Cricketer Of The Year
is xix talking about when i didn't engage with it here:No you've actually not engaged with that point at all
maybe here:nobody cares if WG Grace threw it because when he played the test for chucking was "based on the umpire's vibe does he look like he's throwing it", degree thresholds were only brought in near around the turn of the century, are you just being this thick on purpose or
or here?you've failed to establish why people should care about the greats of old throwing bc when they were playing they weren't throwing per the metrics that were used at the time
and if you want to talk about it, like rtb said you can make your own thread
when L&L didn't do so here?no it wasn't because the test for throwing was whether the umpire with his human eye vibed it as throw
or maybe when mrmr didn't engage with it here:@honestbharani
You're like a dog with a bone on this issue.
There are two facts, the first you are unhappy with, the second you believe negates the first.
Fact 1. Umpire Hair called Murali under the Laws of cricket as they stood at the time. Just because he had expressed an earlier concern does not prove his actions were premeditated. He called what he saw at the time (be it an optical illusion or otherwise).
Fact 2. Subsequent testing, scientific studies and a revision of the relevant rule has cleared Murali of any 'throwing accusations".
Both facts are indisputable and independent of each other and no amount of debate can change these two historic facts.
I, long ago, accepted these two facts and have accepted that Murali's achievements have been perfectly legal.
I have no respect for those who wish to dispute, distort or deny these factual aspects of cricketing history.
Idiotic claims that past greats were 'chuckers' is an attempt to distort this history and fails to recognise that players in the past (Meckiff for example) were called under the 'old' rules while others (Lock for example) modified their action to satisfy the rules of the day.
when burgey then didn't engage with it here?Nobody cares about the fact McGrath technically chucked under the old laws or whatever going by the degrees because his action looked perfectly fine
Muralis action looked ridiculous. We all know this. I can accept it was an illusion due to his unique shoulder and wrist joint rotation, to go with permanently bent arm that couldn't fully straighten, and legal, but come on, if you were a casual cricket fan watching him bowl the action would strike you as dodgy
or perhaps when (noted bigot, in fairness) rtb didn't do so with this post?But they weren’t taking those things into account back then. It was just whether an umpire thought you chucked based on his observations.
cmon man this point has been engaged with more times than xix has brain cells (and tbf this would've been true had it only been engaged with twice anyway)Yeah I think everyone is talking past each other here. It's possible for both the following to be true and fine:
- Hair called Murali based on his own judgement which at the time was the only way to call chucking.
- Hair was proven wrong by subsequent scientific testing
You could make an argument that the entire affair turned out well for everyone: Murali got to keep his records, cricket now had a formal test to deal with chucking, and people are still having online meltdowns about it 30 years later.