Wisden on Murali's Action

[Pratters]

The old law was never working "fine" btw.. It was like when people thought earth was the centre of the universe... Not challenging the status quo and all that..

The problem with the new law compared to the old one is we are allowing flexation for chucking. 're read what Faaip said regarding McGrath v Murali aspect.

 

[harsh.ag]

When did he prove before that the doosra he bowls in a match is legal before or after? There is big question mark over legality of his doosra bowled during the match.

Okay. Tell me why you think there is any cause for a question mark after this:

On 2 February 2006, Muralitharan underwent a fourth round of biomechanical testing. There had been criticism that the previous round of tests in July 2004 did not replicate match conditions due to a slower bowling speed in the laboratory tests. The results showed that the average elbow flexation while bowling the 'doosra' delivery was 12.2 degrees, at an average of 53.75 mph (86.50 km/h). The average for his off-break was 12.9 degrees at 59.03 mph (95.00 km/h).

 

[Pratters]

Same turn (didn't have the cast for these tests so no reason not to) and speed for doosra and maybe I'll buy it. At lower turn, flexation would be lower you would think.

 

[Pratters]

Also explain to me this. When 15 dedegrees being discerned by the naked eye is actually being tested on camera, why should degree norms be higher than before as the naked eye becomes irrelevent then. Who is to say how much advantage is derived between 12.5 and 15 degrees. Also it is about the intent with the jerk of flextion . McGrath doesn't look like chucking even if he has 12 degrees. It seems complicated but isn't when you think of it.

 

[honestbharani]

Same turn (didn't have the cast for these tests so no reason not to) and speed for doosra and maybe I'll buy it. At lower turn, flexation would be lower you would think.

You do understand they had former cricketers present who assess that the bowler is bowling at the same speed, revs and turn and everything as in a real game, right? The cricket stuff is in fact judged by cricketers.

 

[Pratters]

FaaipDeOaid on the old law v the new law:

The "old law" never specifically mentioned any degree of flexion until pressure came on to apply some kind of scientific measurement to what a "throw" was. The "old law" dealt with a particular standard kind of bowling action, and the umpire's interpretation of the bowler's action in relation to it. Essentially, whether or not the umpire felt the bowler was straightening his arm to attempt to gain some sort of advantage. It was a law based around intent, not X degree of elbow flexion.

Someone like McGrath, having an absolutely textbook bowling action, would never have come under the slightest consideration as a chucker under said "old law" and it's facetious to suggest such. I think the point with the complaint about the ICCs rule changes is this, the political change to remove the umpire's judgement element, rather than the exact degree or flexion or whatever. That's why it isn't a surprise that Gilchrist would feel this way, it's a pretty common perspective.

This is very important aspect which highlights the flaw with the new law compared to the old. Essentially, we are now allowing certain degrees of flexation, possibly forced ones which were not allowed earlier. If Murali had come under the scanner under the old law, it would be analysed whether there was forced flexation at the elbow or not for the turns he is getting with his doosra. It was a simple law we have made complicated with time to give room for chucking.

 

[Pratters]

You do understand they had former cricketers present who assess that the bowler is bowling at the same speed, revs and turn and everything as in a real game, right? The cricket stuff is in fact judged by cricketers.

One of those cricketers, Michael Holding, who was involved with the processes, thinks Murali chucks today.

 

[fredfertang]

Murali was a great bowler who had a great career. The people who matter decided his action was fair - those are the salient facts - the world should move on

 

[Migara]

I repeat my question. Did they (University of WA) give us Murali's degrees with and without the brace for his three deliveries? What were they.

UWA testing never had a brace. That is not a part of testing protocol.

 

[Migara]

Or maybe it was because he could not flex it. Turned the off spinner much more even with the cast.

Ask Warne and Swann to wear it and bowl and turn the ball as much as they do in a match, then we can start speculating on your claim.

 

[Migara]

This is very important aspect which highlights the flaw with the new law compared to the old. Essentially, we are now allowing certain degrees of flexation, possibly forced ones which were not allowed earlier. If Murali had come under the scanner under the old law, it would be analysed whether there was forced flexation at the elbow or not for the turns he is getting with his doosra. It was a simple law we have made complicated with time to give room for chucking.

Not clear what you are trying to get at.

Murali was cleared with the best available techniques at the time., They may be obsolete now, but, at the time they were the best. It showed not only every one extends their elbows, McGrath and Pollock do it to the same degree is Murali.

So what's your point?

 

[the big bambino]

No reason to ask Warne or Swann to wear a brace as their actions have never been questioned.

 

[Pratters]

Migara I have addressed what you ask with my post you quoted. It's quite clear.

 

[Burgey]

It's just ridiculous. Whatever anyone thinks about Murali's action, I hate the fact people try to somehow cast an aspersion upon his character because of the way he bowled, like he made some conscious decision to bowl that way when it's obvious there was a physiological reason he did so. The bloke was tested so thoroughly so often that even if you think he was a chucker (I don't btw), he was passed clear to play and he bowled brilliantly for many years. He seems about as good a bloke as you could ever come across on a cricket field and it's annoying that this sort of **** is still going on.

 

[duffer]

When I was young and this was going on I used to think there was a serious racial element to the whole thing. Not sure how I feel about it now tbh.

 

[Bahnz]

Yep the testing in 2004 did not replicate match conditions.. So they did tests again in 2006. news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/4680246.stm

Cool, thanks.

 

[Pratters]

Issue is larger than Murali. I also believe Murali to have all the positive aspects in his personality pointed out. I don't think he believed he chucked it either. Else he wouldn't go for the tests.

The reason the issue is larger than Murali is that the new law allows bowlers to chuck. As long as a bowler is within 15 degrees, he can jerk his elbow for a chuck intentionally or unintentionally. The question about McGrath chucking as per the old law was never there as he had a smooth action without that jerk on the elbow. At such high speeds a bit of straightening will be there for all bowlers. However its the jerking of the elbow which is the issue and has been traditionally, not degrees. I don't think they ever got into degrees when they threw Meckiff and so many others in that era when they stamped their foot down on the chuckers.

 

[harsh.ag]

Issue is larger than Murali. I also believe Murali to have all the positive aspects in his personality pointed out. I don't think he believed he chucked it either. Else he wouldn't go for the tests.

The reason the issue is larger than Murali is that the new law allows bowlers to chuck. As long as a bowler is within 15 degrees, he can jerk his elbow for a chuck intentionally or unintentionally. The question about McGrath chucking as per the old law was never there as he had a smooth action without that jerk on the elbow. At such high speeds a bit of straightening will be there for all bowlers. However its the jerking of the elbow which is the issue and has been traditionally, not degrees. I don't think they ever got into degrees when they threw Meckiff and so many others in that era when they stamped their foot down on the chuckers.

What does this mean?

 

[Pratters]

I like how Ajmal's chucking was pointed as he was flexing 35+ degrees. How is it not a chucking though if he did the same push and straightening at the elbow, only at 15 degrees? It would be a lower degree based chuck but a chuck neverthless as per the old law.

 

[Pratters]

What does this mean?

It means some times the bowler may not be aware he has a flawed action with a jerk at the elbow. That would be unintentional. At other times, he would be very aware and doing it. In any case, if there is a flawed action, the bowler should have his action remedied.