Do you think Murali was a chucker?

[wellAlbidarned]

So, how about that moon landing eh.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Never happened of course.

 

[vic_orthdox]

When I first saw him, yeah, I did. And I don't really hold it against an umpire who thought it at the time either. Now, I don't think that he does, nor that he ever did.

For mine, and I'm sure that the biomechanics disagree, what separates bowling from throwing is the intent to keep the arm as straight as possible. I mean, when you explain to a kid what bowling is when they are to take up cricket, that's what you tell them. Murali, as far as my understanding of it, did that, he couldn't straighten it any further than that. Even when you got to watch him with the super slow motion camera, there wasn't any sign of extension of the elbow, yet so many other levers were moving around it.

Unfortunately, you can't really measure intent. And I don't think that the rules in place reflect the spirit of the rule at all.

 

[Burgey]

A still pic? You got the definition of chucking fundamentally wrong.

Besides chucking is such a nob issue in case of spinners in my eyes. Have expressed my views on that before.

Some folks just don't get it........

 

[Burgey]

Looks like a old grumpy fella who dislikes math.

That's not a very nice description of Murali, Migara.

I'd have thought one such as you who goes through his dust bins would have thought better of him.

 

[Ruckus]

Even when you got to watch him with the super slow motion camera, there wasn't any sign of extension of the elbow, yet so many other levers were moving around it.

He definitely has a congenitally bent elbow - obviously he can't straighten it completely, and that's fine, but only as long as there isn't any significant bending from that position. If you look at footage like this (and it's not the best example anyway) it's pretty clear to me there is: Is Muralitharan's bowling action legal? - 2004 (Part 2) - YouTube.

I'd be interested to know what degrees we are talking about in something like the above as well, because if 15 degrees is allegedly "when movement becomes visible to the naked eye" (although as uvelocity said, maybe this is contentious), then surely that has to be significantly more than that.

 

[Debris]

Which was blatantly wrong as proven later. Umpires mistake, is a mistake. Whether it's official or not doesn't matter. What matters is the absolute truth.

NO, they were not proven wrong later. What was decided was to take the decision out of their hands and Murali would have passed under the rules eventually decided on (actually, I think they toyed with 5 degrees for a spinner for a while which he would definitely have failed). The umpires were correct under the rules of the time (and in fact could not be wrong) even if Murali's arm was iron bar straight. You can't go changing the rules later and then say "See, they were wrong" because their decisions did not agree with the rules you made up. All you can say is the rules existing at the time were bad.

 

[Son Of Coco]

What would be the outcome of this poll/thread if the current consesus was YES?

I reckon they'd strike all his wickets from the record and ban him from any form of cricket for the rest of his life, such is the esteem in which we're held in cricketing circles worldwide.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That is incorrect - he was the catalyst for doing the study which proved everyone chucked. If the study was done and only he was found to chuck, the rule would almost certainly would not have been changed.

I don't chuck...I wasn't tested.

I agree on everyone else however. I videoed them in 1999 using a Sony Handycam in match situations and it was obvious they all throw. Unfortunately I've never been allowed to replicate these tests since in similar situations. I did manage to ascertain that McGrath was exactly 12 degrees and thus over the limit though.

 

[Migara]

I'll agree with you to a point, but throwing (pun not intentional) Swann into the mix is ridiculous. His action is pretty much perfect.

So was McGrath's and Pollocks until they were found to extend up to 12 degrees, lot more than Murali's stock ball. The fine line is, no one has checked Swann. If you want to check somebody, first check some "normal" looking ones to see what is normal. And it was found out that what human eye interprets as a chuck (unless a blatant obvious 45 degree one) is grossly insensitive measure. If you are checking Ajmal, so should be Swann.

 

[alinedian48]

Hell no

 

[wellAlbidarned]

So was McGrath's and Pollocks until they were found to extend up to 12 degrees, lot more than Murali's stock ball. The fine line is, no one has checked Swann. If you want to check somebody, first check some "normal" looking ones to see what is normal. And it was found out that what human eye interprets as a chuck (unless a blatant obvious 45 degree one) is grossly insensitive measure. If you are checking Ajmal, so should be Swann.

No. It's possible for a guy who, to the naked eye, looks like a chucker to turn out to be legit, but the inverse is borderline impossible.

With McGrath, I do think he had a little visible flick of the elbow, but that's more just a feature of tall, lanky fast bowlers in general and it's well within the current rules anyway.

 

[benchmark00]

All models are wrong but some are useful.

 

[Ruckus]

So was McGrath's and Pollocks until they were found to extend up to 12 degrees, lot more than Murali's stock ball. The fine line is, no one has checked Swann. If you want to check somebody, first check some "normal" looking ones to see what is normal. And it was found out that what human eye interprets as a chuck (unless a blatant obvious 45 degree one) is grossly insensitive measure. If you are checking Ajmal, so should be Swann.

If McGrath was measured at 12 degrees, I would like to know what Lee was then, because he looks to have far more of an elbow 'flick' than the former.

 

[Migara]

If McGrath was measured at 12 degrees, I would like to know what Lee was then, because he looks to have far more of an elbow 'flick' than the former.

You may have an educated guess on that, and most probably it would have been more than Murali's doosra.

 

[Migara]

No. It's possible for a guy who, to the naked eye, looks like a chucker to turn out to be legit, but the inverse is borderline impossible.

Wrong. It was proven without doubt that even clean actions can be borderline with elbow extension. either test all or test none and move forwards.

With McGrath, I do think he had a little visible flick of the elbow, but that's more just a feature of tall, lanky fast bowlers in general and it's well within the current rules anyway.

Apologetics for McGrath chucks? I'd say Asians have looser joints than Caucasians so would be entitled to a larger extension if I wanted to counter it.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Wrong. It was proven without doubt that even clean actions can be borderline with elbow extension. either test all or test none and move forwards.

Care to share your top secret sources no-one else has ever seen on this matter? A bent arm can appear bent or straight from different perspectives, but a straight arm is straight however you look at it.

 

[Ruckus]

You may have an educated guess on that, and most probably it would have been more than Murali's doosra.

woah lets not go nuts

 

[Son Of Coco]

No. It's possible for a guy who, to the naked eye, looks like a chucker to turn out to be legit, but the inverse is borderline impossible.

With McGrath, I do think he had a little visible flick of the elbow, but that's more just a feature of tall, lanky fast bowlers in general and it's well within the current rules anyway.

You have incredible eyes.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If McGrath was measured at 12 degrees, I would like to know what Lee was then, because he looks to have far more of an elbow 'flick' than the former.

I thought Lee was actually reported and tested at some stage, but I could be wrong.