15% Murali (Ray Nolan) v.long post

[blackcat]

The 15 %(degree) rule has been set because the biomechs have assessed that this is the angle at which the naked eye can ascertain extension of the elbow lever. I doubt that they have enough evidence even with the specialist slow motion cameras to conclude that angle all bowlers reach with minimum bowling action on maximum exertion.

I do not doubt all bowlers extend (hyperextend) and straighten to a degree, but stick a kink in your elbow and estimate 15 %, lets say 12% allowing for a latitude of 3% for biomechanically proven physiological hyperextension.That seems overly generous does it not?

The flaw in this rule, is that the 15% rule, which they have masked as the minimum action degree, is actually the "umpire's eyesight" degree. We all know the umpires have been crippled since Darrel(l) Hair.

There is also a flaw in remitting the umpires with assessment because it requires a perpendicular view from 2 dimensions, not just one, to be accurate in real time. (difficult to describe, not an engineer!) This is impossible for umpires, both square leg and wicket umpire. Murali's shoulder revolution has greater movement with his arm protuding to legside (to the rh) than a front on quick, plus his wrist flexibility, and the wrist movement from off to leg, make it all but impossible to give real time adjudication.

Ray Nolan I have much respect for you, your counterpoint in the much weary debate is courageous in an anonymous messageboard way. It is a pity there is not a more sensible approach from the other side so there could be genuine dialectic.

Ray, do you believe Murali moderated or tempered his exertion at both WA tests? The second testing he looked remarkedly less exaggerated and energetic in his action than he does in the middle. (I cannot remember the first test). There is obvious flaws in testing in scientific conditions and this has been already explained on this board.

I was of the opinion that I could not assess Murali without a two dimensional perpendicular view with photo captions with his original action. However when I saw the doosra from a normal camera view (over the bowler's arm from the offside) it look extremely suspicious to the point of being illegal. When he recoiled his action, in the Perth tests, albeit he looked measured versus energetic (or I may have been presumptively prejudiced) I was not surprised at the 14% (or 15 or whatever it was). I thought that was the minimum, much like Brett Lee bowling 135 km decent length (not bouncers) in his testing.

So what are the solutions? Should Murali be give licence to use his doosra? Should Lee be given licence to use his bouncer? It is a pretty balanced case between the two (neglecting their relative propensity and % of deliveries)

The assessment needs to be in the middle, but those high speed cameras at the Champions trophy are not x-rays to perfectly model levers, and the cameras that pick up the arms are also obscured by shirts (even short sleeve could affect the accuracy even tho it is the elbow lever) thus they are not accurate to a perfect degree, where there are questions of degrees here and 1 degree matters.

My solution would be immediately lose the 15% rule, because umpires are unable to adjudicate accurately as it stands, even given genuine powers to call the bowler. Put more research into the degree. This might seem contradictory, as I am advocating a scientific solution yet are dismissing the current research the puts 15% as a cap - certainly that is the maxim (cause:epediency) when it should have been the minimum %.

I think the High speed cameras are the best solution of an imprecise assessment yet there is a dilemma on implementation. If there could be blind tests where bowlers were unaware they were being assessed, then this should be implemented, yet this is highly impractical and costly, prohibitively so. Murali and other suspect bowlers need to be judged in test conditions. I think an opposition batsmen needs to face Murali to ensure he bowls with the necessary vigour and action, and the batsmen can impart pressure albeit with his impotent determination on the legality of his action.

What impediments are there now to halt Lee producing a wicket taking bouncer with a kink in his elbow. I think a strident solution is if a wicket taking delivery is determined to be a throw, that delivery is outlawed for time immemorial. No remedial action allowed. That is one effective deterrent I assume. The question, actually predicament, of assessing the delivery remains.

[Ricketts]

if murali were to continue to be called a chucker, people will laugh at the game of cricket and say:

"haha must be a crap sport if the worlds' best player is a cheat!!"

the ONLY reason this new rule has been introduced is to accommodate Murali's throwing action, and save the game from being laughed at.

[Cooldude]

Great, great post

[Ray Nolan]

FWIW, I don't think Murali tempered himself in the test, I think appearance of him bowling with all that 'tackle' all over his body in a situation that is not match conditions gives that impression. As someone who has seen him bowl loads of overs in the nets & in match conditions the footage I saw of the tests looked OK to me. My only criticism is that he did not appear to have enough room to come off his full run, he was coming off about 3/4 of his run. Murali has quite a long run up which helps him to exert that force in his delivery motion. I thought he was making up for that though by putting the right amount of exertion in from what I could see.

As far as the rule goes I think because the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that most, if not all bowlers 'chuck' to some extent umpires will never have the power to 'call' a bowler at the crease in an international match again. The issue is far too controversial and the judgment of some umpires is doubtful enough to ensure that this rule at international level will no longer be in the hands of the umpires. Ideally we would like the umpires to make these decisions but the human eye is just not up to the job. It is the same reason why a third umpire was introduced into the game to bring about more certainty because the human eye was not up to the job.

The problem is here is that as far as Australian fans see it, this rule is just to get Murali off the hook. There are so many bowlers that look suspect but get away with it though - Glenn McGrath has always been my big bugbear, as far as I see it he's obviously a chucker when he strains for pace, but he always gets held up as having 'the perfect action'. People see different things out there and these decisions have got to a point where they will have to be determined off field by a panel of biomechanical experts. The rule as far as I am concerned is a recognition of the reality of Cricket as opposed to the 'ideal' of Cricket which the scientific tests have shown is virtually unattainable.

Off field adjudication is not perfect and I acknowledge that, but to argue against the 15% rule and place everything back in the hands of the umpires is to my mind living in fools paradise because so many bowlers are liable to be pinged for chucking and the game will be in an even bigger hole. To be honest I also have my doubts about some umpires (step forward R. Emerson) and their motives at calling bowlers. I think it could work both ways as well. Put it this way, I would not be surprised if the likes of B. Lee & G McGrath found themselves getting pinged by Subcontinent umpires given their actions have now been shown not to be so squeaky clean either.

These issues are highly emotive and are best taken away from the heat of the battle and examined in a cold, hard scientific light through the rigourous 4 week testing period as proposed by the ICC. A specific centre should be devised with the best equipment available to measure the flexing, there should also be a panel of bowling experts on hand to ensure that the bowlers called in for testing are putting in the correct effort. The bowler should be required to bowl at batsman of first class standard during the test as well. I think the ICC proposal is a step in the direction of reality and the only thing that can save the game from a chucking controversy that will only get messier and drag several more bowlers into the mire as we go along.

[blackcat]

I agree with what you are saying Ray.

My gripe is with the 15 %(using the percent sign as degrees) rule.

Highly contentious, why implement a rule that puts once again engages the umpire's decision making, when the umpires have been effectively silenced and handcuffed to put the no-ball arm up. I think they threw the 15 % rule up in the air as a nice round figure (political expendiency underpinned it also).

You are right in saying there needs a prolonged period of scientific research into an allowable degree. Fifteen percent even allowing for that to include hyperextension seems unreasonable, but I am no biomechanist.

People with suspect actions should not be given any benefit of their unique physiology and action. Murali, Lee et al need to conform to the minimum degree. If they trangress, especially the quick bowlers when striving for lift off a short length, this is the biggest potential problem. I think Murali (if indeed he exceeds the extension degree) could easily curtail it, and then his new model would easily become norm, so he would be les likely to stray from it, if reaching for extra bite, once he has grooved a new action. Much like a golf swing, once Tiger has his new swing in the groove, I doubt he revert to a looser action to try and bust out a 350 yard drive for extra yardage at the expense of control. The fast bowlers seem be at much greater risk of reoffending by over-striving.

[dr nick]

havent read the post yet - will read later.... but i'm curious as to whether this new law states 15 percent or 15 degrees - if percent, what's the definition there?

Eg - does it mean if you have your arm bent at 20 degrees to start with are you allowed to straighten to 5 degrees, or is it a % of the 180 degree angle?

[Sid]

I have always thought that Murali should be allowed to bowl. The reason why a lot of Australians hate him and call him a chucker is simply because they dont want him to being the eventual wickets record holder. Those of you who think like this are very selfish.

[Cooldude]

I have always thought that Murali should be allowed to bowl. The reason why a lot of Australians hate him and call him a chucker is simply because they dont want him to being the eventual wickets record holder. Those of you who think like this are very selfish.

Then you've thought wrong.

There are always dumb comebacks whenever people accuse Murali of chucking, one of them is your reasoning "Oh we can't bear watching him go past Warne" :rolleyes:, or "Oh just coz he's a Sri Lankan", or "You're all jealous!"

Dumb excuses. We call Murali a chucker because he is one, it's as simple as that

[silky-smooth]

havent read the post yet - will read later.... but i'm curious as to whether this new law states 15 percent or 15 degrees - if percent, what's the definition there?
I'm in the same boat

[scmods]

What ever happened to the old "his arm doesn't straighten, it's an optical illusion" theory? Seems to have been dropped now it's not needed any more.

[Cooldude]

What ever happened to the old "his arm doesn't straighten, it's an optical illusion" theory? Seems to have been dropped now it's not needed any more.

That's dropped after his doosra was proven to be a throw, so Ray Nolan adopted the new approach of "Change the rules for Murali", and he's got that too :D

What a pity that our friend Ray Nolan really thinks that the way Murali bowled in the Perth test was indeed how he bowls in match conditions, just shows how deluded he is

[Adelaide Hawk]

It's now open season for chuckers ..... PLAY BALL!!!!!!

I heard an interesting comment on the radio today from someone who really doesn't know much about cricket, but he hit the nail right on the head. He suggested that coaches would not be doing their job unless they coached bowlers to deliver the ball with a 15% flex, thus generating a whole new era of suspect actions, then you have the same old problem of trying to determine whether a bowler is flexing beyond 15%.

So this rule is not solving a problem, it is creating one. As someone said before, it is obvious the ICC have made this rule simply to defend themselves for not banning Murali years ago. They would look so silly banning someone for an illegal action after he has taken 500 wickets.

Maybe Australia should take bowlers like Lee and Tait, teach them a quick short pitched delivery with a 15% flex, then maybe after they've put a few batsmen in hospital the ICC will understand the stupidity of their decision.

[blackcat]

[QUOTE=dr nick]havent read the post yet - will read later.... but i'm curious as to whether this new law states 15 percent or 15 degrees - if percent, what's the definition there?



Dr Nick, in my first post I put in brackets "degrees" after I used the percentage % symbol... to signify that I was using that sybol for degrees. Lazy posting. Ishould of made it less ambiguous and typed it out 20 times.

[blackcat]

What ever happened to the old "his arm doesn't straighten, it's an optical illusion" theory? Seems to have been dropped now it's not needed any more.


SCMODS, I still agree with the relevance of optical illusion, as I my first post iterates, you need a two dimensional perpendicular view in real time, and if you have a screen caption stills, you only need one dimension but to recoordinate the scale.

SCMODS (sorry if not caps) you cannot deny that this is impossible using the traditional mid off, or mid wicket camera angle. You might be able to triangulate it watching both at the same time tho.

It is also pertinent, that the ball in Murali's hand moves with the aid of his wrist, from right to left, that is off to leg, and the cricket viewer focuses on the ball not the lever ELBOW-WRIST. It is elbow-hand focus. This accentuates the illusion of elbow extension.

Using Perth as example, he may extend 14%, but to the naked eye this seems as if he extends 25%, because his arm comes around from his right pointing to square leg, instead of a quick's front on arm direction. This arm moves around from behind hime back towards his release direction straight down the wicket. Pointing to his side, you see this angle, assume 20% (14 % plus his inconfomity where he cannout straighten his arm 6% nice round number of 20). Pointing straight down the wicket, this angle disappears because you are no longer perpendicular to it.

The optical illusion is relevant, there needs to be more viewpoints for spinners than quicks because of their shoulder-arm direction in their action. Then you can assess if he exceeds the degree allowed.

[Ray Nolan]

That's dropped after his doosra was proven to be a throw, so Ray Nolan adopted the new approach of "Change the rules for Murali", and he's got that too :D

What a pity that our friend Ray Nolan really thinks that the way Murali bowled in the Perth test was indeed how he bowls in match conditions, just shows how deluded he is

Selective quoting again from you yet again, it never ceases to amaze! What I have consistently said is that I believe that Murali does not straighten his arm when bowling his stock off spinner, his top spinner, his arm-ball or his leg break. I still hold to that view because I have seen nothing to convince me of otherwise at present. I said that from my viewing of the doosra with the naked eye it appeared to be OK to me but I would be happy to see what the bio-mechanical analysis showed as per the previously tested deliveries. It showed a straightening of 14 degrees at worst. I was happy to accept those results, and did so accordingly. To suggest that Murali intentionally cheated at those tests is just flat out wrong and shows no understanding of the man. What I am sick of is you consistently misquoting what I've said to have a crack at me. I don't mind you having a different opinion, just stop lying about what I have said.

[waspy]

Then you've thought wrong.

There are always dumb comebacks whenever people accuse Murali of chucking, one of them is your reasoning "Oh we can't bear watching him go past Warne" :rolleyes:, or "Oh just coz he's a Sri Lankan", or "You're all jealous!"

Dumb excuses. We call Murali a chucker because he is one, it's as simple as that
Cooldude, thats the best post i've read all day. I feel exactly the same way. The chucker conversation came up a lot during school cricket at the start of this year and a couple of sri-lankan guys came up with similar excuses to the ones u mentioned but the fact of the matter is that murali is a chucker. He throws every single delivery. He's a cheat. But, that being said, its not his fault. Its the ICC's fault for not punishing him for cheating. If they don't tell him to stop throwing why should he stop?

[Cooldude]

Selective quoting again from you yet again, it never ceases to amaze! What I have consistently said is that I believe that Murali does not straighten his arm when bowling his stock off spinner, his top spinner, his arm-ball or his leg break. I still hold to that view because I have seen nothing to convince me of otherwise at present. I said that from my viewing of the doosra with the naked eye it appeared to be OK to me but I would be happy to see what the bio-mechanical analysis showed as per the previously tested deliveries. It showed a straightening of 14 degrees at worst. I was happy to accept those results, and did so accordingly. To suggest that Murali intentionally cheated at those tests is just flat out wrong and shows no understanding of the man. What I am sick of is you consistently misquoting what I've said to have a crack at me. I don't mind you having a different opinion, just stop lying about what I have said.

Selective quoting? No no no no, it's not at all, I was quoting what you said all along before the doosra incident: That Murali has a 6 degree permanently bent arm, and it's physically impossible for him to throw, and all his deliveries were legal, even his doosra. That's what you said, and I quote that as such, how's that selective?

If your naked eye says Murali's doosra looks okay, then go to your nearest eyewear supply store, and fit yourself a pair of glasses. So you must be one in 100 of those who think Murali's doosra looks legal to the naked eye.

Understanding of the man? What I understand is he bowled at much slower a pace in those tests than he otherwise would in the match. What I understand is, his effort in those balls he bowled in the tests were nowhere near as hard as the normally full of energy run in hard Murali we constantly see in matches. What I understand is, it was not match conditions, therefore it was not the same.

You continually bring Murali's character into it, unless you start realising that him chucking and how nice he is are two different and irrelevant issues, you will never get rid of your biased view. A lot of people that are the nicest you've ever met in the world have broken some laws before, too, you know. So what if you've actually seen him bowl in the nets? Doesn't count for a thing.

I'm not lying at all, I'm telling it as it is, with what you said, unless you have changed your word now, that Murali doesn't have a permanently bent arm, and that it isn't physically impossible for him to chuck his offie, his toppie, his doosra, or whatever.

Yet the tests proved that doosra balls bowled at warm up effort was considered illegal, so do you still believe he doesn't throw his doosras? Coz if so, you are clutching at straws and drawing a very long bow

[Ray Nolan]

Selective quoting? No no no no, it's not at all, I was quoting what you said all along before the doosra incident: That Murali has a 6 degree permanently bent arm, and it's physically impossible for him to throw, and all his deliveries were legal, even his doosra. That's what you said, and I quote that as such, how's that selective?

If your naked eye says Murali's doosra looks okay, then go to your nearest eyewear supply store, and fit yourself a pair of glasses. So you must be one in 100 of those who think Murali's doosra looks legal to the naked eye.

Understanding of the man? What I understand is he bowled at much slower a pace in those tests than he otherwise would in the match. What I understand is, his effort in those balls he bowled in the tests were nowhere near as hard as the normally full of energy run in hard Murali we constantly see in matches. What I understand is, it was not match conditions, therefore it was not the same.

You continually bring Murali's character into it, unless you start realising that him chucking and how nice he is are two different and irrelevant issues, you will never get rid of your biased view. A lot of people that are the nicest you've ever met in the world have broken some laws before, too, you know. So what if you've actually seen him bowl in the nets? Doesn't count for a thing.

I'm not lying at all, I'm telling it as it is, with what you said, unless you have changed your word now, that Murali doesn't have a permanently bent arm, and that it isn't physically impossible for him to chuck his offie, his toppie, his doosra, or whatever.

Yet the tests proved that doosra balls bowled at warm up effort was considered illegal, so do you still believe he doesn't throw his doosras? Coz if so, you are clutching at straws and drawing a very long bow

You're "I'm not selective quoting" argument falls down in the second sentence of your diatribe! I originally said that Murali's arm was permanently bent at 32 degrees based on the figures I had seen. Following the Perth tests where further detailed examination of the elbow & wrist deformities showed a permanent 38 degree bend of the elbow and a permanent 20 degree bend of the wrist at the carry angle I updated that figure in deference to the latest medical examinations. Those are the only figures I have ever mentioned in relation to Murali's deformities yet you blatantly lie again and say I said 6 degrees.

Understanding of the man - the man who probably has the best understanding of him as a Cricketer, Bruce Yardley was present at the test to make sure he was putting in the required effort. According to Yardley he was putting in the required effort. I have no reason to doubt the character of Yardley so I take him at face value. I take it you would not have been satisfied unless Darrell Hair was there calling him as he bowled every ball. I bring Murali's character into it because he's not a cheat, he's cheeky, he's a wind up merchant, he's a lot of things - but a deliberate cheat he's not.

On my viewing (btw I already wear glasses! :p ) the doosra looked fine to me, just a different action in the wrist. The tests showed that under the former ICC guidelines that the delivery was not legal. By rotating his arm quicker in that delivery he was not following through with his arm at full extension and this was picked up. I had no complaints about that, the scientific testing proved it and that was that. I still believe he bowls his offie, toppie, leggie & arm ball with his elbow at full 62 degree extension (38 degree bend) and cannot straighten past that point. I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise of that and that has been my position all along. Yet every time this comes up you have me saying something different every time. I know that because every time this comes up I crack the sh*ts with you because you make things up in relation to what I have said!

[blackcat]

I still believe he bowls his offie, toppie, leggie & arm ball with his elbow at full 62 degree extension (38 degree bend) and cannot straighten past that point. ![/QUOTE]


Ray, I think you mean 52 degree bend *getting into semantics.

That changes my perception a little. I never knew he had such an exaggerated disconformity. If you asked the average punter (who probably did pooprly in year 10 geometry) what angle Murali released the ball at, judjing by the mid-off archtypal camera view, I would suggest they would estimate 70/20. That is 20 degrees maximum off the spirit level line of his shoulder-wrist lever (bending at his elbow ofcourse.

Can I please have confirmation of this "punters' estimate". This would be overwhelming evidence in favour of the little Sri Lankan *using condascending Tony Grieg voice - facetiously*.

Thus you can basically indict yourself and prove the "optical illusion" theory.
Ofcourse, the question is how the elbow lever extends itself, NOT what the final angle is, however, if the naked eye, from one camera angle can be SO deceiving, it is fundamental that the entire action is deceiving.

My estimate of 20 degrees off line, is far off the 38 degrees from Ray Nolan's information (who I do not doubt) although the veracity is somewhat apocryphal in my eyes. 38 degrees is an enormous bend in the arm, and he came from a well off family I wonder if it was structural it could not be altered in adolescence.

It would be refreshing to read some estimates of Murali's final angle of release and some acceptance of the visual deception. You can be a smartarse and give the starting angle if you have to but it is really not necessary.

[Lacquer Head]

For a start its 15 degrees not 15%.

This rule was brought in to accomodate Murali.

His doozra causes his arm to straighten by 14 degrees, not bend. Its already bent.

I have to ask why 15 degrees why not 10, 12, 18, or 20.

Is it more than a coincidence that the proposed new rule will be 15 degrees.

[DKA]

Dumb excuses. We call Murali a chucker because he is one, it's as simple as that

Does that mean we call Warne a drug cheat, because he too, is one? Or is he ok?

[scmods]

Does that mean we call Warne a drug cheat, because he too, is one? Or is he ok?
Go ahead. At least he accepted he'd done wrong and accepted his punishment.

If they'd changed the rules to allow diuretics, you might have a point.

[DKA]

Go ahead. At least he accepted he'd done wrong and accepted his punishment.

If they'd changed the rules to allow diuretics, you might have a point.

Murali has accepted that he's not wrong, because he hasn't been. He hasn't been proven to be illegal, so there's nothing for him to accept other than his action is fine to continue with.

You fail to release many bowlers, even some of your own, have found to be exceeding the rule, thus the rule itself flawed. Just as Ian Chappell said. Alot of players exceed the angle allowed.

Changing the rules to allow diuretics? Not sure about that one, I don't think they'd change it. Just because your over weight, doesn't mean you can take drugs to make you lighter. ;)

[Cooldude]

You're "I'm not selective quoting" argument falls down in the second sentence of your diatribe! I originally said that Murali's arm was permanently bent at 32 degrees based on the figures I had seen. Following the Perth tests where further detailed examination of the elbow & wrist deformities showed a permanent 38 degree bend of the elbow and a permanent 20 degree bend of the wrist at the carry angle I updated that figure in deference to the latest medical examinations. Those are the only figures I have ever mentioned in relation to Murali's deformities yet you blatantly lie again and say I said 6 degrees.

Understanding of the man - the man who probably has the best understanding of him as a Cricketer, Bruce Yardley was present at the test to make sure he was putting in the required effort. According to Yardley he was putting in the required effort. I have no reason to doubt the character of Yardley so I take him at face value. I take it you would not have been satisfied unless Darrell Hair was there calling him as he bowled every ball. I bring Murali's character into it because he's not a cheat, he's cheeky, he's a wind up merchant, he's a lot of things - but a deliberate cheat he's not.

On my viewing (btw I already wear glasses! :p ) the doosra looked fine to me, just a different action in the wrist. The tests showed that under the former ICC guidelines that the delivery was not legal. By rotating his arm quicker in that delivery he was not following through with his arm at full extension and this was picked up. I had no complaints about that, the scientific testing proved it and that was that. I still believe he bowls his offie, toppie, leggie & arm ball with his elbow at full 62 degree extension (38 degree bend) and cannot straighten past that point. I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise of that and that has been my position all along. Yet every time this comes up you have me saying something different every time. I know that because every time this comes up I crack the sh*ts with you because you make things up in relation to what I have said!

It's not a lie, bad memory from my part, just checked the archives of your posts here: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1686028&postcount=51 (The same post you said that his toppie/doosra's all in the wrist)

You said it's 32 degrees, now I accept that, coz I heard somewhere else that it's 6 degrees, which probably is a bit dodgey coz from the naked eye, Murali's elbow seems to be bent more than just that.

But now, new "researches" have said it's 38 degrees, now why is it changing all the time, just like the throwing laws? The next thing we know, it'd be a 45 degree bent.

You are as biased as Bruce Yardley, Yardley is the biggest Murali fan in the world, how can you tell me that he can be neutral and believable in the tests? Okay, he's seen him bowl for more than many, okay, you can trust his professionalism, but you can't tell me the stuff Murali was bowling in the tests were the same as the ones he bowls in the matches. The speed of the deliveries are already a proof that he's not putting it in, it's at least 10 kphs lower than his match deliveries.

Also, just like every fast bowler whom they claim chucks, Murali might go for more spin on a doosra, just like a quick trying to put in extra for the yorker and use his elbow more. Then would Murali's straightening in his arm extend beyond that 14 degrees then? You just can't tell, because at the tests, he's not bowling like he would in a match, period.

I'm just gonna test you out with what you said in that post I linked up as, you said it's optical illusion, yet the tests have proven his doosra is a throw. Okay, you say that's illegal under the current laws, so when the laws are changed, are you saying it'd not be a throw, or that he can legally throw? Doesn't change a thing, does it? We're right, he still throws some of his deliveries.

The bent arm or 38 degree whatever, it's irrelevant. If he straightens his arm in anyway from a 55 or something degree bent towards that 38 degree bent, it's a throw. A bent arm, or not a bent arm, it doesn't even matter.

BTW, when you say you see nothing wrong with Murali's doosra, that's when I just laugh. If you haven't seen him trying to turn one like a leg break, well and truly away from a right hander, when his arm just looks totally different from his normal action, it's like a whiplash. THAT is the one that should be looked at, but no, that would never happen, coz Murali won't bowl something like that in the test, would he, if he's smart enough?

[Cooldude]

Does that mean we call Warne a drug cheat, because he too, is one? Or is he ok?

That's where all the ignorant ones come out when they call Warne a drug cheat.

Cheat, in the dictionary, means deliberating doing something to gain an unfair advantage amongst others.

Which is done via performance enhancing drugs.

Diuretic is not a performance enhancing drugs.

Yes, it maskes it, but you cannot prove that Warne has taken ANY steroids. You have no proof.

Also, the doctor at the hearing already said that steroids wouldn't have helped with his shoulder injury at the time.

So what does a few diuretics do? Lose some weight, okay. How does being lighter help him rip a leg break, or bowl a flipper? I can't see it, unless you're telling me that lighter and thinner people somehow rips a leg break more, which is just non-sense.

So you're comparing Warne and Murali, Warne never did anything to enhance his bowling performance, Murali, by throwing doosras, have enhanced his performance, which makes him more of a cheat than Warne.

So if you wanna call Warne a cheat, then your beloved Murali's an even bigger cheat, coz he actually cheated, unlike Warne

[DKA]

That's where all the ignorant ones come out when they call Warne a drug cheat.

Cheat, in the dictionary, means deliberating doing something to gain an unfair advantage amongst others.

Which is done via performance enhancing drugs.

Diuretic is not a performance enhancing drugs.

Yes, it maskes it, but you cannot prove that Warne has taken ANY steroids. You have no proof.

Also, the doctor at the hearing already said that steroids wouldn't have helped with his shoulder injury at the time.

So what does a few diuretics do? Lose some weight, okay. How does being lighter help him rip a leg break, or bowl a flipper? I can't see it, unless you're telling me that lighter and thinner people somehow rips a leg break more, which is just non-sense.

So you're comparing Warne and Murali, Warne never did anything to enhance his bowling performance, Murali, by throwing doosras, have enhanced his performance, which makes him more of a cheat than Warne.

So if you wanna call Warne a cheat, then your beloved Murali's an even bigger cheat, coz he actually cheated, unlike Warne

Murali a cheat is he? In your tainted eyes, yes. But when has the ICC deemed him ILLEGAL? Yes, do look in your notes, do your research. You won't find it.

Warne a drug cheat, yes, the ICC found him guilty of that. Hmm, I don't know about you, but if you had less weight to carry around, wouldn't that give you more energy? To bowl MORE overs, to have less breaks? Didn't quite see that side of the argument did you?

You call it diuretics, the cricket world call it drugs. I'm not saying he took steriods, he took an illegal drug, irrelevent what it was for, what's relevent was that it was an illegal substance.

[scmods]

Murali has accepted that he's not wrong, because he hasn't been. He hasn't been proven to be illegal, so there's nothing for him to accept other than his action is fine to continue with.
Why is the rule being changed, then? Is every bowler except Murali bowling outside the limits?

Changing the rules to allow diuretics? Not sure about that one, I don't think they'd change it. They would have if it was Ranatunga.

[DKA]

Why is the rule being changed, then? Is every bowler except Murali bowling outside the limits?

They would have if it was Ranatunga.

Murali was found to be outside the limits, and for the 50th time, he wasn't alone, he has "many" other bowlers in the same boat. So that means their all chuckers? McGrath? Gillespie? Your own.

Nah, Ranatunga wouldn't take drugs and cheat mate. He was fat, but he never cheated.

[scmods]

Murali was found to be outside the limits
Then why do you keep insisting his action wasn't found to be illegal?

Your own.My own what?

Nah, Ranatunga wouldn't take drugs and cheat mate. He was fat, but he never cheated.Well I guess we'll never know, as Sri Lanka don't even do any drug testing on their players.

As far as "never cheated" goes, Chappell wasn't cheating when he ordered the underarm bowl but it still didn't get him any respect.

[Black Thunder]

all bowlers (just about) flex there elbow in the delivery stride.

The human body is just very reluctant to allow the elbow to remain rigid (or with the same level of flexion) while the arm and shoulder rotate at such a quick speed. We have to all accept that. But just because someone's elbow comes through at about 2% flexion does not mean they are a chucker.

But giving all bowlers (especially slow bowlers) 15% flexion is a bit redicolous and gives far too much leway.

The law was good the way it was before.

This would be my law if it was upto me (and it pretty much is what it currently is/was):

If a player delibaretly no balls (i couldn't imagine them doing it) then an umpire is allowed to no ball them, and then the match referee could decide a penalty.

But generally, umpires don't no ball in a game - rather they report the player (with details such as whether it's just one specific ball, or whether they believe he does it every ball) and that match along with a selection of previous matches over the past 12 months are then looked at and it decided if the bowler's elbow passes through the required amount of flexion by using a few of the camera's at the ground.

if so, they are then tested with all those little electronic things on, and if they still pass through the amount of flexion required then they are suspended for 3 months to go under a rehab of sorts. If at the end of that 3 months they are still going over the amount of required flexion then they are suspended for 12 months.

The amount of required flexion for each bowler is: 5% for spinners, 7.5% for medium pacers, 10% for quick bowlers. Common sense would be used for decided which bowlers fall into which category - players can appeal where they belong, but after the appeal the decision is final.

If a player is cleared by the testing committee three times (excluding the times they were cleared after a 3 month suspension), then they are no longer to be reported, unless a change in their action has occured. once again common sense is used in defining a change in action.

So if they are sent to the testing committee and don't pass the first test and are suspended for 3 months, then come back 3 months later and pass the test, this does not count as being cleared for the purposes of this rule. It only counts when they come to the committee and are cleared on their first test.

If a player is suspended for one year, then at any point in the next 5 years after they return to cricket are reported, fail the first test, suspended for 3 months then fail the second test, they are suspended for two years.

If they are to fail the testing process a third time, they are banned for life.

The committee must also deam whether a player, whilst being tested, is not putting in their full efforts while being tested, they have the power to automatically fail the player from those tests. The player can appeal that decision, and if the committee's decision is overturned, they are to take the tests again.



don't know if you could be bothered reading all that, and i hope it makes sense, but that IMO is what the process should be. And it allows for the fact that people's bodies naturally make them throw.

[DKA]

Then why do you keep insisting his action wasn't found to be illegal?

Because the ICC haven't come out and categorically said it's illegal. Instead said that there's a bigger problem here, in that more bowlers are exceeding the limits.

My own what?

Country. Australia. The Aussie Team.

Well I guess we'll never know, as Sri Lanka don't even do any drug testing on their players.

Yeah, I know a good reason why. They're not as stupid, or as incompetant to take them in the first place. Don't need them.

[scmods]

They're not as stupid, or as incompetant to take them in the first place. Don't need them.
Racist.

[Cooldude]

Murali a cheat is he? In your tainted eyes, yes. But when has the ICC deemed him ILLEGAL? Yes, do look in your notes, do your research. You won't find it.

Warne a drug cheat, yes, the ICC found him guilty of that. Hmm, I don't know about you, but if you had less weight to carry around, wouldn't that give you more energy? To bowl MORE overs, to have less breaks? Didn't quite see that side of the argument did you?

You call it diuretics, the cricket world call it drugs. I'm not saying he took steriods, he took an illegal drug, irrelevent what it was for, what's relevent was that it was an illegal substance.

Do you have a brain that's the size of a pea? Murali HAS BEEN FOUND ILLEGAL! Doosra, buddy? Get that in your brain right now, please?

More overs? So you can bowl more than 10 overs in a One Day game? Coz that's basicly what Warne's comeback was for: the World Cup, he was always gonna bowl 10 overs, being fatter or thinner. Your argument is flawed and stupid. When Warne was a fat pig, he still bowled 20+ over spells, or 10 over spells if it's one day games.

It's diuretics, it's just some drug. So You're calling Graeme Rummans a cheat as well? Even though he only got 3 months because the panel found that he used the diuretics on innocent and unknown grounds? So Graeme Rummans took some diuretics, and by your definition, illegal substance, so he's a cheat, too?

To cheat, you gotta do something to gain you an unfair advantage, can't see how a few diuretics can do that, especially when Doc Larkins said Warne could've as easily endangered his life by having a heart attack by taking the diuretics. If Warne has the intention to cheat, wouldn't he know the full effects of the diuretics before taking them? This is a bloke who you know and I know, is a dumbass, so you think he'd know anything about medical science?

If you think just by taking a few banned drugs and broke the rules is cheating, then by that definition, everyone in the world are cheaters, coz everyone have broken some rules at some point. You're a cheater, I'm a cheater, Murali's a cheater, everyone's a cheater.

Or has Saint Murali not thrown anything at all in his career that would enhance his ability to bowl in the middle? Before you say anything, may I remind you of the word doosra?

[Mint Condition]

all bowlers (just about) flex there elbow in the delivery stride.

The human body is just very reluctant to allow the elbow to remain rigid (or with the same level of flexion) while the arm and shoulder rotate at such a quick speed. We have to all accept that. But just because someone's elbow comes through at about 2% flexion does not mean they are a chucker.

But giving all bowlers (especially slow bowlers) 15% flexion is a bit redicolous and gives far too much leway.

The law was good the way it was before.

This would be my law if it was upto me (and it pretty much is what it currently is/was):

If a player delibaretly no balls (i couldn't imagine them doing it) then an umpire is allowed to no ball them, and then the match referee could decide a penalty.

But generally, umpires don't no ball in a game - rather they report the player (with details such as whether it's just one specific ball, or whether they believe he does it every ball) and that match along with a selection of previous matches over the past 12 months are then looked at and it decided if the bowler's elbow passes through the required amount of flexion by using a few of the camera's at the ground.

if so, they are then tested with all those little electronic things on, and if they still pass through the amount of flexion required then they are suspended for 3 months to go under a rehab of sorts. If at the end of that 3 months they are still going over the amount of required flexion then they are suspended for 12 months.

The amount of required flexion for each bowler is: 5% for spinners, 7.5% for medium pacers, 10% for quick bowlers. Common sense would be used for decided which bowlers fall into which category - players can appeal where they belong, but after the appeal the decision is final.

If a player is cleared by the testing committee three times (excluding the times they were cleared after a 3 month suspension), then they are no longer to be reported, unless a change in their action has occured. once again common sense is used in defining a change in action.

So if they are sent to the testing committee and don't pass the first test and are suspended for 3 months, then come back 3 months later and pass the test, this does not count as being cleared for the purposes of this rule. It only counts when they come to the committee and are cleared on their first test.

If a player is suspended for one year, then at any point in the next 5 years after they return to cricket are reported, fail the first test, suspended for 3 months then fail the second test, they are suspended for two years.

If they are to fail the testing process a third time, they are banned for life.

The committee must also deam whether a player, whilst being tested, is not putting in their full efforts while being tested, they have the power to automatically fail the player from those tests. The player can appeal that decision, and if the committee's decision is overturned, they are to take the tests again.



don't know if you could be bothered reading all that, and i hope it makes sense, but that IMO is what the process should be. And it allows for the fact that people's bodies naturally make them throw.

The argument I think in regards to Murali, is that his arm rotates at the speed of a fast bowler. Still, I'd agree that 15% sounds like too much...especially for slow finger spinners.

[Ray Nolan]

It's diuretics, it's just some drug. So You're calling Graeme Rummans a cheat as well? Even though he only got 3 months because the panel found that he used the diuretics on innocent and unknown grounds? So Graeme Rummans took some diuretics, and by your definition, illegal substance, so he's a cheat, too?

To cheat, you gotta do something to gain you an unfair advantage, can't see how a few diuretics can do that, especially when Doc Larkins said Warne could've as easily endangered his life by having a heart attack by taking the diuretics. If Warne has the intention to cheat, wouldn't he know the full effects of the diuretics before taking them? This is a bloke who you know and I know, is a dumbass, so you think he'd know anything about medical science?


A diuretic can be used as a masking agent for steriods. Who just came back from a speedy recovery from major shoulder surgery when he got pinged? Just some drug? Hardly ... Not gaining an unfair advantage? I suppose we'll never know the real truth thanks to Warnie's Mum taking the fall for him. The spectre of being a drug cheat will always hang over Shane Warne's career.

[Cooldude]

A diuretic can be used as a masking agent for steriods. Who just came back from a speedy recovery from major shoulder surgery when he got pinged? Just some drug? Hardly ... Not gaining an unfair advantage? I suppose we'll never know the real truth thanks to Warnie's Mum taking the fall for him. The spectre of being a drug cheat will always hang over Shane Warne's career.

Here is where you're being a hypocrit

You're accusing people of calling Murali a chucker just by their assumption and the judgement of their naked eye without proof, yet you're willing to say Warne cheated just by your assumption that he used diuretics to mask steroids for his shoulder recovery?

You don't have proof, do ya? No one has any proof, do they? You know why the panel only gave him 1 year, that's coz they said they believe Warne had no intention of using the diuretics as masking agents to steroids .

Warne broke the rules, but never proven to have taken them so that he can cheat.

As of your last line:


The spectre of being a drug cheat will always hang over Shane Warne's career.


I can rephrase it in a way that:

The spectre of being a chucker will always hang over Muralidaran's career

The difference between those two is, one has actually been found guilty of actually cheating by throwing, the other just took some drug that ain't even performance enhancing.

[Ray Nolan]

Here is where you're being a hypocrit

You're accusing people of calling Murali a chucker just by their assumption and the judgement of their naked eye without proof, yet you're willing to say Warne cheated just by your assumption that he used diuretics to mask steroids for his shoulder recovery?

You don't have proof, do ya? No one has any proof, do they? You know why the panel only gave him 1 year, that's coz they said they believe Warne had no intention of using the diuretics as masking agents to steroids .

Warne broke the rules, but never proven to have taken them so that he can cheat.

As of your last line:

I can rephrase it in a way that:

The spectre of being a chucker will always hang over Muralidaran's career

The difference between those two is, one has actually been found guilty of actually cheating by throwing, the other just took some drug that ain't even performance enhancing.

Careful now champ, read carefully what I said (I know it's a struggle). I didn't directly say that Warne cheated. I was merely pointing out that there is a strong suspicion that he did. That is quite a difference. You're right in that no-one has definitive proof that he took a performance-enchaning drug but I would suggest that had Shane Warne's drug hearing been conducted by, say, the IOC, rather than his mates at CA his "my Mum gave it me to look thin on the telly" excuse might have endured far more scrutiny than otherwise. I know if he had brought that excuse before me I would've highly doubted its veracity especially given the circumstances of his shoulder surgery recovery. It certainly wouldn't have washed in a hearing before an independent body - he would've got 2 years for sure.

I come to the final part of your rant, yes the spectre of being a 'chucker' will hang over Muralitharan's career and that's a terrible shame because he's nothing of the sort. You see Muralitharan was never banned from the game, never penalised (unlike Shane Warne for his transgression) because the ICC in light of the Perth tests decided not to make a decision on the 'Muralitharan doosra findings' but rather conduct an exhaustive study into bowling actions to ensure that a correct & workable solution could be found because of the grave doubts raised by the biomechanists that any advantage was being gained by Muralitharan in the accidental straightening of his arm whilst delivering the doosra. Following this exhaustive research the worst recording that Muralitharan measured would still be a legal delivery under the 15 degree guideline recommended by the ICC Panel. Thus, no delivery in Muralitharan's repetoire will be illegal under the ICC Guidelines and hence so long as Muralitharan doesn't transgress the rules it can be said that he was never found to be cheating by throwing.

[Cooldude]

Careful now champ, read carefully what I said (I know it's a struggle). I didn't directly say that Warne cheated. I was merely pointing out that there is a strong suspicion that he did. That is quite a difference. You're right in that no-one has definitive proof that he took a performance-enchaning drug but I would suggest that had Shane Warne's drug hearing been conducted by, say, the IOC, rather than his mates at CA his "my Mum gave it me to look thin on the telly" excuse might have endured far more scrutiny than otherwise. I know if he had brought that excuse before me I would've highly doubted its veracity especially given the circumstances of his shoulder surgery recovery. It certainly wouldn't have washed in a hearing before an independent body - he would've got 2 years for sure.

I come to the final part of your rant, yes the spectre of being a 'chucker' will hang over Muralitharan's career and that's a terrible shame because he's nothing of the sort. You see Muralitharan was never banned from the game, never penalised (unlike Shane Warne for his transgression) because the ICC in light of the Perth tests decided not to make a decision on the 'Muralitharan doosra findings' but rather conduct an exhaustive study into bowling actions to ensure that a correct & workable solution could be found because of the grave doubts raised by the biomechanists that any advantage was being gained by Muralitharan in the accidental straightening of his arm whilst delivering the doosra. Following this exhaustive research the worst recording that Muralitharan measured would still be a legal delivery under the 15 degree guideline recommended by the ICC Panel. Thus, no delivery in Muralitharan's repetoire will be illegal under the ICC Guidelines and hence so long as Muralitharan doesn't transgress the rules it can be said that he was never found to be cheating by throwing.

Okay, you suspected Warne cheated, just as we all suspect Murali throws. What's the difference? There's none.

As of the mum gave it to me excuse, I really don't buy into that, nor do I care. All I care is, he took a drug, got banned for it, that's the story, really don't care why he took it, because all evidence has shown he hasn't taken it to mask steroids, which means he's not a cheat.

There's a lot of accidents when chucking, you can accidentally crash a car into the back of another car, but you'll still be full responsible for the damages because you crashed into him. Also, your "exhaustive researches" are flawed and you know it. All you're saying is under the new guidelines, Murali can legally throw, doesn't mean he doesn't. Technically you're saying he doesn't throw because in the laboratory he's within the guidelines, but out in the middle, it's different and you know it, too, so if he's found to be straightening by 14 degrees in a lab bowling half-arsed effort balls, then I shudder to think what he actually does out in the middle when he gives his all.

Murali's not a chucker? Then enlighten me with the doosra tests in Perth, does he chuck or not? The answer would be yes, and don't throw the new guidelines ******** at me, it doesn't mean anything, it just means he can legally throw, which means he still throws, therefore a chucker.

[funkyfreo]

Murali may be a Chucker,
But Warney's a Tosser.

[Ray Nolan]

There's a lot of accidents when chucking, you can accidentally crash a car into the back of another car, but you'll still be full responsible for the damages because you crashed into him. Also, your "exhaustive researches" are flawed and you know it. All you're saying is under the new guidelines, Murali can legally throw, doesn't mean he doesn't. Technically you're saying he doesn't throw because in the laboratory he's within the guidelines, but out in the middle, it's different and you know it, too, so if he's found to be straightening by 14 degrees in a lab bowling half-arsed effort balls, then I shudder to think what he actually does out in the middle when he gives his all.

Murali's not a chucker? Then enlighten me with the doosra tests in Perth, does he chuck or not? The answer would be yes, and don't throw the new guidelines ******** at me, it doesn't mean anything, it just means he can legally throw, which means he still throws, therefore a chucker.

With the tests in Perth there is no definitive answer to if he chucks the doosra or not because the definitive standard at which those tests are to be measured has yet to be determined by the ICC. Therefore there is no answer yet to the question 'does Muralitharan throw the doosra'? If the law states that a bowler may deliver a legal delivery with the arm allowed to flex up to 15 degrees then Muralitharan cannot be deemed to be legally throwing because his action is within the laws of the game. The ICC has not charged Muralitharan, nor taken action against him, so how can you say that he has cheated? Much like I can't definitively prove that Warne took the diuretic to mask a performance enhancing drug, you have no proof that Muralitharan has broken the laws of the game because he has not been charged with doing so, nor has been found guilty by the ICC of doing so. I do not believe the research is flawed and I state again that I believe the Perth tests were technically sound and that there no credible difference with what occurs in the middle. For you to suggest my knowing otherwise is yet again putting words into my mouth that I haven't said.

BTW, your analysis of being fully responsible for damages for crashing accidentally into the back of a car is wrong too. The other person is always at least 10% contributorally negligent for just being the other car in the accident. Hence the person who crashed into the other car is not and is never 'fully responsible' for the damages. It appears that again your analysis, even on this point, is flawed. ;)

[Freo Big Fella]

Murali may be a Chucker,
But Warney's a Tosser.

MW Gatting b Warne 4 17 12 1 0

[funkyfreo]

MW Gatting b Some Drug Cheat 4 17 12 1 0
;)

[Freo Big Fella]

England 2nd innings (target: 508 runs) R M B 4 6
*MA Atherton lbw b Warne 23 59 40 3 0
AJ Stewart b Warne 33 51 40 6 0
GA Hick c Healy b Warne 80 290 227 12 0
GP Thorpe b Warne 67 275 229 8 0
GA Gooch c Healy b Warne 56 153 137 10 0
MW Gatting c Healy b McDermott 13 75 60 1 0
+SJ Rhodes c Healy b McDermott 2 36 27 0 0
PAJ DeFreitas b Warne 11 39 26 2 0
D Gough c ME Waugh b Warne 10 32 26 0 1
MJ McCague lbw b Warne 0 1 1 0 0
PCR Tufnell not out 2 25 25 0 0
Extras (b 9, lb 5, nb 12) 26
Total (all out, 137.2 overs, 523 minutes) 323


:D

[funkyfreo]

PCR Tufnell not out 2 25 25 0 0


Good to see Tuffers in the red ink. If only he had been a drug cheat how good would England have been:)!

Also - 323 not a bad 4th innings effort!

[Cooldude]

With the tests in Perth there is no definitive answer to if he chucks the doosra or not because the definitive standard at which those tests are to be measured has yet to be determined by the ICC. Therefore there is no answer yet to the question 'does Muralitharan throw the doosra'? If the law states that a bowler may deliver a legal delivery with the arm allowed to flex up to 15 degrees then Muralitharan cannot be deemed to be legally throwing because his action is within the laws of the game. The ICC has not charged Muralitharan, nor taken action against him, so how can you say that he has cheated? Much like I can't definitively prove that Warne took the diuretic to mask a performance enhancing drug, you have no proof that Muralitharan has broken the laws of the game because he has not been charged with doing so, nor has been found guilty by the ICC of doing so. I do not believe the research is flawed and I state again that I believe the Perth tests were technically sound and that there no credible difference with what occurs in the middle. For you to suggest my knowing otherwise is yet again putting words into my mouth that I haven't said.

BTW, your analysis of being fully responsible for damages for crashing accidentally into the back of a car is wrong too. The other person is always at least 10% contributorally negligent for just being the other car in the accident. Hence the person who crashed into the other car is not and is never 'fully responsible' for the damages. It appears that again your analysis, even on this point, is flawed. ;)

I don't wanna repeat myself and tell you how flawed the tests were, seems like you're too biased to actually use common sense and logic to see that those tests, while high-teched and accurate with their assessment of the straightening of the arm, does not prove anything that Murali does in a match.

Do you need to be "charged" as you call it, like Murali being charged for throwing and risk suspension, to be officially throwing? All I know is the doosra was banned after the tests found it to be exceeding the legal limit, therefore it's a throw. Technically, it wouldn't be a throw under the new guidelines, but to see that he doesn't throw just coz the laws were changed, it's kidding yourself. It just means he still throws, but legally.

Murali was reported for throwing and his doosra banned due to it being illegal, to say that he hasn't been proven to be throwing is just clutching at straws. He was found to be bowling illegal deliveries, which means he throws. How's that not being found guilty is just beyond me, do you really need an official charge and an official wording that saying he throws to make him a chucker? His doosra was banned FFS, because it was illegal, therefore, he throws, end of.

Look, I don't wanna get into this technical thing 90% responsible or 10%, because it doesn't matter. It's just some smartass comment made that's irrelevant. So Murali does chuck, and for example, 90% responsible for it, so what, are you gonna blame the 10% that Murali throws and it's not of his own fault? What's that 10%, bent arm? That's an excuse.

90% responsible for it = responsible for it. Smartass comments are annoying, but I'll ignore them by now, was merely making an example, yet you got technical and made up the 90% 10% crap.

*Sigh* Look, since you're biased towards Murali, it just seems like you just wouldn't look at it the other way. I'm tired of repeating myself because you just wouldn't get it in your head, I won't reply again in this thread, it's getting way too tiresome.

[Syd Kennets]

RN- Question...Is Murali's arm permanantly bent? And Is this unique to him?

[DKA]

*Sigh* Look, since you're biased towards Murali, it just seems like you just wouldn't look at it the other way. I'm tired of repeating myself because you just wouldn't get it in your head, I won't reply again in this thread, it's getting way too tiresome.

Used the same lines on me too, Ray.

This case will never be closed, and we'll never see eye to eye on the subject.

All that we will be doing is arguing the points when it's raised again. :rolleyes:

Scmods: I'm man enough to conceed I was incorrect (according to Tim May) in regards to Murali using figures against Mc Grath & Gillespie. I still find it baffling that Murali would say such a thing unless he had some sort of back up. It may come out later. But until then, I conceed on that argument that Mc Grath & Dizzy were also exceeding the rules.

[Ray Nolan]

RN- Question...Is Murali's arm permanantly bent? And Is this unique to him?

Yes, his elbow has a 38 degree bend (according to the latest medical figures from the Perth tests - the previous quoted figure was 32 degrees) in it due to a birth deformity, he cannot straight his arm out. I have tried straightening the mans arm myself and it cannot be done. He also has a 20 degree bend in the carry angle of his wrist due to birth deformity, this is what allows him the incredible flexibility in his wrist and what allows to impart so much spin on the ball. These particular conditions are unique to him.

[Jars458]

I Murali was reported for throwing and his doosra banned due to it being illegal, to say that he hasn't been proven to be throwing is just clutching at straws. He was found to be bowling illegal deliveries, which means he throws. How's that not being found guilty is just beyond me, do you really need an official charge and an official wording that saying he throws to make him a chucker? His doosra was banned FFS, because it was illegal, therefore, he throws, end of.


I think that's right but isnt' the crux of the matter that the tests show that many other bowlers are also throwers based on the same criteria Murali was banned on.

Therefore the rules have been chagned to conform with the reality of what's going on out there and has been going on for 100 years.

Those in the media who say you can tell a chucker from looking at them are just kidding themselves.

The idea that you can tell with the naked eye how far an arm is being straightened is just ridiculous.

I think that I will rely on the scientists and a panel of bowling expeerts ahead of people like Malcom Conn and Geoff Roach who just write emotional piffel on the subject.

[Ray Nolan]

I don't wanna repeat myself and tell you how flawed the tests were, seems like you're too biased to actually use common sense and logic to see that those tests, while high-teched and accurate with their assessment of the straightening of the arm, does not prove anything that Murali does in a match.

Do you need to be "charged" as you call it, like Murali being charged for throwing and risk suspension, to be officially throwing? All I know is the doosra was banned after the tests found it to be exceeding the legal limit, therefore it's a throw. Technically, it wouldn't be a throw under the new guidelines, but to see that he doesn't throw just coz the laws were changed, it's kidding yourself. It just means he still throws, but legally.

Murali was reported for throwing and his doosra banned due to it being illegal, to say that he hasn't been proven to be throwing is just clutching at straws. He was found to be bowling illegal deliveries, which means he throws. How's that not being found guilty is just beyond me, do you really need an official charge and an official wording that saying he throws to make him a chucker? His doosra was banned FFS, because it was illegal, therefore, he throws, end of.

Look, I don't wanna get into this technical thing 90% responsible or 10%, because it doesn't matter. It's just some smartass comment made that's irrelevant. So Murali does chuck, and for example, 90% responsible for it, so what, are you gonna blame the 10% that Murali throws and it's not of his own fault? What's that 10%, bent arm? That's an excuse.

90% responsible for it = responsible for it. Smartass comments are annoying, but I'll ignore them by now, was merely making an example, yet you got technical and made up the 90% 10% crap.

*Sigh* Look, since you're biased towards Murali, it just seems like you just wouldn't look at it the other way. I'm tired of repeating myself because you just wouldn't get it in your head, I won't reply again in this thread, it's getting way too tiresome.

Just to correct you yet again, the doosra was not banned. What occured is that following the result of the Perth tests and the ICC decision in light of the results of those tests the ICC recommended that seeing as the delivery was under investigation Muralitharan should not bowl it until the results of the ICC study. If anything the doosra was 'suspended pending further investigation'. It was not banned and the following the new ICC recommendations so long as any bowler who delivers that type of delivery stays within the 15 degree guidelines then the doosra will be legal. I hardly call that 'banned'!

Also you are incorrect to suggest that Murali was reported for throwing, he was reported for a 'supect action' on one particular form of delivery. No decision was made in the report as to whether or not he was throwing, just that the delivery should be checked to see whether or not he was. There is a big difference there. You keep trying to say that Muralitharan has been found guilty & put before the firing squad but the reality is he hasn't been charged with any offence as of yet. You can make up all the stories you want but that is the reality of the situation. Oh & the 90%/10% crap that I supposedly made up - any Solicitor can tell you that I was indeed correct. As for your last paragraph, I think much the same way but let me adjust to read correctly

*Sigh* Look, since you're biased against Murali, it just seems like you just wouldn't look at it the other way. I'm tired of repeating myself because you just wouldn't get it in your head, I won't reply again in this thread, it's getting way too tiresome.

[Jars458]

any Solicitor can tell you that I was indeed correct [/B]

Ray - it wasnt you in the Law Society Bulletin this month was it ? :)

[dr nick]

*Sigh* Look, since you're biased against Murali, it just seems like you just wouldn't look at it the other way. I'm tired of repeating myself because you just wouldn't get it in your head, I won't reply again in this thread, it's getting way too tiresome.
No prizes for second

[Ray Nolan]

Ray - it wasnt you in the Law Society Bulletin this month was it ? :)

Haven't seen this months Law Society Bulletin so whatever it's in relation to I'm not sure, but I know there is a far more senior Ray Nolan than myself who practices in the City, so anything appearing under 'Ray Nolan' in the Law Sociery bulletin is far more likely to be him than me! Plus I'm not practicing at the moment (I'm doing consultancy in the Insolvency game instead) so that sort of rules me out.

[Jars458]

Haven't seen this months Law Society Bulletin so whatever it's in relation to I'm not sure, but I know there is a far more senior Ray Nolan than myself who practices in the City, so anything appearing under 'Ray Nolan' in the Law Sociery bulletin is far more likely to be him than me! Plus I'm not practicing at the moment (I'm doing consultancy in the Insolvency game instead) so that sort of rules me out.


Yeah looked like an old guy. Two Ray Nolans who would have thought it! :)