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

[Slow Love™]

I thought Murali has been told to continue bowling the doosra until further notification from the ICC, why does everyone insist he continues to be a cheat? He's just going on with his game whilst everyone else argues and moans about something which joe ordinary doesn't really understand but thinks they do - and therein lies the problem.

Why do people keep saying this? If you ask me, the problem is that people are paying attention to Bruce Elliot and NOT paying attention to what the ICC is saying:

ICC outlaws Murali's doosra

 

[twctopcat]

Plenty of contradictions on this matter, i'm only going on what im reading:

Another report

 

[Slow Love™]

Plenty of contradictions on this matter, i'm only going on what im reading:

Another report

This is the opinion of the UWA guys, who wish to do further research on slow bowler actions to ascertain whether the tolerance levels are realistic or not. So it's not a contradiction in terms of the ICC's policy on Murali's doosra.

Remember that they are NOT the ICC (they are ICC-approved), and that the ICC could not be clearer (for once) on this issue. There's a big difference between these peoples' opinion, and what Murali has actually been told to do by the ICC.

 

[anzac]

Plenty of contradictions on this matter, i'm only going on what im reading:

Another report

the last passage of the article says it all - the laws would need to be re written to allow the Doosra - the other ICC article post dates this and says they may look at the tolerance issues later, but for now the status quo remains..........

further to this he had been told by hs own board NOT to use the delivery until the ICC responded to the test reports - but he ignored them and used it anyway.............and continues to do so even after the ICC statement!!!!

I note that he took a wicket with it in the 1st innings v ZIM - I'm afraid that takes the gloss of his equalling of the record for me under these circumstances.....

 

[anzac]

I note no one has any comments re my question as to what the batsman should do?????

 

[marc71178]

Well ICC didn't, so get on with it and accept the fact that Murali is the highest wicket taker in the world Not Warne who might have taken most of his wickets after taking steroids.

Except for the numerous drugs Tests he's taken in the past that have come up negative of course.

But why let the facts get in the way?

 

[Langeveldt]

I note no one has any comments re my question as to what the batsman should do?????

Yeh.. Do a Ken Rutherford...

When you next get hold of the ball, turn to Murali and do a "Muralichuck" back at him...
If I was a repeated victim of the doosra, I dont know if I would want to stick around playing for the ICC for much longer...

 

[anzac]

The umpires should have been instructed to no ball Murali whenever he bowls the doosra. The ICC should have made that decision. He is making a farce of the game.

When he does break the world record it will not be legitimate due to the wickets he has got bowling an illegal style of delivery.

another typically inept bout of decision making by the ICC...........

 

[anzac]

Well ICC didn't, so get on with it and accept the fact that Murali is the highest wicket taker in the world Not Warne who might have taken most of his wickets after taking steroids.

nope..........he currently shares the record with Walsh - he won't take the record until the 2nd innings.......

he better enjoy it while he can because he won't hold it for too long - his 6 weeks grace period from being called will be up during this series & I expect he will receive some ban for some time as a result of his deliberate flaunting of the test results in using an illegal delivery.............

during this time Warne will then play ZIM & will take the record off him.........

if he had stopped using the Doosra I would have accepted just the delivery being banned & him being still allowed to play - but his subsequent actions in ignoring both the ICC & his own board by continuing to use the delivery (particularly after the ICC statement was released), is nothing short of contempt & nothing short of a ban will suffice ...............

as has been pointed out - Warne got 12 months for the use of a diruetic / masking agent with no evidence he used steroids - what should Murali receive for continuing to use an illegal delivery - and no I won't accept any excuse or attempt to play the misunderstood / confused / illinformed / righteous / stereotypical 'dumb ******'!!!!! - and there are no racist overtones intended in that description - it's a legal defensive strategy that has been done to death by high profile celebs in recent times.........

lets not forget that Warne would have probably had the record & over 450 if he had not stuffed up & been banned for 12 months (which was fair enough) - furthermore any comparissons re number of matches should be tempered by the fact that Warne has not had as much opportunity in the AUS bowling attack since the emergence of Lee.........whereas Murali is the primary weapon in the SRL attack........

and no I'm not pro Warne or anything - just want some balance to the pro / anti brigade arguements where sometimes the facts tend to get in the way - or so it seems.....

 

[bennyr]

I thought Murali has been told to continue bowling the doosra until further notification from the ICC, why does everyone insist he continues to be a cheat? He's just going on with his game whilst everyone else argues and moans about something which joe ordinary doesn't really understand but thinks they do - and therein lies the problem.

T'would be a very dull forum without the moaning and arguing my friend.

And let's face it, if it's a big issue in the game and we can have enormous arguments about whether the doosra is legal and keen fans of the game don't really understand the problem...

The real problem is the throwing laws.

 

[anzac]

The real problem is the throwing laws.

I find this somewhat ironic.......

*the parameters re 'throwing' were set down some time ago & then agreed upon again by every member board in Oct..........

*several players have been 'called' re their actions both b4 & since this time (including other 'offies').....

*no comments made during those tests regarding the fairness of the limits for various bowling types.........

*now Murali has been called re his 'new / 'not so new' delivery (depending on who the press is talking to), and one that is 'abnormal' for an 'offie' to bowl...

*the testers involved re Murali's delivery have found it to exceed the current laws re flex & have commented that in their opinion the limits are unfair v spin bowling.........

*now everyone in the 'pro murali brigade' has jumped upon those comments to justify his continued use of the delivery & blame the ICC for the situation & demand changes to the current law.........& the 'conspiracy theory' rears it's ugly head again........

*I ask again - where is the 'real' conspiracy - to a 'neutral' observer it could be seen that the 'real' conspiracists are the 'pro Murali brigade' with their constant & consistant claims of victimisation & injustices whenever the merits of their 'star' is questioned...........and their use of militant tactics in defiance of anyone who disagrees with their views - including both the ICC, match officials and now the SRL board..........such actions are as much responsible for creating an 'anti Murali brigade' as anything.........

 

[Scallywag]

Anzac

Well said.

 

[anzac]

not wishing to stirr this up again as it has been quiet for 24 hours...............

for my own understanding can someone outline the history of Murali's being called etc - sticking to the 'facts' as opposed to emotional rhetoric..........please.........

my understanding is that he has had a couple of run ins with AUS umps in Hare & 1 other on seperate tours to AUS - 1 of which resulted in the on field protest / walk off led by Runatunga in a ODI v ENG..............

my understanding is that in that situation he was being called in relation to a specific delivery as opposed to his general action...........I'm just wondering if there is any sort of a pattern to this..............from either side...........

furthermore wasn't there a medical report after one of these 'calls' / 'disputes' that said he had a deformity & it was physically impossible for him to straigten his delivery arm????? I know he has had some surgery but not sure if it addressed the movement issue - furthermore I'm wondering how if that prior report was accurate, that he can now exceed the limits re flex extension or whatever..........

 

[Deja moo]

my understanding is that he has had a couple of run ins with AUS umps in Hare & 1 other on seperate tours to AUS - 1 of which resulted in the on field protest / walk off led by Runatunga in a ODI v ENG..............

my understanding is that in that situation he was being called in relation to a specific delivery as opposed to his general action...........I'm just wondering if there is any sort of a pattern to this..............from either side...........

I dont think it was for a specific delivery.Wasnt he called again for even his leg spinners ? That umpire has now ended up with egg on his face.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I’d still love to know what his level of straightening is for his offies, too.

 

[bennyr]

I find this somewhat ironic.......

*the parameters re 'throwing' were set down some time ago & then agreed upon again by every member board in Oct..........

*several players have been 'called' re their actions both b4 & since this time (including other 'offies').....

*no comments made during those tests regarding the fairness of the limits for various bowling types.........

*now Murali has been called re his 'new / 'not so new' delivery (depending on who the press is talking to), and one that is 'abnormal' for an 'offie' to bowl...

*the testers involved re Murali's delivery have found it to exceed the current laws re flex & have commented that in their opinion the limits are unfair v spin bowling.........

*now everyone in the 'pro murali brigade' has jumped upon those comments to justify his continued use of the delivery & blame the ICC for the situation & demand changes to the current law.........& the 'conspiracy theory' rears it's ugly head again........

*I ask again - where is the 'real' conspiracy - to a 'neutral' observer it could be seen that the 'real' conspiracists are the 'pro Murali brigade' with their constant & consistant claims of victimisation & injustices whenever the merits of their 'star' is questioned...........and their use of militant tactics in defiance of anyone who disagrees with their views - including both the ICC, match officials and now the SRL board..........such actions are as much responsible for creating an 'anti Murali brigade' as anything.........

That post wasn't directed at Murali and trying to redefine the doosra as legal: under the current rules it's illegal, and if he bowls it he should be banned. End of story.

But over the last few years, every time anyone bowls a really fast ball an accusation of "chucker comes out. We've seen it on this thread with such an accusation against Jeff Thomson, who had the straightest action I've ever seen.

It's a question mark in the game that just ends up making the game look a bit silly - that you need a degree in biomechanics to determine whether a bowler is cheating or not.

 

[marc71178]

I’d still love to know what his level of straightening is for his offies, too.

Erm, hasn't that been proven that he cannot straighten his arm when bowling it?

 

[PY]

for my own understanding can someone outline the history of Murali's being called etc - sticking to the 'facts' as opposed to emotional rhetoric..........please.........

I've done a little research.

"called for throwing by Australian umpire Darrell Hair during the Boxing Day Test in Melbourne in 1995."
Source 1

"Ross Emerson and Tony McQuillan were two of the three umpires the other was Darrell Hair - who called Muralitharan for throwing three years ago."
Source 2 (and probably the one to read)

Source 3 (more recent version of Source 2)

"Muttiah Muralitharan has again been reported to the ICC for having a suspect action. Chris Broad, the former England batsman who is the match referee for the Test series between Sri Lanka and Australia that finished today, has reported that in his opinion the action with which Muralitharan delivers the doosra - his "wrong'un" that turns from leg to off - is not legitimate."
Source 4

Hope this is helpful and I'm not biased because I don't give a crap to be honest. He used it against England and no-one complained so don't know what to think.

And if this doesn't help enough, here's the definitive list of Murali articles by CricInfo.

Muttiah Muralitharan

 

[anzac]

Thanx PY.............

*ok so as I understand it the original 'call' was in regard to his general action.....by Hare
*the 2nd 'call' by Emerson & Co was primarily in relation to his 'wrong-un'....
*which is now called the Doosra & has been 'called' again by Broad..........
*and the subsequent analysis by the same group that 'cleared' the action previously now finds it to be illegal - and gave hints of such a finding b4 the testing if I'm reading the last article correctly.............

IMO it is this last point that is most interesting & I'd like to see the comparative results...........

furthermore it also negates the arguement previously held that once a bowler has had his action cleared that the Officials should be told "hands off"..........particularly when the bowler has such a controversial action in the first instance & has such an amazing array of physical attributes in combination to produce both the action (physical impairment) & results (hyper flexibility at more than one point)..........

IMO ANY bowler reported for having a suspect action should be required to undergo further random testing so as to ensure there is no accidental depreciation of the action as a result of them perhaps feeling that they can not be called to account again.............and again I will say that when you are dealing with a specific delivery considered to be abnormal for the type of bowler then such scrutiny should be expected.............

IMO any official who questions the legality of any action / delivery is only doing their duty - any such calling does NOT IMO constitute any allegation of cheating - that comes about when the action is shown to be wrong / illegal, and is then continued to be used.................

just another technical issue - I understand that the 1st Stage of the review process lasts for 6 weeks or so b4 the bowler's action can be 'called' for review again (allowing for testing & remedial action if required etc) - what I'm not so sure about if such a 'call' can be made in retrospect for any deliveries made during that 1st period (as in this instance where the delivery has been found to be illegal & the bowler subsequent to this advice then continues to use the delivery / action), or if the slate is whiped clean so to speak..........

if it is the latter we may have the situation where it could appear that Murali is 'cheating' atm because he is KNOWINGLY & DELIBERATELY continuing to use an ILLEGAL delivery during this 1st time frame, yet if he 'retires' the delivery once this time frame is up and does not use it again, then he may well escape any further action regarding the use / legality of the delivery...........

this does not negate the possibility of further action being taken by either the ICC or his own board regarding the above tactic, particularly when in it's execution he gained wickets from the delivery which enabled him to become the world record holder for most test wickets..........

in fact the only way I can see him NOT to be branded a 'cheat' is to continue to use the delivery and hope that subsequent testing will show that he has been able to further reform the action so that it now complies with the laws, or that the ICC will back down and institute the changes required to allow the delivery, and issue some statement excusing him from any further action being taken re the use of the delivery during this time.............

either way it's a very risky ploy - one that could possibly end his career

 

[Langeveldt]

either way it's a very risky ploy - one that could possibly end his career

But its too little too late really...

Pete, Nobody gave a damn when he bowled the doosra against England, because the illegality of the delivery had not been exposed...
Im sure if he does it on the next tour there will be some toys thrown around...