Murali cleared!!! .... or not...?

[luckyeddie]

In defence of Neil, he has maintained a consistent position with respect to Murali in the face of some rather emotive utterances from many quarters over the last couple of years.

The scientists performing the tests have implied that there is no advantage to Murali - even going as far to suggest that the tolerances themselves require more, er, tolerance.

If the ICC refuse to amend the recommendations, I daresay that Neil will come around on this issue as he has done on others.

*cough*fulton*cough*

 

[Tom Halsey]

Given that you seem to have just decided that "planes" needs an apostrophe for no reason whatsoever, the antecedent level can't have been too high originally, can it?

Given that you can't spell arbitrary then neither can Lincolnshire's.

 

[Langeveldt]

Is Murali's Doosra so much different to his stock delivery?? BY the time ive seen his doosra, hes through his action anyway so its not easy to tell...

Maybe this latest revelation will be one step closer to a total ban on this "bowler"..

 

[Tom Halsey]

Agreed.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Regardless of whether you think the thresholds are arbitrary and that separate limits shouldn't be established for fast and slow bowlers, the fact is that the agreed thresholds must be applied to all bowlers.

So all decisions made by higher powers must be accepted unquestioningly, then?

Until I can be convinced that there is reason behind the differentiated threshold limits, I will continue to question the whole chucking issue.

And I love the way that questioning the intricacies of threshold limits is on a "high horse" whilst blindly maintaining that the off-break is a chuck, no matter how many times it's analysed, isn't.

 

[Langeveldt]

Im most concerned about a guy with a disability gaining a "distinct advantage" over his competitors who do not have the same disability...

I think its like Chandarasekar over again. Although I never saw him bowl ive read reports. There is no easy way around it at all save a total banning, which could be called "discrimination" and if it turns out he definitely isnt a chucker, could well be seen as unfair..

 

[a massive zebra]

What's this about Chandrasekhar? Was he disabled? If so I was unaware.

 

[Langeveldt]

What's this about Chandrasekhar? Was he disabled? If so I was unaware.

He had is arm withered by Polio as a youngster.. he forged a successful career out of it..

Never seen him bowl, maybe someone a bit more know could tell us if it was a distinct advantage or not...

 

[garage flower]

So all decisions made by higher powers must be accepted unquestioningly, then?

Until I can be convinced that there is reason behind the differentiated threshold limits, I will continue to question the whole chucking issue.

And I love the way that questioning the intricacies of threshold limits is on a "high horse" whilst blindly maintaining that the off-break is a chuck, no matter how many times it's analysed, isn't.

I just feel that your take on this is dangerously close to Richard's arrogant view, which was essentially that anyone who questioned the legality of Murali's action was an idiot.

I fully agree that people who are "blindly maintaining that the off-break is a chuck" despite tests establishing that this isn't the case, are also in the wrong, and perhaps I shouldn't have singled you out for criticism.

I just feel that at this stage the agreed legal thresholds must be adhered to, regardless of whether there's a case for reviewing them. I gave an example earlier in the thread of the time and money the WICB had to spend on correcting Jermaine Lawson's action. How would they - and Jermaine himself -feel if the goalposts were shifted to allow Murali to continue bowling his "illegal" delivery?

 

[garage flower]

Is Murali's Doosra so much different to his stock delivery?? BY the time ive seen his doosra, hes through his action anyway so its not easy to tell...

Maybe this latest revelation will be one step closer to a total ban on this "bowler"..

But haven't similar tests established that his stock delivery is perfectly legal?

If so, why would you want him to be banned?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I just feel that your take on this is dangerously close to Richard's arrogant view, which was essentially that anyone who questioned the legality of Murali's action was an idiot.

I fully agree that people who are "blindly maintaining that the off-break is a chuck" despite tests establishing that this isn't the case, are also in the wrong, and perhaps I shouldn't have singled you out for criticism.

I just feel that at this stage the agreed legal thresholds must be adhered to, regardless of whether there's a case for reviewing them. I gave an example earlier in the thread of the time and money the WICB had to spend on correcting Jermaine Lawson's action. How would they - and Jermaine himself -feel if the goalposts were shifted to allow Murali to continue bowling his "illegal" delivery?

Agreed

I've not said anywhere that Murali should get carte blanche to bowl whatever he wants (if you look at most of my points there's very rarely a strong decision in a either-or question, I've learnt from Fultongate - except on Zimbabwe) - all that I have ever questioned is the assessment and clarification mechanisms for what defines a "chuck" - and I now believe that the whole thing is very, very inconsistent and the whole rule is in urgent need of review.

But haven't similar tests established that his stock delivery is perfectly legal?

If so, why would you want him to be banned?

Nope, the tests were wrong and every single delivery Muralitharan ever bowled is a throw...

 

[luckyeddie]

He had is arm withered by Polio as a youngster.. he forged a successful career out of it..

Never seen him bowl, maybe someone a bit more know could tell us if it was a distinct advantage or not...

I did, many times.

The polio left him with a withered arm, but more to the point it left him with a wrist far, far more flexible than normal. This empowered him to impart tremendous revolutions on the ball.

It's a good job he wasn't that accurate, but yes, on reflection, the flexibility was an unnatural advantage. However, it wasn't a chuck - so where do you draw the line?

 

[age_master]

good question. in theory we cant discriminate based on disability - though if someone can do something that someone else cant... not exactly fair is it...

 

[luckyeddie]

good question. in theory we cant discriminate based on disability - though if someone can do something that someone else cant... not exactly fair is it...

Well, that gets rid of Lara, Tendulkar etc - they can do things that others cannot (yes, I know that's not what you mean)

 

[garage flower]

Nope, the tests were wrong and every single delivery Muralitharan ever bowled is a throw...

Lol. If only you'd ponted that out earlier you could have saved us all a lot of discussion time.

 

[Lions81]

But what if, knowing that he's been cleared in the lab tests, Muralitharan purposely bends his elbow further? He knows that he can't be called since scientists have cleared his action and if he gets called he can always go back to his regular action which was cleared and he can blame the appearance of chucking on any videotape on "optical illusions". Yes, perhaps it's a conspiracy theory...

 

[anzac]

hmmm - now it's getting interesting...........

the report on cricinfo says that the ICC have issued a statement (prior to the receipt of the results), that while there is some speculation that they are going to review the tolerance levels, the current levels must be adhered to as agreed by all nations last Sept (until such a review has been made).

under the ICC process Murali can not be reported again for 6 weeks - after the ODIs & 1/2 way thru the 2nd Test...at which time if found in breach he faces a 12 month ban.......

another report indicates that he was told by the SCU not to use the delivery until such time as the ICC had responded to the testing situation (as above - as it effectively ends any speculation that any leeway would be granted), yet he chose to disregard their instructions and bowled the delivery on several occaisions during the 1st ODI.............

has his ego got in the way of common sence that he no longer listens to his own board????

will he continue to use the delivery now the ICC has issued their statement????

will he subsequently be reported for it's use in the 1st ODI even if he refrains from it's use for the remainder of the tour????

if so will he be found in breach & will he receive a ban????


I smell a rat (Arjuna's influence??) in Murali's actions .....

 

[Will Scarlet]

So the ICC has some balls after all!

Good on the ICC for finally taking a stand against Murali's action. You can't keep changing the limits; otherwise everyone will be chucking in the future.

By the way, just because I live in Melbourne does not mean I'm an Australian. Actually I can't stand Warne, but he is a damn good bowler. And to think he does it all with a legitimate action!

Now the ICC just have to remove Zimbabwe from international cricket.

 

[Tom Halsey]

But what if, knowing that he's been cleared in the lab tests, Muralitharan purposely bends his elbow further? He knows that he can't be called since scientists have cleared his action and if he gets called he can always go back to his regular action which was cleared and he can blame the appearance of chucking on any videotape on "optical illusions". Yes, perhaps it's a conspiracy theory...

But a likely one.

I have thought this for a LONG time...

 

[luckyeddie]

Good on the ICC for finally taking a stand against Murali's action. You can't keep changing the limits; otherwise everyone will be chucking in the future.

By the way, just because I live in Melbourne does not mean I'm an Australian. Actually I can't stand Warne, but he is a damn good bowler. And to think he does it all with a legitimate action!

Now the ICC just have to remove Zimbabwe from international cricket.

That's all right - and some of my best friends are Aussies anyway (well, until they knew me). Me and Warney, we go way back - I was taking the mickey out of him when it wasn't fashionable to do so (then he found out where I lived). Welcome to CricketWeb.