothing conclusive proves that it is and certainly nothing suggests itself as a definitive level, over and above which a decisive advantage is available. An emotive issue has been desensitised when, because of the uncertainties still inherent in it, in questions of intent and advantage and because of what it means to players, it should still be vigorously debated.

 

[Pratters]

So why don't you just come out and say it - You don't trust the scientists to be telling the whole truth, right?

Oh no. I trust the scientists. Just not the ICC's interpretations of it. The scientists have given findings. The ICC has used it as they wanted. This is why I want the readings. This way we can make our own knowledgeable conclusions.

 

[harsh.ag]

Oh no. I trust the scientists. Just not the ICC's interpretations of it. The scientists have given findings. The ICC has used it as they wanted. This is why I want the readings. This way we can make our own knowledgeable conclusions.

But dude the UWA experts have given interviews on this, and they have never pointed out any issues with how ICC interpreted their reports.

 

[Pratters]

Kesavan on 15 degrees:

why 15 degrees?

We don't need to answer that question in a hurry. We can take our time. The ICC needs to collate and publish its findings, complete with names and numbers. If they can measure actions from the televised past, so much the better. Let everyone involved with the game compare one bowler's "bit of flexion" (McGrath's exquisitely mealy-mouthed description of his 12-degree straightening) with another's. Let us argue over methodology, about comparisons, about the omniscience of science and the fallibility of men for the next year if we must. Let us calculate average degrees of straightening for fast bowlers and finger-spinners and medium-pacers and wrist-spinners before we settle on the appropriate level of permitted 'flexion'. Above all, let us not take the opinion of the ICC or its committee as holy writ. Cricket needs conservative physicians in this uncertain hour: these men are barber surgeons.

 

[Pratters]

But dude the UWA experts have given interviews on this, and they have never pointed out any issues with how ICC interpreted their reports.

There were essentially three scientists who handled the survey. We should get proper reports. Without that, we are just second guessing ourselves. I mean, we don't even know

A) What are the degrees Murali straightens his arm to for his three deliveries with and without the brace.
B) What the levels of straightening were for other bowlers in the allegedly leaker report. If the report was leaked, the figures would be there, no?

The UWA scientists may not have issues with the ICC changing a law of the game but I do and many cricket fans do. If you re read comments even after the ruling, there have been guys like Scaly Piscine, Marc, Faaip who haven't been comfortable with the 15 degree law. Also regarding McGrath having show having some balls at above 10, would love to see what some (so the maximum straightening) for Murali was. Without proper report on the findings, we are just hunting in the blind. There is far too little information on the findings than there should have been.

 

[Daemon]

UWA wasn't involved in the brace testing iirc.

There definitely needs to be more public information on their testing methodology back then.

You guys should take this discussion to the chucking thread.

 

[Pratters]

Holding and Bedi believe for long it's impossible to bowl the doosra. Here's Holding on it. Also says during Channel 4 testing Murali wasn't spinning the ball as much as he does during the matches.

PLEASE do listen to this.

Holding on ICC Crackdown in October 2014:

I think it could have been done not just 4-5 years ago. It could have been done 12-15 years ago. Because we have had some people with some very dicey and awkward actions that have been playing in this game for so long that I have been saying it for many years that they are not bowling properly. That they are actually throwing on some of those deliveries. I think it's time that the ICC put their feet down and say listen, this has to stop.

I was a member of this panel many many years back and what the ICC said was that you could have been cleared once with remedial action, he could be pulled up again.

People have been learning more and more to bowl these so called doosras which I have been saying for donkeys years that it is impossible to bowl. You have to chuck it. Because you cannot bowl a ball as a wrist spinner.. finger spinner rather with the back of the hand facing the batsman and bowl it. You have got to use your elbow to flick that ball towards that batsman and once you are doing that you are obviously chucking. ICC is saying now obviously that you have people now who are teaching people to bowl these deliveries so obviously we have to take a stand.

What I will say to you and all those people who remember that Channel 4 test. If you don't remember you can try to find it some where on the internet. When they put that cast on his hand, he did not spin that ball any where near as much as when he was bowling in that game. They had to be putting arrows on the pitch to show which direction the ball is spinning. He was spinning the ball far less because he was getting less flexion.

There is more on umpires being afraid to report bowlers and his view regarding why the law shouldn't have been changed.

 

[Pratters]

FaaipDeOaid on the old law v the new law:

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.

Someone like McGrath, having an absolutely textbook bowling action, would never have come under the slightest consideration as a chucker under said "old law" and it's facetious to suggest such. I think the point with the complaint about the ICCs rule changes is this, the political change to remove the umpire's judgement element, rather than the exact degree or flexion or whatever. That's why it isn't a surprise that Gilchrist would feel this way, it's a pretty common perspective.

 

[marc71178]

Firstly, there is absolutely no reason for any reports to be released.

Secondly, in view of the channel 4 test, I wonder if the reason he wasn't turning it was because he had a massive ****ing cast on his arm which was somewhat impeding him?

 

[Pratters]

Secondly, in view of the channel 4 test, I wonder if the reason he wasn't turning it was because he had a massive ****ing cast on his arm which was somewhat impeding him?

Or maybe it was because he could not flex it. Turned the off spinner much more even with the cast.

 

[harsh.ag]

PLEASE do listen to this.

Holding on ICC Crackdown in October 2014:

People have been learning more and more to bowl these so called doosras which I have been saying for donkeys years that it is impossible to bowl. You have to chuck it. Because you cannot bowl a ball as a wrist spinner.. finger spinner rather with the back of the hand facing the batsman and bowl it. You have got to use your elbow to flick that ball towards that batsman and once you are doing that you are obviously chucking. ICC is saying now obviously that you have people now who are teaching people to bowl these deliveries so obviously we have to take a stand.

Again, Murali bowled the doosra with the brace on. The brace made sure he wasn't straightening too much. So obviously it can be bowled legally. Secondly -

Bruce Elliott, the UWA professor who is also the ICC biomechanist, had made an interesting discovery in his dealings with finger spinners. "He said he had found that a lot of bowlers from the subcontinent could bowl the doosra legally, but not Caucasian bowlers."

FaaipDeOaid on the old law v the new law:

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.

Someone like McGrath, having an absolutely textbook bowling action, would never have come under the slightest consideration as a chucker under said "old law" and it's facetious to suggest such. I think the point with the complaint about the ICCs rule changes is this, the political change to remove the umpire's judgement element, rather than the exact degree or flexion or whatever. That's why it isn't a surprise that Gilchrist would feel this way, it's a pretty common perspective.

The whole point is that the human eye was found to be a pretty inadequate judge.

 

[Pratters]

The law worked just fine for so many years. When Meckiff was thrown out or others were thrown out, say. Holding also had stuff to say on the doosra and the law change:

You can't have exceptions. Some one bowls a doosra and say it's allowed at 20 degrees. A bowler comes along and bowls it at 21 degrees. Are you going to say 1 degree is too much? You have got to have a limit and and the limit - many, many years ago perhaps we had bowlers that were chucking but it was not discernible to the naked eye, they were allowed to play. You have to keep that same ballpark figure looking forward. You can't say that because you have more modern technology that can slow down actions and can give you so many close ups you change the law. Make it as it was many years ago. You couldn't see it many years ago, you didn't call it. Right now also, if you can't see it, you don't call it. And obviously when you can see it some body (trails off).

Basically expresses what Faaip was saying in another way.

 

[Pratters]

Again, Murali bowled the doosra with the brace on. The brace made sure he wasn't straightening too much. So obviously it can be bowled legally.

Question is whether he could bowl it without flex. He didn't really turn it much with that cast when he couldn't flex. So Holding doesn't think he could bowl it like he bowls it in the match without flexation.

 

[harsh.ag]

Question is whether he could bowl it without flex. He didn't really turn it much with that cast when he couldn't flex. So Holding doesn't think he could bowl it like he bowls it in the match without flexation.

Why are you ignoring what the ICC biomechanist expert said?

 

[Pratters]

Why are you ignoring what the ICC biomechanist expert said?

Did he say Murali could bowl with as much turn without flexing his elbow?

 

[harsh.ag]

Did he say Murali could bowl with as much turn without flexing his elbow?

He said he had seen subcontinent offies bowling the doosra legally. Which is what many of your Holding posts have been about.

 

[Pratters]

He said he had seen subcontinent offies bowling the doosra legally. Which is what many of your Holding posts have been about.

Oh this:

Bruce Elliott, the UWA professor who is also the ICC biomechanist, had made an interesting discovery in his dealings with finger spinners. "He said he had found that a lot of bowlers from the subcontinent could bowl the doosra legally, but not Caucasian bowlers.

I dont understand that at all.

 

[honestbharani]

Or maybe it was because he could not flex it. Turned the off spinner much more even with the cast.

His elbow was bent normally. The cast was putting it in an unnatural state of complete straightness. It is obvious it was gonna impede his bowling. He was only trying to prove that a doosra can be bowled with almost no flexion. He was not trying to "prove" that his bowling action was clean. That had happened years ago.

 

[honestbharani]

The old law was never working "fine" btw.. It was like when people thought earth was the centre of the universe... Not challenging the status quo and all that..

 

[Pratters]

He was not trying to "prove" that his bowling action was clean. That had happened years ago.

When did he prove before that the doosra he bowls in a match is legal before or after? There is big question mark over legality of his doosra bowled during the match.