View Full Version : Chucker
It's about time something is done with this guy. I am over seeing this guy bend his arm when he bowls and grab a bag of wickets in the process.
It is a blight on the game, that the worlds greatest bowler will be a chucker. A fair dinkum chucker. I don't care if he has a birth defect or from breaking his arm while ****ing, he should have choosen baseball then.
And on top of that he is a little pansy and a sensative little creature..diddums.
I am glad he is never coming back here, in fact get a crowd to follow him around so then he can have a cry and **** off all together.
Political Correctness and cricket don't mix. ;)
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 08:20
Even though I also think he chucks, it just makes you look stupid to say that after he's taken 6 against us
ViperV10
9 Mar 2004, 08:24
I agree Cooldude, it does sound as though we are having a cry because he has taken bag against us. Even if that isn't the case. Just look through the history of this board and find how many times we have called him a chucker though, when he isn't playing us.
Fall Out Boy
9 Mar 2004, 08:29
He must have just destroyed us again.
The insecurity and fear surrounding Murali is quite entertaining.
Nah it has nothing to do with the fact that he took 6 wickets.
i am just sick and tired of watching get away with what he does. He has an illegal delivery.
I have always thought him a chucker and i am one of those people who hurt poor lil chuckers feelings, as last time he was here i gave him stick.
He chucks and thats that.
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
He must have just destroyed us again.
The insecurity and fear surrounding Murali is quite entertaining.
So you really support cheaters do you?
you must follow either Carlton or Essendon.
The Doctor
9 Mar 2004, 08:32
I think his bowling action has got progressively worse. He blatantly throws it now where as before, when the controvery first started, it wasn't quite so obvious.
Fall Out Boy
9 Mar 2004, 08:35
Originally posted by Frosties_Flank
So you really support cheaters do you?
you must follow either Carlton or Essendon.
Insecurity and fear growing.
Runknisse
9 Mar 2004, 08:35
Originally posted by Frosties_Flank
So you really support cheaters do you?
you must follow either Carlton or Essendon.
(Yawn)
I originally thought he wasn't a chucker. After seeing him bowl yesterday evening on FOXTEL, he is a chucker.
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 08:35
I think his doosra is really ugly, but if he doesn't "bowl" that delivery, I think he looks perfectly fine.
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
He must have just destroyed us again.
Check his record and tell me when he has destroyed us other than last night.
The insecurity and fear surrounding Murali is quite entertaining.
Yes it does go on a bit much i agree with you there. Its time for us to get over it and move on.
TigerCraig
9 Mar 2004, 09:07
I'd like to see one of the Aussies - Symonds say - walk up to the crease and throw the ball as hard as he could, like a baseball pitcher, when Chuckie was batting.
What would happen? Would the umpire call him, or would he just have a report his action for 'review'? Would he be charged with dissent?
goaldrush
9 Mar 2004, 09:08
Give it a rest fellas
Originally posted by TigerCraig
I'd like to see one of the Aussies - Symonds say - walk up to the crease and throw the ball as hard as he could, like a baseball pitcher, when Chuckie was batting.
What would happen? Would the umpire call him, or would he just have a report his action for 'review'? Would he be charged with dissent?
interesting, same skin color as well.
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 09:17
Murali's leg break does appear to be illegal, but so does 500 other spinners in the sub-continent, they all "bowl" the same delivery, and they all chuck, even Harbhajan chucks, so it can be easy to single out Murali, but it'd also be unfair
Fall Out Boy
9 Mar 2004, 09:17
Classy thread this one.
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
Classy thread this one.
Oh dismissive b/c you are on your own here.
Ok why is he not a chucker? Explain it to me in your terms how you see his bent arm as being legal.
Come fatty, freak me out man.
Fall Out Boy
9 Mar 2004, 09:26
Assumptions, and more assumptions. When did i say that he doesn't chuck the ball?
Oh and i'm dismissive because that's all petty, small-minded trash like this deserves.
TigerCraig
9 Mar 2004, 09:28
Tell that to Meckiff
Runknisse
9 Mar 2004, 09:31
Originally posted by Cooldude
Murali's leg break does appear to be illegal, but so does 500 other spinners in the sub-continent, they all "bowl" the same delivery, and they all chuck, even Harbhajan chucks, so it can be easy to single out Murali, but it'd also be unfair
I don't know if they "all" chuck but I agree that it'd be unfair to single him out alone.
Originally posted by TigerCraig
I'd like to see one of the Aussies - Symonds say - walk up to the crease and throw the ball as hard as he could, like a baseball pitcher, when Chuckie was batting.
What would happen? Would the umpire call him, or would he just have a report his action for 'review'? Would he be charged with dissent?
mate, ur a f***head....yes, his action is sus, but its not like he actually throws it as hard as he could !!
his wrist is twisted and the 'throwing' part of his action helps it spin, not fly through the air faster....
BTW, i think its funny that people are lightning quick to jump on murali and shoaib, while the question over bing is still there but cast aside by aussie fans...i think brett has a little chuck in his action...
and i am also astounded that poeple are now starting to say tait has a sus action
goaldrush
9 Mar 2004, 09:48
Originally posted by Frosties_Flank
interesting, same skin color as well. Nothing to do with it, you racist man FF.
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 09:49
Originally posted by mik
BTW, i think its funny that people are lightning quick to jump on murali and shoaib, while the question over bing is still there but cast aside by aussie fans...i think brett has a little chuck in his action...
and i am also astounded that poeple are now starting to say tait has a sus action
Bing does throw at times, but it's not as obvious as Shoaib does. Also, Bing's test bowling average's been higher than Martyn's batting average in the past 3 years, so no one would really give a sh*t if he throws, since it's gonna get hit for four anyway.
Tait does not throw
Originally posted by mik
BTW, i think its funny that people are lightning quick to jump on murali and shoaib, while the question over bing is still there but cast aside by aussie fans...i think brett has a little chuck in his action...
and i am also astounded that poeple are now starting to say tait has a sus action
Doesn't the fact that people are calling tait a chucker sink your first argument that we dont question our own players?
Gopies 2002
9 Mar 2004, 09:57
Throwing is a world wide blight on the game.
Problem is, how can they do anything with the new guys when there are established players like Murali who are able to get away with it. The Cricket authorities have take the easy option and its coming back to bite them.
As for spinners throwing, it seems people dismiss it on the basis they don't get much assistance as say a quick bowler. That is rubbish.
The great Indian spinner Bishen Bedi made the point when he was out this summer that throwing assists spinners significantly. He made the point every one can test this with a tennis ball. Grab a ball and see how much spin you can impart by bending the elbow. Then try with the arm straight. If you can't turn it at least twice as far with the bent arm I would be amazed.
As for no evidence, I think the fact that guys such as Gilly, Alex Stewart and Nassar Hussain (sp) have questioned it publicly, and that Bedi an Indian spinner also came out and said its illegal would be a fair indication.
This may seem like sour grapes, but I don't mind if the Aussies lose if beaten fairly (ie like India this summer who played great Cricket). But losing in these circumstances leaves a sour taste.
ross gibbs
9 Mar 2004, 09:58
yawn :o
Originally posted by marcuz
Doesn't the fact that people are calling tait a chucker sink your first argument that we dont question our own players?
that wasnt really my point, although i can see where u r coming from...
i was just saying, why isnt brett being questioned, not why dont we question our own..
if brett lee throws, he should be given the same treatment as the others
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 10:05
Originally posted by mik
i was just saying, why isnt brett being questioned, not why dont we question our own..
if brett lee throws, he should be given the same treatment as the others
In fact we do question Bing's action, but we don't care, coz he's only throwing pies, but Shoaib's throwing 160 kph inswinging yorkers/unplayable.
Gopies 2002
9 Mar 2004, 10:13
Originally posted by ross gibbs
yawn :o
Yes its boring, but ignoring the issue has led to a spate of other spinners coming on to the scene with poor actions.
Something has to be done before it becomes even worse.
TigerCraig
9 Mar 2004, 10:21
Originally posted by mik
mate, ur a f***head....yes, his action is sus, but its not like he actually throws it as hard as he could !!
his wrist is twisted and the 'throwing' part of his action helps it spin, not fly through the air faster....
BTW, i think its funny that people are lightning quick to jump on murali and shoaib, while the question over bing is still there but cast aside by aussie fans...i think brett has a little chuck in his action...
and i am also astounded that poeple are now starting to say tait has a sus action
Settle, I was only having a joke (sorry I should have put a lot of little smileys there for you)
For what its worth, I think Lee throws his quicker bouncer, and he should be called too. Then again if he keeps bowling front foot no-balls like this summer as well, he might never finish an over
If umpires went back to the old law - ie. even if only slightly disatisfied with a bowlers action, call no-ball - the game would be a lot better.
Sheik Mathious
9 Mar 2004, 10:22
Fantastic bowler and great to watch!
But he is getting a little too good! Time to cut this tall poppy down.:o It's the Australian way!:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Cooldude
In fact we do question Bing's action, but we don't care, coz he's only throwing pies, but Shoaib's throwing 160 kph inswinging yorkers/unplayable.
but isn't that wrong? if murali got smashed around the park, are you saying you wouldn't care? and this wouldn't even be a issue?
Don't get me wrong i think he is a chucker (although i don't think its his fault as long as he keeps it as straight as possible), but i also understand that he can't straighten his arm, so that is more of the issue, should he be allowed to bowl because of his medical condition?
Originally posted by Sheik Mathious
Fantastic bowler and great to watch!
But he is getting a little too good! Time to cut this tall poppy down.:o It's the Australian way!:rolleyes: Gees not another ****wit!
understudy
9 Mar 2004, 11:14
Originally posted by feher
but isn't that wrong? if murali got smashed around the park, are you saying you wouldn't care? and this wouldn't even be a issue?
Don't get me wrong i think he is a chucker (although i don't think its his fault as long as he keeps it as straight as possible), but i also understand that he can't straighten his arm, so that is more of the issue, should he be allowed to bowl because of his medical condition?
Clearly it is not his issue or sri lankas.
Address any criticism to the ICC - what have they done about this? and what is their official view on his action?
and their offical policy on suspect actions.
this is a huge cloud over the game of cricket imo. as im not a cricket tragic it doesnt even worry me but you guys should be doing something about it.
as a sports fan though i did enjoy watching this so called great australian team get spanked on the first day though.
:)
I want to add one more point for people saying who cares about lees action cos he gets spanked, why should anyone care about murali? its not like sri lanka are the best team in the world!
Gopies 2002
9 Mar 2004, 12:08
Its not an issue as whether Sri Lanka are any good or not.
Its an issue as to where cricket in general is heading. Things like tall poppy syndrome etc get put up to deflect the issue.
The issue is prevalence of illegal actions in work cricket. Agree Murali is just one. However because of his record and profile he is also the most blatant example.
As it stands, his action is outside the laws of cricket.
I can see that this appears to be sour grapes with Murali doing well. Personally I think this is rubbish. Most Australians I know were happy to see the Indians do well this Australian summer, and I doubt anyone would have begrudged them the series win if they had been able to knock over the Aussies on that last day in Sydney.
CatManDo
9 Mar 2004, 12:11
Originally posted by Sheik Mathious
Fantastic bowler and great to watch!
But he is getting a little too good! Time to cut this tall poppy down.:o It's the Australian way!:rolleyes:
Its OK to take the high and mighty position if you have a point, but you dont really.
Clearly, many people feel that he chucks. So its not a tall poppy syndrome at all, its based on belief.
Originally posted by Gopies 2002
Its not an issue as whether Sri Lanka are any good or not.
Thats my point, people are excussing lee because he gets smashed around the park, but he plays for the best side in the world! and then theres the drug cheat .... he only coped half a punishment
Its an issue as to where cricket in general is heading. Things like tall poppy syndrome etc get put up to deflect the issue.
again have a look at what warne did, is what warne did(does) any worse then what murali does? if murali gets banned then so should lee and soab, hell the aussie sledging is far from acceptable as well
The issue is prevalence of illegal actions in work cricket. Agree Murali is just one. However because of his record and profile he is also the most blatant example.
i am not arguing that but as i said lee has a chucking action as well, just because he doesn't take wickets or do it as often it seems like its all fine for him; so it is a tall poppy syndrome.
As it stands, his action is outside the laws of cricket.
but it isn't his fault he can't straighten the arm, this is the true issue, should he be allowed to bowl cos of his medical condition?
I can see that this appears to be sour grapes with Murali doing well. Personally I think this is rubbish. Most Australians I know were happy to see the Indians do well this Australian summer, and I doubt anyone would have begrudged them the series win if they had been able to knock over the Aussies on that last day in Sydney.
yeah why isn't anyone questioning warnes achievments? what about lee's and soab achievements? they should be questioned but there not, he (murali) is being singled out.
CyberKev
9 Mar 2004, 12:36
Originally posted by CatManDo
Its OK to take the high and mighty position if you have a point, but you dont really.
Clearly, many people feel that he chucks. So its not a tall poppy syndrome at all, its based on belief.
How many is many? many people also believe he does not chuck...
There was a time when 99%+ of the global population believed that the earth was flat, and while they were as wrong as you could possibly get on such short notice, they could be forgiven the error of their 'beliefs' because scientific proof to the contrary was not on hand.
In this instance, however, Murali has been investigated and cleared on the evidence of human movement experts, meaning that the 'belief' displayed by the boorish anti-Murali brigade is at best misplaced, and at worst malevolent.
Kevin
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 12:42
Originally posted by CyberKev
In this instance, however, Murali has been investigated and cleared on the evidence of human movement experts, meaning that the 'belief' displayed by the boorish anti-Murali brigade is at best misplaced, and at worst malevolent.
Kevin
Flawed argument, Murali was cleared 10 years ago in a nets session, it doesn't mean he'd never chuck again. If a sportsman's cleared in a drug test 10 years ago, does that mean he'd never take drugs again?
Murali's action has gotten worse since 95/96, yet no one had the guts to call him, coz we all know what happened to the umpires that called him for throwing, and reports of countless complaints from umpires about his action totally ignored.
CatManDo
9 Mar 2004, 12:45
Originally posted by CyberKev
How many is many?
763.
Obviously I dont know precisely how many 'many' is, I apologise, but you could not disagree that, based on reactions on this board and by crowd behavior when he has toured here, that 'quite a few' people think he chucks.
Im not intending to start a debate on how many do and do not think he chucks. My point lies elsewhere.
Originally posted by CyberKev
There was a time when 99%+ of the global population believed that the earth was flat, and while they were as wrong as you could possibly get on such short notice, they could be forgiven the error of their 'beliefs' because scientific proof to the contrary was not on hand.
In this instance, however, Murali has been investigated and cleared on the evidence of human movement experts, meaning that the 'belief' displayed by the boorish anti-Murali brigade is at best misplaced, and at worst malevolent.
Kevin
If a person is caught drink driving, and goes to the police station the next day and blows clean, does that prove he does not and will not ever drink drive again?
TigerCraig
9 Mar 2004, 13:14
Originally posted by feher
but it isn't his fault he can't straighten the arm, this is the true issue, should he be allowed to bowl cos of his medical condition?
yeah why isn't anyone questioning warnes achievments? what about lee's and soab achievements? they should be questioned but there not, he (murali) is being singled out.
All that is required under the Laws is for the arm to partially straighten once it passes the level of the shoulder. Also, under the Laws, the umpires should rule on each and every delivery - the ICC are not letting them do this for political reasons - making them rely on old net sessions.
Warne does not chuck. Whatever diuretic he took does not enhance his ability to spin the ball - chucking does (that's not to excuse taking a banned drug, although I can't see why a lot of drugs are banned in cricket, but that's a different argument).
Lee and Shoaib do not chuck as high a proportion of their deliveries, but their questionable deliveries should be called.
Originally posted by TigerCraig
Warne does not chuck. Whatever diuretic he took does not enhance his ability to spin the ball - chucking does (that's not to excuse taking a banned drug, although I can't see why a lot of drugs are banned in cricket, but that's a different argument).
Lee and Shoaib do not chuck as high a proportion of their deliveries, but their questionable deliveries should be called.
perhaps i should have made it clear; i was talking about warnes drug taking not hes chucking which he doesn't do.
On lee and shoaib (thanks for the spelling :D) action, they still chuck so either they all get banned or none do.
a quick note on the diuretic; they did help in a way, they made him come back quicker; effectivily a lot of stuff can do that; that may not be on the list, but this was and warne was wrong to do it, and ignorance of the law is no excuss.
scottywiper
9 Mar 2004, 13:41
"Throwing is a world wide blight on the game.
Problem is, how can they do anything with the new guys when there are established players like Murali who are able to get away with it. The Cricket authorities have take the easy option and its coming back to bite them.
As for spinners throwing, it seems people dismiss it on the basis they don't get much assistance as say a quick bowler. That is rubbish.
The great Indian spinner Bishen Bedi made the point when he was out this summer that throwing assists spinners significantly. He made the point every one can test this with a tennis ball. Grab a ball and see how much spin you can impart by bending the elbow. Then try with the arm straight. If you can't turn it at least twice as far with the bent arm I would be amazed.
As for no evidence, I think the fact that guys such as Gilly, Alex Stewart and Nassar Hussain (sp) have questioned it publicly, and that Bedi an Indian spinner also came out and said its illegal would be a fair indication.
This may seem like sour grapes, but I don't mind if the Aussies lose if beaten fairly (ie like India this summer who played great Cricket). But losing in these circumstances leaves a sour taste."
Great post, IMO.
The tennis ball test is very true. So much more wrist movement is available with a bent arm.
Agree that he is not the only one, though.
Dharmasena is similar, while both Shoaib and Lee chuck on occasions.
Shoaib was doing it quite a lot on the recent tour of NZ, upper arm was vertical just before release, while lower arm was horizontal.
ONly way to stop it is give the umpires back the power to call them and back the umpires.
But we all know that won't happen.
CyberKev
9 Mar 2004, 13:45
Originally posted by Cooldude
Flawed argument, Murali was cleared 10 years ago in a nets session, it doesn't mean he'd never chuck again. If a sportsman's cleared in a drug test 10 years ago, does that mean he'd never take drugs again?
Murali's action has gotten worse since 95/96, yet no one had the guts to call him, coz we all know what happened to the umpires that called him for throwing, and reports of countless complaints from umpires about his action totally ignored.
Dubious contention...
Presumably we should have a team of experts assessing his every delivery then? Clearly we would need experts on hand to watch every delivery by every bowler, given that (according to your theory) we can't trust a bowler not to throw delivery 6 in an over just because the first 5 were fine.
At any rate, its a disingenious argument to compare drug taking to the (alleged) deterioration of a bowling action. I stress the word alleged here too, as noone has been able to offer proof greater than their own biased view that Murali's action has gotten worse since 95/96.
And what's this "countless complaints" & "totally ignored"****? he was called by Hair & Emerson during the 1995/96 series, which led to the review of his action.
Kevin
scottywiper
9 Mar 2004, 13:48
I know plenty of cricketers right through to Test level and it is hard to find any who don't believe he chucks. That is a fact.
AS for being cleared, Uuniversity of WA has cleared every bowler that has come to them for tests - could it be that it is a good earner for them?
CyberKev
9 Mar 2004, 13:50
Originally posted by CatManDo
If a person is caught drink driving, and goes to the police station the next day and blows clean, does that prove he does not and will not ever drink drive again?
Boy, the desperate arguments of the ugly aussie brigade are getting ever more tenuous and surreal...
If a person is arrested for drink driving, but then exonerated when evidence finds him not guilty, should he then be constantly harassed and called a criminal every day thereafter by the general public? :rolleyes:
Kevin
CatManDo
9 Mar 2004, 13:54
Originally posted by CyberKev
Dubious contention...
Presumably we should have a team of experts assessing his every delivery then? Clearly we would need experts on hand to watch every delivery by every bowler, given that (according to your theory) we can't trust a bowler not to throw delivery 6 in an over just because the first 5 were fine.
The experts you suggest are the umpires, who should have the confidence and ability to be able to call a bowler as they see it, rather than having it ushered off to a review.
Surely you cannot say that one review, done so long ago, is adequate.
Sheik Mathious
9 Mar 2004, 13:55
Originally posted by CatManDo
Its OK to take the high and mighty position if you have a point, but you dont really.
Clearly, many people feel that he chucks. So its not a tall poppy syndrome at all, its based on belief.
What do you want?
It's very simple. Muralitharan has been cleared by the ICC that has concluded that the Lankan has a deformity in his bowling arm.
We are in a situation where a bowler with over 400 Test scalps at a phenomenal strike rate hardly receives any credit from a section of the cricketing world.
The Western media, especially in Australia, has the habit of closing ranks and going after a particular cricketer in the enemy camp.
Pakistan's Shoaib Akhtar's action made so much news for the wrong reasons. I am not holding any brief for Shoaib, but if he chucks, then what is Brett Lee doing. Is he squeaky clean? Does he possess a clear, copybook action. The truth is Lee's action is as clean or wrong as that of Shoaib.
Going further back, there was more than an element of doubt about left-arm spinner Phil Tufnell's action. It did appear to me that he was straightening his arm when he sent down the quicker one. However, Tufnell's action never landed him in trouble. Why is this I ask you?
Again! What would make you happy other than Muralitharan being called a chucker and banned?
CyberKev
9 Mar 2004, 13:58
Originally posted by scottywiper
I know plenty of cricketers right through to Test level and it is hard to find any who don't believe he chucks. That is a fact.
AS for being cleared, Uuniversity of WA has cleared every bowler that has come to them for tests - could it be that it is a good earner for them?
Or could it be that they are actually innocent?
There's nothing sadder than the person who claims to know all the big people in the know, never names any firm names, yet attributes his personal beliefs to them and heralds these beliefs as incontravertable concrete fact.
Every Internet forum has 'em. :o
Kevin
Originally posted by Sheik Mathious
What would make you happy other than Muralitharan being called a chucker and banned?
Nothing.
CyberKev
9 Mar 2004, 14:07
Originally posted by CatManDo
The experts you suggest are the umpires, who should have the confidence and ability to be able to call a bowler as they see it, rather than having it ushered off to a review.
Surely you cannot say that one review, done so long ago, is adequate.
There is no evidence to suggest his action has altered since, nor have any umpires outside of Emerson & Hair called him for chucking throughout his career. Emerson & Hair rightly called him as they had doubts and he was exonerated by human movement experts. His action hasn't altered since and noone has called him since, end of story.
He doesn't deserved to be harassed after every single delivery any more than any other bowler does.
This whole non-issue is little more than ugly aussie bashing of non aussie cricketers who have the temerity to match or outperform Australian cricketers.
Its nothing more or less than that.
Pathetic.
Kevin
scottywiper
9 Mar 2004, 14:09
There's nothing sadder than the person who claims to know all the big people in the know, never names any firm names, yet attributes his personal beliefs to them and heralds these beliefs as incontravertable concrete fact.
Every Internet forum has 'em.
Well Kev, unfortunately you understand little about the process judging by your ridiculous comment.
As someone who deals with these people regularly, and used to work alongside them on a daily basis, I am not attributing my beliefs to anyone. Just relaying what they are saying to offer further insight into this topic.
Do you think people tell you this stuff in private conversation to have their names given to it when it is relayed?
Look what happened to Gilly when he got pizzled for making a comment at a lunch about Murali. Is it any surprise they will say it in private and not public?
I spent a day with one of the touring teams this summer and they had no doubt about the presence of chuckers in international cricket.
That was THEIR opinion, not mine. I just happen to agree with them.
What is sad is the person who can't handle other people having opinions and instead bags them.
My conscience is clear...
CatManDo
9 Mar 2004, 14:13
Originally posted by CyberKev
Boy, the desperate arguments of the ugly aussie brigade are getting ever more tenuous and surreal...
If a person is arrested for drink driving, but then exonerated when evidence finds him not guilty, should he then be constantly harassed and called a criminal every day thereafter by the general public? :rolleyes:
Kevin
Give it a rest. I wrote this in reponse to your previous offering, which was equally surreal, yet also pathetically simplistic, and thats what my analogy pointed out.
But just to humour you, if people strongly believe, based on available evidence, that a person is drink driving, then whats the problem with thinking this?
Any way you look at it, there is no way you can suggest his action will forever remain legal based on the findings of one test all those years ago.
Dont lump me in with an 'aussie brigade' by the way, I appreciate Murali's bowling, and Im hardly making ridiculous claims, being a poor sport or criticising his action for the sake of it.
Again I'll point out to you, my original post was about this not being a tall poppy thing, and directed at someone else. For some reason you seem to want to keep taking my posts on stupid tangents for the sake of your argument - an argument which stems from a ridiculously simplistic and dogmatic view.
Originally posted by CyberKev
There is no evidence to suggest his action has altered since, nor have any umpires outside of Emerson & Hair called him for chucking throughout his career. Emerson & Hair rightly called him as they had doubts and he was exonerated by human movement experts. His action hasn't altered since and noone has called him since, end of story.
He doesn't deserved to be harassed after every single delivery any more than any other bowler does.
This whole non-issue is little more than ugly aussie bashing of non aussie cricketers who have the temerity to match or outperform Australian cricketers.
Its nothing more or less than that.
Pathetic.
Kevin
It was widely reported and accepted that the ICC silenced the umpires in question and ensured they never umpired a Sri Lankan fixture again.
CatManDo
9 Mar 2004, 14:17
Originally posted by CyberKev
This whole non-issue is little more than ugly aussie bashing of non aussie cricketers who have the temerity to match or outperform Australian cricketers.
Its nothing more or less than that.
Pathetic.
There might have been unecessary bashing, but to say its simply because Murali did well against us is utter crap, and Im sure you know it too.
CyberKev
9 Mar 2004, 14:20
Originally posted by scottywiper
Well Kev, unfortunately you understand little about the process judging by your ridiculous comment.
As someone who deals with these people regularly, and used to work alongside them on a daily basis, I am not attributing my beliefs to anyone. Just relaying what they are saying to offer further insight into this topic.
Do you think people tell you this stuff in private conversation to have their names given to it when it is relayed?
Look what happened to Gilly when he got pizzled for making a comment at a lunch about Murali. Is it any surprise they will say it in private and not public?
I spent a day with one of the touring teams this summer and they had no doubt about the presence of chuckers in international cricket.
That was THEIR opinion, not mine. I just happen to agree with them.
What is sad is the person who can't handle other people having opinions and instead bags them.
My conscience is clear...
I guess I'll take your word for it then...
It may be that everything you say is correct, but I hear these comments bandied around very lightly on every forum I visit.
I also didn't expect you to name names, but the fact remains that it is cheap and easy for anyone to get on here and make these sort of claims when they don't have to back them up.
Btw... Do you have concrete proof for your assertion that the University of WA has passed EVERY bowler who they have assessed, and that the bowlers in question pay for the privilege of getting a good report? Or is this another of those obvious cases in which your word is all that matters given that you can't name names?
Kevin
To say that the Australian public targets Murali because of supposed good performances against our national team is both innacurate and offensive.
Murali's record Vs Australia coming into this series:
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
Murali Vs Australia 7 21 11 7.00 0 0 22 5/71 41.90 1 5 0
Hardly what you would call amazing figures, however, the belief that he is a chucker has hung around for a decade.
scottywiper
9 Mar 2004, 14:26
I do not have concrete proof that UWA passes every bowler that they test because they are paid to do so.
Just pointing out that they do make good money out of it, so it wouldn't really be in their interest to fail bowlers.
I have heard this whisper from other people involved in cricket, but I don't claim to know if it is true or not.
Just offering a perspective...
CatManDo
9 Mar 2004, 14:27
Originally posted by Sheik Mathious
What do you want?
It's very simple. Muralitharan has been cleared by the ICC that has concluded that the Lankan has a deformity in his bowling arm.
We are in a situation where a bowler with over 400 Test scalps at a phenomenal strike rate hardly receives any credit from a section of the cricketing world.
The Western media, especially in Australia, has the habit of closing ranks and going after a particular cricketer in the enemy camp.
Pakistan's Shoaib Akhtar's action made so much news for the wrong reasons. I am not holding any brief for Shoaib, but if he chucks, then what is Brett Lee doing. Is he squeaky clean? Does he possess a clear, copybook action. The truth is Lee's action is as clean or wrong as that of Shoaib.
Going further back, there was more than an element of doubt about left-arm spinner Phil Tufnell's action. It did appear to me that he was straightening his arm when he sent down the quicker one. However, Tufnell's action never landed him in trouble. Why is this I ask you?
Again! What would make you happy other than Muralitharan being called a chucker and banned?
If you're going to go to all that effort, do it to someone who deserves it. All I said was that many people believe Murali chucks, and this is a fact. As it is a belief, and for many people a strongly held belief, its silly to just write it off as another tall poppy syndrome. A reaction to his success maybe, but not really your classic tall poppy syndrome.
Why would I want Murali banned? Ive never said I do. I enjoy watching him, but I just think he chucks. I also cannot understand why some see that test so long ago as conclusive proof that he does not chuck. Is an umpire not allowed to call it as he sees it?
CyberKev
9 Mar 2004, 14:29
Originally posted by CatManDo
Give it a rest. I wrote this in reponse to your previous offering, which was equally surreal, yet also pathetically simplistic, and thats what my analogy pointed out.
But just to humour you, if people strongly believe, based on available evidence, that a person is drink driving, then whats the problem with thinking this?
Any way you look at it, there is no way you can suggest his action will forever remain legal based on the findings of one test all those years ago.
Dont lump me in with an 'aussie brigade' by the way, I appreciate Murali's bowling, and Im hardly making ridiculous claims, being a poor sport or criticising his action for the sake of it.
Again I'll point out to you, my original post was about this not being a tall poppy thing, and directed at someone else. For some reason you seem to want to keep taking my posts on stupid tangents for the sake of your argument - an argument which stems from a ridiculously simplistic and dogmatic view.
No, you've gone of on a tangent by talking about drink driving and desperately trying to link the two. I've just pointed out the glaring limitations in using this analogy.
My initial comment on the earth being flat was a perfectly pointed debunking of your assertion that something is incontravertable fact as long as enough people share the belief that it is right.
Still its nice to see that you appreciate Murali's bowling, even though it doesn't show in this thread.
Kevin
troy_sibbick
9 Mar 2004, 14:35
Originally posted by feher
but isn't that wrong? if murali got smashed around the park, are you saying you wouldn't care? and this wouldn't even be a issue?
Don't get me wrong i think he is a chucker (although i don't think its his fault as long as he keeps it as straight as possible), but i also understand that he can't straighten his arm, so that is more of the issue, should he be allowed to bowl because of his medical condition?
People forget though that the rule says that if the arms straightens even slightly. It doesnt have to straighten all the way to be classed as a throw.
Sheik Mathious
9 Mar 2004, 14:35
Originally posted by CatManDo
If you're going to go to all that effort, do it to someone who deserves it. All I said was that many people believe Murali chucks, and this is a fact. As it is a belief, and for many people a strongly held belief, its silly to just write it off as another tall poppy syndrome. A reaction to his success maybe, but not really your classic tall poppy syndrome.
Why would I want Murali banned? Ive never said I do. I enjoy watching him, but I just think he chucks. I also cannot understand why some see that test so long ago as conclusive proof that he does not chuck. Is an umpire not allowed to call it as he sees it?
Then what is the answer? Re-test bowlers at 6 month intervals, before every test, or maybe at the whim of the sporting public?
Who's to say that someone who passes a test on Tuesdays will not be "chuckin" on saturday.
CatManDo
9 Mar 2004, 14:44
Originally posted by CyberKev
No, you've gone of on a tangent by talking about drink driving and desperately trying to link the two. I've just pointed out the glaring limitations in using this analogy.
Desperately?
Again, it was in response to your first view, which I still think is overly simplistic.
You are willing to say it has glaring limitations, yet not willing to admit the same of your own. Good one.
I still cannot understand how one test is adequate to prove his action is legal for the next 20,000 deliveries, and you havent convinced me otherwise.
Originally posted by CyberKev
My initial comment on the earth being flat was a perfectly pointed debunking of your assertion that something is incontravertable fact as long as enough people share the belief that it is right.
:confused:
Laughable. Really. A "perfectly pointed debunking" of my assertion?
Show me where I said that something is incontravertable fact as long as enough people share the belief, and I'll show you an Aussie cricket fan who does not have an opinion on Murali. Quite simply, I didnt say it.
Dont make things up for the sake of your argument. Go back and look at what my post actually said. You might even find it had nothing to do with any of what you are saying, and that it was quite a basic and innocent remark. For some reason you've taken it and started running.
Originally posted by CyberKev
Still its nice to see that you appreciate Murali's bowling, even though it doesn't show in this thread.
Well if you were willing to analyse what is being said without blindly defending Murali, you may have noticed it earlier.
CatManDo
9 Mar 2004, 14:53
Originally posted by Sheik Mathious
Then what is the answer? Re-test bowlers at 6 month intervals, before every test, or maybe at the whim of the sporting public?
Testing has its limitations, as you've suggested. Still, more regular testing, if doubts are continually raised, makes sense. One cannot keep relying on evidence gained years ago when doubt persists, surely.
Originally posted by Sheik Mathious
Who's to say that someone who passes a test on Tuesdays will not be "chuckin" on saturday.
I agree, just goes to show how silly the situation is. I dont know for sure, but umpires certainly seem to have been censured. Referral to a review is the way these days. But an umpire should be allowed to call it as he sees it. How else is an action to be refereed during a game?
It can then still go to a test afterward as well. Even if an umpire doesnt make a call, a third party in authority could still refer it to an external examination.
understudy
9 Mar 2004, 14:57
this thread has degenerated and u are slinging mud at each other.
fact is the icc are culpable here. which ever side of this argument is correct and i dont know which one is, if either are at all, but fact is the whole situation is very unclear and that is why this controversy is ongoing.
from what i know on the issue it is the iccs neglagence in not clearing up this situation and resolving it that is the problem here.
they are a backward and outdated organisation and this is a huge problem facing cricket (thank god im not a big fan).
they make the afl look like utopia.
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 15:50
It doesn't matter if Muralidaran throws or not (even though I do think that he does), but it is the influence he is having in the world game that is a worry. In Sri Lanka alone, you can go to the nets in a local club training and you can see half of them chucking by naked eye. The amount of illegal actions around the world is just amazing, there's probably one chucker in every international side at the moment.
Murali's success has made young kids copying his action, the young kids that mightn't have a double joint wrist like Murali's, who cannot bowl the way that Murali does. So the only way to bowl like him, is to straighten the arm and chuck.
What if 20 years later, a young kid with exactly the same action of Murali comes onto the scene, and then he's called throwing, and banned? Then isn't it a bit of a double standard that Murali's cleared and the kid isn't? If the kid is tested and does chuck, does it also make Murali a chucker, since they have the same action?
What if he isn't cleared? Then we'd have a bunch of chuckers legally running around the cricket world, which leavess the principle and integrity of the game of cricket totally deserted?
For the good of cricket, Murali probably should be banned, even if he doesn't chuck, he is leaving a huge blight to the game. It's a shame, coz Murali is one of the greatest blokes you'd ever meet.
It's a sad fact that rarely does any complaint come about chucking until that player has started to have success and threatens the opposition side -going back to Meckiff who decimated the Poms.
Plus quite a few shield players at the time,two from Sth Aust one from NSW were mentioned.
Even played with an off spinning chucker,in my opinion,but he was a breaze in the nets.
Nobody complains if there is no threat.
That's one reason the umpires should be protected and backed.
Unfortunatey they are not,they don't want to lose their jobs either.
crudbucket
9 Mar 2004, 18:42
Originally posted by Sheik Mathious
Then what is the answer? Re-test bowlers at 6 month intervals, before every test, or maybe at the whim of the sporting public?
Who's to say that someone who passes a test on Tuesdays will not be "chuckin" on saturday.
The answer is simple .... let the umpires do the job that they did very well from 1877 through to about 1995, and back them up if they do make the hard call on any bowler. Pretty simple really, and worked well until the PC d*ckheads got involved..
Murilitheran is a great "bowler". Very talented.
But anybody who says he is not the world's greatest example of a chucker is only fooling themselves, no-one else.
His action in this series is so incorrect it is blatant.
With that action of his he would be a sensation playing darts on the English pub circuit!!
The ICC is a joke, and their weakness has led to the curremt situation with Murali and others.
Originally posted by TigerCraig
All that is required under the Laws is for the arm to partially straighten once it passes the level of the shoulder. Also, under the Laws, the umpires should rule on each and every delivery - the ICC are not letting them do this for political reasons - making them rely on old net sessions.
Warne does not chuck. Whatever diuretic he took does not enhance his ability to spin the ball - chucking does (that's not to excuse taking a banned drug, although I can't see why a lot of drugs are banned in cricket, but that's a different argument).
Lee and Shoaib do not chuck as high a proportion of their deliveries, but their questionable deliveries should be called. They changed that law a few years ago. You are now allowed to straighten your arm up to 15 degrees i think is the angle.
and on the banned substances, surely you are not suggesting that the diuretics warne took (hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride) shouldn't be on the banned list. Probably the most powerful masking agent for anti-inflammatory agents like anabolic steroids
Originally posted by macca23
The ICC is a joke, and their weakness has led to the curremt situation with Murali and others. yeah if you dont think the problem lies with murali himself, it will have a massive effect on the cricketers coming through for many years to come. I've even found myself bedazzled by watching him bowl and have been practising bowling the doosra with a bent arm (trying not to straighten it, though people say i am straightening). Even though i find them very hard to land with all the wrist flicking involved etc, with practice i could, and whats stopping thousands of others from developing borderline if not suspect actions like this one?
Originally posted by Vulcan
It's a sad fact that rarely does any complaint come about chucking until that player has started to have success and threatens the opposition side. Except of course in this case, where the bowler was first questioned in a series where he had very little impact at all. Even going into the current series his average against Australia was over 40, and his average against Australia in Sri Lanka over 30.
The Floodbuster
9 Mar 2004, 20:09
Originally posted by goaldrush
Nothing to do with it, you racist man FF.
What a comment!
Racism has been taken too far, fair enough it is racist and unacceptable to call someone a black such and such, but to compare every single comment made towards another race and label it racism is utter crap. Everyone is different, the lady down the road is fat, the guy next door is mentally unstable etc etc Am I racist for calling the lady down the road fat because she is as FF is for saying Symonds is a different skin colour. Are Centrelink racist because they have a box there asking to define if you are Aboriginal or not? You are a joke Suzi, to me racists are the ones like yourself that call people racist for defining the obvious.
Racism to me is when someone abuses another person about their skin colour, not somebody who simply defines the obvious. If it wasn't for hypocrites like yourself and others in this world carrying on about racism there would be no such thing as Racism.
Like I said I against Racism, but I am sick to death of the extent it is used in our society.
Black Thunder
9 Mar 2004, 20:29
i'm of the opinion he throws the ball.
people say that he can't throw the ball because he doesn't/cant fully straighten his arm but you don't have to full straighten your arm for it to be a throw.
the angle the elbow is at when the arm passes the same height as the shoulder, should be the same as the of the elbow when the ball is let go for it to be deemed legal.
For most bowlers the arm is perfectly straight (i.e. the angle of the elbow is about 180 degreees). For birth defect reasons Murali apparentally can not get his elbow any higher than 160 degrees.
IMO the angle of his arm when it passes shoulder height is far less than what it is when he lets go off the ball.
and i reckon he's action has gotten worse and worse over the years.
Black Thunder
9 Mar 2004, 20:33
Originally posted by macca23
But anybody who says he is not the world's greatest example of a chucker is only fooling themselves, no-one else.
actually, the great shame of it IMO and it's alreayd hit international cricket is that there are guys coming through with far worse actions than Murali.
Sareendeep Singh (otherwise known as Turbinator 2) from India is by far the worst example of a chucker in international cricket. Even Harbajhan looks suspect on a few deliveries.
Not so bad (generally its much easier to see if a spinner is chucking than a pace bowler as the arms doesn't move as fast) are quick bowlers Jermaine Lawson (Windies) and James Kirtley (England) but both have actions which are very suspicion - particularly Kirtley.
But if you look around the junior ranks at a lot of the spinners there is much higher proportion of kids who look very suspect than what there would've been in the past - at least i'd be 99% sure of that comment being correct.
Ray Nolan
9 Mar 2004, 21:06
What a surprise this thread is, more proof that Aussie cricket fans are as soft as sh*te and start to whinge like babies when things go against them. Pathetic. I'm constantly amazed that this is still only an issue in this country. Most of you know my views and why I have them, how any of the so called 'experts' here can continue to argue in the face of incontrovertable medical and scientific evidence conducted by a number of institutions around the world still has me beat. I won't take Australian Cricket's drive to get Murali out of the game seriously until they start taking action in their own backyard - starting with one of the most blatant chuckers in world cricket, one Brett Lee ...
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 21:13
Originally posted by Ray Nolan
What a surprise this thread is, more proof that Aussie cricket fans are as soft as sh*te and start to whinge like babies when things go against them. Pathetic. I'm constantly amazed that this is still only an issue in this country. Most of you know my views and why I have them, how any of the so called 'experts' here can continue to argue in the face of incontrovertable medical and scientific evidence conducted by a number of institutions around the world still has me beat. I won't take Australian Cricket's drive to get Murali out of the game seriously until they start taking action in their own backyard - starting with one of the most blatant chuckers in world cricket, one Brett Lee ...
As far as Brett Lee's concerned: We're not trying to get him banned for throwing, we're trying to get him dropped from the team altogether! :D :D :D
ICC did admit though, that they cleared Murali's action that many years ago, because they couldn't tell that if he's straightening the arm or not, and they also admit that the technology back then might not've been good enough to detect if there was a jerk in his action.
I'm sure you're a Sri Lankan or something, ain't ya, Ray Nolan?
Originally posted by Ray Nolan
What a surprise this thread is, more proof that Aussie cricket fans are as soft as sh*te and start to whinge like babies when things go against them. Pathetic. I'm constantly amazed that this is still only an issue in this country. Most of you know my views and why I have them, how any of the so called 'experts' here can continue to argue in the face of incontrovertable medical and scientific evidence conducted by a number of institutions around the world still has me beat. I won't take Australian Cricket's drive to get Murali out of the game seriously until they start taking action in their own backyard - starting with one of the most blatant chuckers in world cricket, one Brett Lee ... pfft, here you get up on your pedastal and try to defend muralitharan in the face of some of the most doctored and unscientific evidence going around and then definitively claim Brett Lee chucks.
The muralitharan Hong Kong university science is like reading about the magic bullet theory. (and he will never bowl a doosra under those conditions you can bet either!)
and would you care to explain how medical evidence cleared him of throwing? Some of the reasons i've heard would go so far as to suggest he doesnt throw the ball from the boundary because he cant straighten his arm.
Ray Nolan
9 Mar 2004, 21:25
Originally posted by Cooldude
I'm sure you're a Sri Lankan or something, ain't ya, Ray Nolan?
Nope, but I did live in Colombo for 3 years. Ever since my time there I've been a Sri Lankan Cricket supporter. My school team used to train on a Monday night alongside the Sri Lankan National Team at the SSC Grounds. I met a lot of the players at that time (mid 90's) We had the matted nets and they had the turf ones. It was a bit intimidating as a kid to have Aravinda de Silva batting in the next net or trying out your dinky little off-breaks while Muttiah Muralitharan is turning them a mile right next to you. Great experience though.
http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/images/a1.gif
Originally posted by Ray Nolan
Ever since my time there I've been a Sri Lankan Cricket supporter.
Honestly if you are going to try and lambast someone for having a go at the opposition whilst defending their own players maybe you should observe the same line. You just make out like a sore hypocrite otherwise.
Originally posted by Ray Nolan
What a surprise this thread is, more proof that Aussie cricket fans are as soft as sh*te and start to whinge like babies when things go against them.
Get off your high horse, you fool.
He's chucked the ball for years now, and we've all said that, even when we regularly whipped Sri Lanka's ass.
As for your "medical evidence" pfttttt!! Next you'll be telling me that dart players bowl their darts instead of throwing them!!
It's not Murali's fault that he's playing at Test level and making a mockery of the game with his flawed action. The blame lies squarely at the feet of that weak-kneed lot that happens to be the ICC. As a result of their weakness there'll be more and more chuckers sneaking into the game for all countries over time.
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 21:36
Originally posted by nicko18
http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/images/a1.gif
The eighth-ninth picture when his bowling arm was over the shoulder and at the point of delivery, looked suspicious to say the least... my eyes indicate that there's a straightening, but some nerdy scientists would come in and say "It's optical Illusion"
The Floodbuster
9 Mar 2004, 21:38
Originally posted by Ray Nolan
What a surprise this thread is, more proof that Aussie cricket fans are as soft as sh*te and start to whinge like babies when things go against them. Pathetic. I'm constantly amazed that this is still only an issue in this country. Most of you know my views and why I have them, how any of the so called 'experts' here can continue to argue in the face of incontrovertable medical and scientific evidence conducted by a number of institutions around the world still has me beat. I won't take Australian Cricket's drive to get Murali out of the game seriously until they start taking action in their own backyard - starting with one of the most blatant chuckers in world cricket, one Brett Lee ...
The scientific evidence didn't say he wasn't a chucker, it determined that he had a bend in his arm, a disability where the ICC have made exceptions for his action.
Similar situation in the AFL was Alastair Lynch's CFS where the AFL made exceptions for him to take a banned performance enhancing product.
I believe that Muri should get some credit as Alastair Lynch should also for his great contribution to AFL but with both being made exceptions they have to take the ups and downs of being accepted into professional sport with a disability, people can dispute it at their own peril but at sometime world sporting bodies will have to make a stance as it has become more common in world sport over the last decade.
My only gripe with Muri is that over the last 3 years is to me he has taken full advantage of his disability by bending his arm more making it more suspect but the ICC can't really intervene as they would be shooting themselves in the foot by letting it come to this in the first place, there is one ball he bowls that is so blatantly obvious that it is not legal even if he was double-triple-quadruple jointed. If Alatair Lynch up the dose of his medication, which I am not sure he still takes, but if he did at least the AFL would not let it get out of hand and put a limit on it.
Also to compare Lee and Akhtar to Muri is simply wrong, both Lee and Akhtar don't have the disability Muri does and they don't have the same exceptions as Muri has gained from the ICC.
But hey, rules are rules. He has been cleared so his wickets are official and while he is deemed as legitimate he is rated as us as equal. If the EPL turned around and said a guy who couldn't control his arms as he had a spasmodic reaction by keep on picking up the ball and running off with it and kicked 491 goals was allowed to play EPL with his disability I guess the public would react the same way as they do to Muri.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~jscott/murali1.gif
http://members.iinet.net.au/~jscott/murali2.gif
Originally posted by Cooldude
The eighth-ninth picture when his bowling arm was over the shoulder and at the point of delivery, looked suspicious to say the least... my eyes indicate that there's a straightening, but some nerdy scientists would come in and say "It's optical Illusion" yep, that looks very suspect. The arm is bent in both angles in the 8th frame and is less bent in both angles of the 9th frame. Would you believe this fact was not mentioned in the 'scientific' report? no reference was made to consecutive frames and apparant straightening. They only ever take one frame at a time and comment how it looks straight from behind but as you can see it's bent from the side. They use this line of thinking to push the notion that it maintains a fixed angle.
Ray Nolan
9 Mar 2004, 21:56
Originally posted by nicko18
Honestly if you are going to try and lambast someone for having a go at the opposition whilst defending their own players maybe you should observe the same line. You just make out like a sore hypocrite otherwise.
Mate I'm not saying people can't have a go at Murali. If they want to that's up to them, by all means they can do so. I don't agree with them, that's my prerogative and I'll put my disagreement forward. If you want to see my views on the ins and outs of the Murali evidence then it should be on another thread in this section somewhere. I just can't be arsed typing it all out again. I should probably save a copy to post for every time this issue comes up.:D
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 21:58
Oh my lord... at first I thought they cleared him so he must've been fine for 95/96 but gotten worse, but now you showed me that, really, the so-called scientists are just a bunch of flawed idiots... he's been chucking it all along...
This really is devastating... can't believe I'm seeing this...
Should send it to a newspaper and ask if they can publish it... Scmods's illustration showed perfectly...
as the 12th man said
"Muttiah's A Bit Flat This Morning, Aparantly he was up all night chucking"
Ray Nolan
9 Mar 2004, 22:15
Originally posted by Cooldude
Oh my lord... at first I thought they cleared him so he must've been fine for 95/96 but gotten worse, but now you showed me that, really, the so-called scientists are just a bunch of flawed idiots... he's been chucking it all along...
This really is devastating... can't believe I'm seeing this...
Should send it to a newspaper and ask if they can publish it... Scmods's illustration showed perfectly...
Fancy taking into account the rotation around of the shoulder from right to left when looking at those frames? Or the fact that Murali's torso is further forward in the second shot? Or are we going to just ignore those two points because it doesn't suit the argument? C'mon fellas, blind freddie can can see that those 2 factors are what make the bend in the elbow appear more pronounced than it actually is in the first frame.
Yeah the ICC have now decided the way to judge these things are with a couple of lines drawn in Paint over some black & white stills.
You lot are priceless! :D
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 22:22
Originally posted by Ray Nolan
Fancy taking into account the rotation around of the shoulder from right to left when looking at those frames? Or the fact that Murali's torso is further forward in the second shot? Or are we going to just ignore those two points because it doesn't suit the argument? C'mon fellas, blind freddie can can see that those 2 factors are what make the bend in the elbow appear more pronounced than it actually is in the first frame.
Frankly, I don't get how it matters if his torso was further forward, and also frankly, I don't see how it matters when his shoulder is rotating from right to left. There are two angles of his action, both from behind and side-on, if his shoulder did indeed rotate from right to left and his arm turned as a result, the arm should still remain on the exact same angle that it was before, and quite frankly, from those pictures, it isn't.
And also, it is never the best way to judge is a bowler throws from a side-on or behind. It is the front-on view of the elbow that shows all, if this scientific test is as accurate as it sounds, then it should've had all camera angles availble to judge.
Originally posted by Ray Nolan
Yeah the ICC have now decided the way to judge these things are with a couple of lines drawn in Paint over some black & white stills.
You lot are priceless! :D
Frankly, the best way to decide these things might be as simple as drawing a line on the arm. It's when scientists continually investigate and investigate, that they start seeing things that ain't there, and start to create doubt. It's the same thing with the video umpiring of catches and if they're taken or on the ground or not, Justin Langer two years ago in Adelaide catching Vaughan, anyone?
Ray Nolan
9 Mar 2004, 22:35
Originally posted by Cooldude
Frankly, I don't get how it matters if his torso was further forward, and also frankly, I don't see how it matters when his shoulder is rotating from right to left. There are two angles of his action, both from behind and side-on, if his shoulder did indeed rotate from right to left and his arm turned as a result, the arm should still remain on the exact same angle that it was before, and quite frankly, from those pictures, it isn't.
And also, it is never the best way to judge is a bowler throws from a side-on or behind. It is the front-on view of the elbow that shows all, if this scientific test is as accurate as it sounds, then it should've had all camera angles availble to judge.
It matters because the view of the elbow you get in the first frame of the first shot is from the side but in the second frame the view is of the front of the elbow. Because of the rotation the appearance of the angle has changed. In the first frame of the second shot you are seeing the back of the elbow, in the second frame you are seeing the side of the elbow. Again it is another case of the rotation making the appearance of the angle change. It is an optical illusion. I agree the front on view is more definitive, in the test footage I saw that was taken (I assume) by UWA (it was done in AUS) from the front it didn't appear that there was any movement of the elbow forward during the rotation of the arm from the start to when the ball was released either.
Black Thunder
9 Mar 2004, 22:41
people saying he doesn't throw have shown me for ages now that set of pitcures above and telling me how it proves he doesn't, and i keep pulling me hair out saying exactly what scmods has demonstrated.
you don't have to be a scientest to tell when someone is throwing. guys who have been playing cricket for long enough can tell.
i think the ultimate proof will come in about 10-15 years time when Murali is out of the game and all the guys he's come up against are out of the game, and it will be interested to see what they say than when they no longer have contracts to protect, no longer have officials to protect and no longer have themselves to protect.
Cooldude
9 Mar 2004, 22:46
Originally posted by Ray Nolan
It matters because the view of the elbow you get in the first frame of the first shot is from the side but in the second frame the view is of the front of the elbow. Because of the rotation the appearance of the angle has changed. In the first frame of the second shot you are seeing the back of the elbow, in the second frame you are seeing the side of the elbow. Again it is another case of the rotation making the appearance of the angle change. It is an optical illusion. I agree the front on view is more definitive, in the test footage I saw that was taken (I assume) by UWA (it was done in AUS) from the front it didn't appear that there was any movement of the elbow forward during the rotation of the arm from the start to when the ball was released either.
Apparently I tried turning my arm (bent arm, of course) from the mirror, from a view of the front of my elbow on a side-on view, moving forward while not straightening the arm, until it reaches the side of the elbow. The angle of the elbow would've turned at roughly 90 degrees, which would've meant that the arm's angle on the ninth picture of the side-on view, is the same as the arm's angle on the eighth picture of the behind view, or somewhere or there abouts. You can clearly see that his arm was straighter than before, and also longer, if the length of the arm has extended, then it could've only meant that the arm must've straightened.
Frankly I don't believe in optical illusions, it is the same with catches in third umpiring, it's the repeated replays of the same shot that starts to create doubt.
I can't see how both views in the eighth and ninth picture clearly showed that the arm was straighter in BOTH views, and it was cleared as not a straightening, without further examination of other angles like front-on or the left side, or diagonal, to me, this testing by the Hong Kong Uni is flawed, and should not be taken seriously.
Originally posted by Ray Nolan
Yeah the ICC have now decided the way to judge these things are with a couple of lines drawn in Paint over some black & white stills.
You lot are priceless! :D
Given they apparently made the call on his action by some video of him bowling in the nets, not under match conditions and while he knew that he was being looked at, i'm sure some scratchy black and white pictures of him bowling on what looks like a tennis court is probably as conclusive as it gets for the ICC. Might be worth sending them in.
At NO STAGE has any test been conducted of his action during a match where he is unaware that he is tested. He could have been bowling utter trash in the nets at UWA because he was concentrating solely on not straightening his arm. It's like telling an athlete 8 weeks in advance that he's going to be drug tested, and then clearing him for life when he is tested as being clean that one time.
Kenny_01
10 Mar 2004, 00:26
Originally posted by Cooldude
Oh my lord... at first I thought they cleared him so he must've been fine for 95/96 but gotten worse, but now you showed me that, really, the so-called scientists are just a bunch of flawed idiots... he's been chucking it all along...
This really is devastating... can't believe I'm seeing this...
Should send it to a newspaper and ask if they can publish it... Scmods's illustration showed perfectly...
I'm sure if you slowed down a lot of bowler's actions in world cricket and looked at them frame by frame, then their arms would look slightly bent as well.
Just from those pictures posted alone, nothing looks too wrong.
There's is no doubting his arm is slightly bent when he is bowling but the bottom line is he is never going to get banned so everyone might as well get over it.
dr nick
10 Mar 2004, 07:04
Originally posted by Ray Nolan
It matters because the view of the elbow you get in the first frame of the first shot is from the side but in the second frame the view is of the front of the elbow. Because of the rotation the appearance of the angle has changed. In the first frame of the second shot you are seeing the back of the elbow, in the second frame you are seeing the side of the elbow. Again it is another case of the rotation making the appearance of the angle change. It is an optical illusion. I agree the front on view is more definitive, in the test footage I saw that was taken (I assume) by UWA (it was done in AUS) from the front it didn't appear that there was any movement of the elbow forward during the rotation of the arm from the start to when the ball was released either. Thats garbage and sounds typical of what these 'scientists' might say in order to convince the poor saps who can't see or think for themselves. Using that theory, i cant definitively say a baseball pitcher throws it because of the illusion when his torso moves forward and his shoulder rotates from facing behind to towards the batter. Its a rubbish argument and clearly clutching at straws.
And failing that, how can you come out and say it was incontravertible evidence if you yourself admit there aren't enough cameras to make a definitive conclusion. And i'm still waiting on this irrefutable medical evidence to say he can't throw a ball.
morgoth
10 Mar 2004, 08:01
Frostie, finally something we agree on. It is a blight on the game and all those who have gone before him must be shaking their heads over his action.
He is bringing the whole game down.
macca23
10 Mar 2004, 17:27
I know the topic's been worked to death, but I'm watching Murali ?????? bowl????? right now.
If the umpires could call a bowler for throwing as they always did until the ICC capitulated to Sri Lankan pressure, I wouldn't be.
Forget the experts, the doctors, the pics etc. If you've got Fox just watch it, and then try to tell me that he doesn't throw the ball. Sheesh!!