Ranatunga: 'In my book, you can't chuck a legbreak'

[Tom Halsey]

His Book certainly counts more (when you consider the guy lead an average Sri Lankan outfit to win a world cup) (and the most average team ever to win a world cup, beating a world class Aussie outfit in the final), than any rubbish book you might want to author.

Where did my writing ever come into this?

The fact is that it is the ICC's decision that counts, not Mr. Arrogant.

 

[Tom Halsey]

yes no-balling a player for alleged chucking is good enough to lead the team off the field. Because in this case, its not really an honest mistake the umpire is committing. If I was in Ranatunga's shoes, I would have done the same.

Have you ever heard the phrase ' The umpire's decision is final'?

Your later point about it not being an honest mistakeis possible, but from the naked eye, it looks horrible, he may have just been the first umpire with enough balls to call him.

 

[Anil]

The fact is that it is the ICC's decision that counts, not Mr. Arrogant.

did ranatunga decide something here and insist that the icc abide by that? or did he express a strong opinion? afaik, he is living in a democracy and he has a right to his opinion.

don't you have strong opinions on things you feel strongly about? i'm sure you do...are they always pro-establishment or sometimes anti-establishment? if it is anti, does that necessarily make you arrogant? what stands out here is that you can't stand the man and so, you make a mountain out of every molehill he comes up with....

 

[Langeveldt]

Have you ever heard the phrase ' The umpire's decision is final'?

Your later point about it not being an honest mistakeis possible, but from the naked eye, it looks horrible, he may have just been the first umpire with enough balls to call him.

Didnt Emerson make the call before his action was "proved" to be completely legal?? Therefore he wasn't necessarily making the wrong call... I stand corrected though

Unfortunatly there will not be an umpire left with the balls (or idiocy) to call his doosra whenever he next "bowls" it...

 

[Langeveldt]

afaik, he is living in a democracy and he has a right to his opinion.
..

[CYNIC] Thats where you are wrong... AFAIK cricketers cannot voice their opinion on matters (unless its conformist)... [/CYNIC]

 

[Anil]

[CYNIC] Thats where you are wrong... AFAIK cricketers cannot voice their opinion on matters (unless its conformist)... [/CYNIC]

[cough]ex-cricketer....mr. cynic.....ex-cricketer[/cough]

 

[Langeveldt]

[cough]ex-cricketer....mr. cynic.....ex-cricketer[/cough]

Pah! Im sure he had a fair bit to say during his International days...

 

[Anil]

Pah! Im sure he had a fair bit to say during his International days...

probably.....but that's not the topic of discussion here, is it?


there have been a fairly large number of big-mouthed cricketers, really obnoxious ones....i might be in a minority here, but while he was at times brash and outspoken, i never considered him that bad....i believe that there is a lot of double standards involved in the ranatunga-bashing.....

imo, he stood up for his players as he should have, led from the front, instilled confidence in a talented but underachieving side and was one of their best batsmen, especially under pressure....

 

[marc71178]

Unfortunatly there will not be an umpire left with the balls (or idiocy) to call his doosra whenever he next "bowls" it...

Hasn't the ruling changed now though so that the match referee is the one to report?

 

[Langeveldt]

Hasn't the ruling changed now though so that the match referee is the one to report?

Yeh, it probably has.. Was not sure...
Quite right too IMO....

 

[JASON]

I ask you the same question. What school of logic did you come from?

Without wanting to get into a rubbish exchange with you, which seems to be your intention, I suggest you have a good strong cup of coffee, then carefully read the texts for which the reply I had posted, then think deeply and carefully over and over again. If you still have any problem understanding the logic of that post, find the nearest School of Logic or University and find their library . Then read some good textbooks on Logic and reasoning or find someone who can help you there. If you still cannot understand it, I am afraid you need help ! a lot of Help!

The Purpose of One Day Cricket is to score more runs in less number of overs than the opposition. (Barring Rain interruptions and Duckworth Lewis etc.)

Now what part of the above sentence seems illogical to you ?

 

[Deja moo]

Maybe not, but telling the umpire where to stand just because he called someone for chucking does.

Ranatungas point was that Emerson couldnt call Murali for chucking from behind the stumps.

Isnt it obvious that you can see the straightening from the bending from a sideways view only ?
Emerson calling him from square leg would have made sense, not from behind the stumps.



Iam afraid that the issue of umpires in future not being able to call players for chucking has a lot to do with how Emerson turned a simple matter into a blundering act of showmanship.

 

[marc71178]

Iam afraid that the issue of umpires in future not being able to call players for chucking has a lot to do with how Emerson turned a simple matter into a blundering act of showmanship.

Except it is not, and has never been, a simple matter.

Murali's action is a clear case in point - to the naked eye it looks like a throw, but under stringent tests it's a deformity.

 

[Deja moo]

Except it is not, and has never been, a simple matter.

Murali's action is a clear case in point - to the naked eye it looks like a throw, but under stringent tests it's a deformity.

It is a simple matter if left to the experts.

Thats what the umpire should have done.Inform the match refree .

 

[luckyeddie]

It is a simple matter if left to the experts.

Thats what the umpire should have done.Inform the match refree .

That was the one good point to come out of the fiasco - umpires now 'refer' suspect actions as opposed to 'calling' for throwing.

 

[marc71178]

It is a simple matter if left to the experts.

Thats what the umpire should have done.Inform the match refree .

But you just said it's a simple matter and he could've called him from square leg...

 

[Deja moo]

But you just said it's a simple matter and he could've called him from square leg...

No. Isaid Emerson calling him from square leg , and not behind the stumps would have made cricketing sense.

I didnt say he should've called him.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Now what part of the above sentence seems illogical to you ?

Your statement that they didn't win by annoying anyone...

 

[JASON]

Your statement that they didn't win by annoying anyone...

OK. If You think they won just by annoying the opposition teams , that's your personal opinion, Mate. I am not going to argue with you on that one!