View Full Version : Muralitharan should be expunged
knuckles
22 Jan 2003, 13:32
So says Rowan.
Why did he have to say "...not about racism"?? who is implying it is?
Australia 1-215 d Sri Lanka 8-214 with 15.3 overs to spare.
THANKS to a remarkable Ricky Ponting century, Sri Lanka's wretched tour of Australia ended last night in circumstances similar to those under which it began – a thumping loss clouded by controversy over record-breaking spinner Muttiah Muralitharan.
With Muralitharan again on the sidelines – this time due to a strained thigh muscle – Ponting (116no) and Matthew Hayden (80no) made Sri Lanka's attack appear second-rate as they chased down their modest target of 215 in just 34.3 overs.
And as the Sri Lankans head home for a week's rest ahead of a tough World Cup campaign, former Australian Test umpire Lou Rowan again weighed into the debate over Muralitharan's action claiming the spinner's name should be expunged from cricket's record books.
Rowan, who umpired 26 Tests in the 1960s and 1970s, claimed he had spoken to four other former Test umpires recently who agreed Muralitharan's action did not conform with cricket's throwing law.
"It is not based on racism. There is a deep-seated, but not publicly expressed resentment over the bowling action of the Sri Lankan, Muralitharan," Rowan told the Toowoomba Chronicle this week.
"The actions of cricket authorities in permitting and encouraging this man to continue in cricket is incomprehensible and a travesty of justice."
Regardless of the legality of the off-spinner's action, the inescapable fact remains that Sri Lanka is a vastly inferior team when Muralitharan – 304 one-day international wickets – is not on the field.
Their only two wins of this series coincidentally came when the 30-year-old was in the team. Sri Lanka have won just three Tests without Muralitharan (two of those came before he debuted) and won just 16 of the 62 one-day internationals they've contested without him since he played his first limited-overs game in 1993.
Muralitharan has already warned he will consider boycotting future tours to Australia because of the treatment he receives from local crowds and media.
But Sri Lanka's acting captain Marvan Atapattu – regular skipper Sanath Jayasuriya took a break yesterday because of the stress he's been under on this tour – suggested he may not carry out his threat.
"The day he said that was after the Brisbane one-dayer and he must have been hurt the way he was treated. On the spur of the moment he said that," Atapattu said last night.
Ponting said the Australian batsmen on the whole were able to pick Muralitharan's deliveries, but found playing them a much tougher task because of the pace and amount of fizz he imparts on the ball.
Sri Lanka's batsmen, so adept against spin, had similar problems deciphering Australian Brad Hogg's left-arm wrist spin as he further justified the faith selectors placed in him by naming in the World Cup squad. The 31-year-old's 3-37 yesterday installed him as Australia's leading wicket-taker of the series, an honour which seemed unthinkable when he returned a forgettable 0-75 off nine overs in his first match of the year against Sri Lanka.
After Sri Lanka galloped away at five runs an over yesterday, Hogg's spin reeled them in and their total of 214, underpinned by Aravinda de Silva's patient 44 from 73 balls in his last appearance in Australia, was obviously inadequate.
Just how short became painfully obvious as Ponting and Hayden put together a contemptuous second-wicket stand of 178 from 169 balls.
Meanwhile, a decision on whether Australia will rush legspinner Shane Warne back into their team for the one-day finals will be made in Sydney today following further medical examination of his right shoulder at the MCG yesterday.
I think he said "It's not about racism" because there is this feeling out there that whenever you pass unfavourable comment on non-white cricketers you must be a racist.
Originally posted by Becker
I think he said "It's not about racism" because there is this feeling out there that whenever you pass unfavourable comment on non-white cricketers you must be a racist.
Racism has nothing to do with it, the fact is the guy does not chuck the ball. If people bothered to do some research into the matter they would realise this, but too many are armchair experts like this Lou Rowan (whom no one has ever heard of until now) fellow who can't be bothered to even do the slightest bit of research into the matter before spouting of his opinion which because he umpired a few matches 40 years ago he gets air time.
The bottom line is Muralitharin's action is perfectly legal, no grey area, no 'sometimes he does', his action is legal.
There are too many people out there who think because his action looks funny (on TV) then he must be a chucker, the simple fact is he has been cleared by the ICC with indepth analysis on his bowling action with provided evidence freely available to view, problem is most people can't be bothered as it is much easier to bag a successful foreigner than take a serious interest in sport.
I also think it is rather ironic that Australian fans were bagging the barmy army for chanting 'no ball' for Lee yet they do the same thing to Murali. Gutless.
Who says it's about racism?
It seems the majority of the entire sub continent thinks that the reason Murali was called for throwing is due to his race and not a suspect action!!!
The ICC ran scared over this and introduced the law where a player can no longer be no balled on the field (a rfeport is put into the match referee after the game) to stop threatened walkoffs by sub continental teams because they saw it as a race issue!
FWIW My boss at the time (who was Indian and knew more about cricket than anyone I have ever met) believed it was a race issue!
Just a few examples
Cheers
Gonzo
dr nick
22 Jan 2003, 14:03
Originally posted by Zombie
I also think it is rather ironic that Australian fans were bagging the barmy army for chanting 'no ball' for Lee yet they do the same thing to Murali. Gutless.
where do you get these impressions?? IIRC justin langer and brett lee himself were the only ones critisising the BA, and every aussie on this forum bagged them for doing so.
Originally posted by Zombie
Racism has nothing to do with it, the fact is the guy does not chuck the ball. If people bothered to do some research into the matter they would realise this, but too many are armchair experts like this Lou Rowan (whom no one has ever heard of until now) fellow who can't be bothered to even do the slightest bit of research into the matter before spouting of his opinion which because he umpired a few matches 40 years ago he gets air time.
The bottom line is Muralitharin's action is perfectly legal, no grey area, no 'sometimes he does', his action is legal.
You really don't have a clue do you? If you honestly feel Murali's action is legal, I'd hate to think what a bowler would have to do to have you think his action is suspect.
Just ask yourself this question. If a bowler name Jim Smith from New Zealnd was labelled the best bowler of all time by Wisden, then toured Australia the next summer, Channel 9 would be showing his bowling action from front, back, side on ... every angle you can think of.
Why do Channel 9 NEVER show Murali from side on? Because he is a blatant chucker that's why, and Channel 9 don't want to be seen as racists for showing up Murali's action for what it is.
Since he was passed "legal" by the ICC, Murali has developed all these new deliveries that are atrocities. He is more a chucker now than he was when he was called.
His top spinner is an abomination. He brings the ball right back to his shoulder then flicks it like he is tossing a yo-yo. Okay, so he may not be able to straighten his arm. However, as he is releasing the ball, his elbow becomes far "less bent", and is therefore not legal.
He knows he cannot be called for chucking any more so he can just do whatever he likes now. As for Lou Rowan being an "armchair critic", his credentials are far more impressive than I imagine yours would be.
Do an umpiring course, learn the definition of a legal and an illegal delivery, then try and work out if you think Murali chucks. Don't just listen to paid political announcements telling the world he doesn't chuck, work it out for yourself.
Originally posted by nicko18
where do you get these impressions?? IIRC justin langer and brett lee himself were the only ones critisising the BA, and every aussie on this forum bagged them for doing so.
The general consensus was that it was in poor taste that the BA were calling 'no ball' to Lee' deliveries. The players, the commentators and the media basically stated that it was inappropriate behaviour.
Not that it was the media who were chanting no ball to Murali, it was the same sort of ignoramuses that come onto BF and bagged Langer and Lee for criticising the behaviour of fat oaths who are supposed to be spectators of a gentleman's game.
Originally posted by Becker
You really don't have a clue do you? If you honestly feel Murali's action is legal, I'd hate to think what a bowler would have to do to have you think his action is suspect.
Just ask yourself this question. If a bowler name Jim Smith from New Zealnd was labelled the best bowler of all time by Wisden, then toured Australia the next summer, Channel 9 would be showing his bowling action from front, back, side on ... every angle you can think of.
Why do Channel 9 NEVER show Murali from side on? Because he is a blatant chucker that's why, and Channel 9 don't want to be seen as racists for showing up Murali's action for what it is.
Since he was passed "legal" by the ICC, Murali has developed all these new deliveries that are atrocities. He is more a chucker now than he was when he was called.
His top spinner is an abomination. He brings the ball right back to his shoulder then flicks it like he is tossing a yo-yo. Okay, so he may not be able to straighten his arm. However, as he is releasing the ball, his elbow becomes far "less bent", and is therefore not legal.
He knows he cannot be called for chucking any more so he can just do whatever he likes now. As for Lou Rowan being an "armchair critic", his credentials are far more impressive than I imagine yours would be.
Do an umpiring course, learn the definition of a legal and an illegal delivery, then try and work out if you think Murali chucks. Don't just listen to paid political announcements telling the world he doesn't chuck, work it out for yourself.
Like I said, I have done research into the matter, I have looked up the definition of throwing and looked into his action frame by frame. His arm is straight throughout the his deliveries like any other bowler, the fact that he has a deformity in his arm gives off an optical illusion that his arm is being straightened as he bowls from the TV cameras. If you bother to actually review the anaylsis of his action done by trained sports movement experts in alliance with the ICC then you would realise that he doesn't throw the ball.
But you probably won't because you played kanga cricket at school and watch cricket on TV all your life so you think you know it all.
If you actually are interested in seeing the evidence it can be found here:
Muralitharin Action (http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/murali.html)
Trust me mate I used to be exactly like you, I thought he was the biggest chucker out, but then I decided to look into it to understand why all the experts were telling us that he wasn't and was convinced by this article. it has nothing to do with paid political announcements (which I have never heard of anyway) it is to do with the facts of his action, if you want to debate the 'facts' of his action then fine I am all ears, but if you are going to dribble on about ICC cover ups, racism, Channel 9 cover ups and 'paid political announcements' then you can go back to the playground to do it.
GhostofJimJess
22 Jan 2003, 21:45
Fairly compelling evidence, Zombie .... You've won me.
Once again, all those tests prove is that he can bowl legally if he concentrates hard enough. How he bowls at the university of Hong Kong says nothing about his action in a test match in Colombo, Lord's, the MCG, etc etc.
The fact remains that no such tests have ever been conducted under match conditions and/or without his knowledge. Tests done outside match conditions have absolutely no credibility where the bowler knows he is being tested, because all his energy will not go into bowling, but merely keeping his arm as straight as possible. Who cares if he was getting no spin, or if every ball pitched half way down the wicket.
What convinced me that the guy is a chucker was when a bunch of us were in the nets, and we had a go trying to bowl the ball out of the back of the hand (i.e the same action Murali uses for his topspinner). It is nearly impossible not to throw, unless you are concentrating hard on keeping your arm straight, and then you get no power from the wrist and very little spin.
And of course, you just have to look at his action, especially when he bowls his toppie. It is incredibly blatant that the arm goes from almost a 90 degree angle and clearly straightens during delivery. That's no optical illusion, that's just a blatant throw.
The sad thing is that no-one has the guts to say anything about it. The last current player that gave his opinion on it was Gilchrist, and for some reason, saying that he throws constitutes misconduct, and he was fined for doing so. How f*cking idiotic is that?
Booze Hound
22 Jan 2003, 23:37
I'll repeat what I have said a few times before on this subject.
When I was out in Sri Lanka a couple of years ago I spoke to someone who was a former First Class player out there and is now a coach of very high standing. He told me, without me raising the matter, that not only is Muralitharan a 'chucker' but the Sri Lankan Board know it (they will not, of course, admit it publicly). He was also very concerned with the number of young players coming through with 'questionable' action - you certainly see a lot playing beach cricket who you could call.
Around 1900 a similar problem occurred in English county cricket (there were a few Australians like Ernie Jones and Mckibbin who were dubious). Eventually the county captains met and agreed they would not play any bowler whose action was questioned by one of the others. Within two seasons the problem had gone.
dr nick
23 Jan 2003, 06:27
Originally posted by Becker
Since he was passed "legal" by the ICC, Murali has developed all these new deliveries that are atrocities. He is more a chucker now than he was when he was called.
His top spinner is an abomination. He brings the ball right back to his shoulder then flicks it like he is tossing a yo-yo.
this is the best point made on this thread so far. you are spot on. since that analysis where he was cleared, he had developed new deliveries that are far more questionable than ever. they even changed the laws of the game to suit.
Zombie, i don't question that you have done a bit of research into the matter. i too have looked at his action frmae by frame in that analysis and believe it is hard to say if the arm straightens. however you can't cling to the fact that he doesn't chuck based on some research performed a few years ago. look at the way his action has been unleashed since he has been cleared and since the umpires are not allowed to call him.
dr nick
23 Jan 2003, 06:29
and i think a good portion of his deliveries begin with his arm at least bent at 80 degrees and then straighten to about 45 degrees.
there is only a 10-20 degree kink in his arm when he tries to straighten it fully.
GhostofJimJess
23 Jan 2003, 21:54
you can't cling to the fact that he doesn't chuck based on some research performed a few years ago.
Based on that rationale nicko, we can't cling to the fact that Warney and M. Waugh don't still take money from offshore bookmakers for information on "weather" and "pitch reports". At some point you have to simply accept the research or the testimonies, and move on ....
This bloke is an unmitigated chucker. If I were to umpire him in a game I would be left with two options: 1) Call him. 2) Never umpire again, because I wouldn't have any confidence in my own integrity.
To prove this isn't a racist slur, I'll also say that I've never seen an offy who didn't sometimes chuck his 'dart'.
BTW, I've umpired cricket for the past five years, after twenty-five years of playing the game.
Poor little Zombie, and a few others like him. Unable to work out for themselves that Murali's action is illegal. Research? What research can you do ... just look!!!!
I ask again, why is it that Channel 9 NEVER show his action from side on? They do with all other bowlers.
Kanga cricket is more your pace Zombie, you certainly cannot seem to grasp anything else. You can watch it to your heart's content, watching all the suspect bowling actions ... you'd have the time of your life.
Go and do some more "research" into Murali's action, go read another article or something, but by all means don't go and watch him from side on otherwise you may have to admit the Murali is an out and out CHUCKER!!
By the way, you think you know all about cricket, and yet you've never heard of Lou Rowan? Your research seems to be letting you down in all areas doesn't it?
dr nick
24 Jan 2003, 07:44
Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
Based on that rationale nicko, we can't cling to the fact that Warney and M. Waugh don't still take money from offshore bookmakers for information on "weather" and "pitch reports". At some point you have to simply accept the research or the testimonies, and move on ....
completely flawed comparison. murali's action has noticeably changed since then on a number of new deliveries he has developed, yet some people seem to ignore this.
a more appropriate analogy would be to claim that jeff thomson bowls at 100 mph. that is what speed it was when he was last tested, but a quick look at how he bowls these days will shed some light. that is more akin to saying that murali's action is legal.
dr nick
24 Jan 2003, 07:45
Originally posted by Becker
you've never heard of Lou Rowan? Your research seems to be letting you down in all areas doesn't it?
:D
Originally posted by nicko18
completely flawed comparison. murali's action has noticeably changed since then on a number of new deliveries he has developed, yet some people seem to ignore this.
Absolutely correct Nicko. This is the basic flaw in the arguments of those who claim he was tested 4-5 years ago and therefore his action is legal.
Since he was passed legal, he has developed a number of different balls he never bowled then, and these deliveries make his action even more suspect.
I was one who wasn't sure if he threw or not, but watching him lately there is no doubt in my mind at all.
Originally posted by Zombie
If you actually are interested in seeing the evidence it can be found here:
Muralitharin Action (http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/murali.html)
In my opinion this site does not prove he does not throw.
It merely proves that a bent arm can look straight when viewed from particular angles.
To constitute proof for me (assuming I would accept as proof a one off artificial test), they would have to have shown that the angle of his arm bend did not change. They didn't even try to do this - they just said that the angle of the bend looks different from different angles at different times. That would be true if he chucked it too.
Now, if they had attempted to measure the angle of the bend from as many angles as was required to eliminate the effect of his shoulder rotation and therefore eliminate the optical illusion, then there could be some merit in the analysis.
I checked some of the other links there (not all) and most were text. Is there a series of pictures anywhere that shows that the angle of bend doesn't change as opposed to showing that the angle of the bend is impossible to determine from just one or two viewing positions?
Originally posted by Becker
Poor little Zombie, and a few others like him. Unable to work out for themselves that Murali's action is illegal. Research? What research can you do ... just look!!!!
I ask again, why is it that Channel 9 NEVER show his action from side on? They do with all other bowlers.
Kanga cricket is more your pace Zombie, you certainly cannot seem to grasp anything else. You can watch it to your heart's content, watching all the suspect bowling actions ... you'd have the time of your life.
Go and do some more "research" into Murali's action, go read another article or something, but by all means don't go and watch him from side on otherwise you may have to admit the Murali is an out and out CHUCKER!!
By the way, you think you know all about cricket, and yet you've never heard of Lou Rowan? Your research seems to be letting you down in all areas doesn't it?
Lou Rowan? TheWicket.com refer to Rowan as "Insignificant and unheard of", this coming from an online cricket magazine that specialises in cricket.
Australians love to bag the foreign guy with a strange action, it scares them to death that he and his side regularly wreak havoc upon them.
Channel 9 regularly show Murali from side on, I have seen it plenty of times, the reason you haven't seen it is because he has only played against Aus once this season. Not that that is even the problem, the side on view is not the one that looks suspect, it is the behind the bowler view that sparks debate that he is a chucker.
dr nick
25 Jan 2003, 20:26
Originally posted by K9-54
In my opinion this site does not prove he does not throw.
It merely proves that a bent arm can look straight when viewed from particular angles.
To constitute proof for me (assuming I would accept as proof a one off artificial test), they would have to have shown that the angle of his arm bend did not change. They didn't even try to do this - they just said that the angle of the bend looks different from different angles at different times. That would be true if he chucked it too.
Now, if they had attempted to measure the angle of the bend from as many angles as was required to eliminate the effect of his shoulder rotation and therefore eliminate the optical illusion, then there could be some merit in the analysis.
I checked some of the other links there (not all) and most were text. Is there a series of pictures anywhere that shows that the angle of bend doesn't change as opposed to showing that the angle of the bend is impossible to determine from just one or two viewing positions?
thats a very good point. surely it would be easy to put a sensor stuck to the inside of his forearm and one on his bicep, and if the distance between the two increases then his arm straightens. one has to wonder why a test like this has not been carried out.
Originally posted by nicko18
thats a very good point. surely it would be easy to put a sensor stuck to the inside of his forearm and one on his bicep, and if the distance between the two increases then his arm straightens. one has to wonder why a test like this has not been carried out.
It has been.
dr nick
26 Jan 2003, 11:01
Originally posted by Zombie
It has been.
oh yeah, well would you mind referring me to the link??
Originally posted by Zombie
Australians love to bag the foreign guy with a strange action, it scares them to death that he and his side regularly wreak havoc upon them.
hmmm....
Muralitharan vs Australia in Australia:
Tests: 2 matches, 3 wickets, average 116.0
ODIs: 8 matches, 13 wickets, average 25.07
Do you really call that "regularly wreaking havoc"?
Originally posted by nicko18
oh yeah, well would you mind referring me to the link??
Sure it is here (http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/cricket/standard2.html)
'Using an instrument for measuring posture which identifies repetitive strain injuries, the spinner bowled between 30-50 overs with electronic wiring strapped to his elbow, fingers and around his wrist.
"The device recorded 500 angles and 500 force values per second from the finger and elbow," Goonetilleke said.
"The information was downloaded into a computer and it shows, according to the (the game's) law, he is not throwing." '
Originally posted by Zombie
Sure it is here (http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/cricket/standard2.html)
Very interesting.
But it's still not proof. It's a claim of proof.
Where's the results? Where's the evidence for public scrutiny?
Stated by the HK "expert"
electronic wiring strapped to his elbow, fingers and around his wrist
One reason I'd want to see the evidence, is that this on the surface doesn't appear to be measuring the right thing. Fingers - irrelevent I would have thought. Wrist - struggling to work out why this is important. Elbow - it's the key but what was measured? How do you measure any change in bend in the elbow without a measurement above the elbow?
Not saying the study is flawed or the claim is wrong. Just saying that the claim is impressive but the evidence is not.
The UWA study claims pictures from 6 angles at 1000 frames per second. Also claims proof. But where's the evidence?
If you are going to bowl in such a way that makes it look like you're throwing it, then you need to prove that you're not if you want to stop the questioning. And proof requires evidence, not claims by individuals.
I'm sorry, but "Trust me, I'm a professor", doesn't cut it.
dr nick
27 Jan 2003, 07:58
thanks zombie, i havent seen that before.
a couple of things, it comes back to the way his action was a few years ago. since then he has developed very suspect deliveries. it was also done with the knowledge that he was being analysed... so it's a bit easier to bowl within yourself.
i mean, i have done a degree in advanced science, and the claim that this is "proof" is clearly absurd, but it is a start.
and from reading it, i still cant work out if the device used did measure the difference in distance between the wrist and bicep. i also cant work out during which stages of his bowling action is the angle kept the same etc.... i cant even work out how the thing went about measuring the angles, or why "forces" are important.
ive been searching for the results of this test for a while, but so far have only managed to come up with wishy washy conclusions such as this link, rather than the methods and results which i can analyse for myself.
Originally posted by K9-54
Very interesting.
But it's still not proof. It's a claim of proof.
Where's the results? Where's the evidence for public scrutiny?
One reason I'd want to see the evidence, is that this on the surface doesn't appear to be measuring the right thing. Fingers - irrelevent I would have thought. Wrist - struggling to work out why this is important. Elbow - it's the key but what was measured? How do you measure any change in bend in the elbow without a measurement above the elbow?
Not saying the study is flawed or the claim is wrong. Just saying that the claim is impressive but the evidence is not.
The UWA study claims pictures from 6 angles at 1000 frames per second. Also claims proof. But where's the evidence?
If you are going to bowl in such a way that makes it look like you're throwing it, then you need to prove that you're not if you want to stop the questioning. And proof requires evidence, not claims by individuals.
I'm sorry, but "Trust me, I'm a professor", doesn't cut it.
This is not the case at all, 99% of all scientific experts, commentators and players agree that his action is legal. It is the occassional 1 Lou Rowan idiot who appears from his armchair after 30 years to show everyone how senile he is.
The evidence is there, you either don't understand it or don't want to accept it.
Originally posted by Zombie
This is not the case at all, 99% of all scientific experts, commentators and players agree that his action is legal. It is the occassional 1 Lou Rowan idiot who appears from his armchair after 30 years to show everyone how senile he is.
The evidence is there, you either don't understand it or don't want to accept it.
Funny, I haven't heard any commentators even comment on it, and the only current player (other than Sri Lankan players) i've heard speak about it not only say that he's throwing, but say that most other players think he's a chucker as well (i.e Gilchrist).
And Gilchrist was fined, so you wouldn't think too many players are going to speak their mind about it now anyway.
Unfortunately we're probably not going to find out what the players think until after they've retired and have nothing to do with cricket, when no doubt they will dedicate a section of their book to how they think he's a chucker.
Katthawk
28 Jan 2003, 00:05
Of course we are never going to find out what people really think until they retire from the game or from the media because cricket has been in such dire straits for so long.
I personally think he is suspect but what I see with my own eyes is different to others.
The fact is that whether he is or he isn't suspect, is not going to discussed in public because cricket is in such a parlous state in regards to competition with other popular sports for money.
I would rather see all the sledging and the racial nature between the white countries and the black countries of cricket taken out before bothering to open the game up to other countries.
Bombers 2003
29 Jan 2003, 16:01
I think it's NOT Muralitharan who should be EXPUNGED from Cricket,But Racists like Emerson and Hair Brainless who cant see beyond White Cricketeers.
Originally posted by Bombers 2003
I think it's NOT Muralitharan who should be EXPUNGED from Cricket,But Racists like Emerson and Hair Brainless who cant see beyond White Cricketeers.
Emerson and Hair are racist because Murali is a chucker? Interesting theory....
Originally posted by Rob
Emerson and Hair are racist because Murali is a chucker? Interesting theory....
You need to forgive these people. They are so caught up in political correctness that they cannot see the forest for the trees.
In their attempts to defend all things black, their comments against non blacks are every bit as racist.
Yes, it is amazing that these men are labelled racists just for calling and reporting an action that should never be tollerated in cricket. No mention is ever made about the Australian bowlers they have called, eg Foley from Queensland.
The Murali issue is not racial, although the Sri Lankans would want us to believe that. They continue to make reference that Australians are the only people who feel his action is illegal. This is simply not true, his action has been queried in every country where he has played, especially in India where former players such as Bishen Bedi has been most outspoken.
I personally know two Internation Umpires who have told me that the consensus of opinion with the Umpires is that Murali chucks, but if they wish to continue umpiring at top level they have to turn a blind eye. I also know a former ICC Match Referee who has said that it is a pointless excercise reporting chuckers because the ICC will simply not look at it.
And don't think for a minute that other International cricketers are happy with Murali's action. The players are fearful of censorship should anything be said against black cricketers. Adam Gilchrist mentions at a dinner he thinks Murali chucks and is fined. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
Bombers 2003
30 Jan 2003, 16:05
Ok then,Have Hair or Emerson EVER called either Lee or Foley for "Chucking"?.Personally i would Doubt it,because they're just like Emerson and Hair.I've looked at the site on M's Bowling action and the Evidence show's he is NOT a "Chucker"unlike Lee.Also when did Bishen Bedi critise Muralitharan's bowling action?,or imply he's a "Chucker"?.
Originally posted by Bombers 2003
Ok then,Have Hair or Emerson EVER called either Lee or Foley for "Chucking"?.Personally i would Doubt it,because they're just like Emerson and Hair.I've looked at the site on M's Bowling action and the Evidence show's he is NOT a "Chucker"unlike Lee.Also when did Bishen Bedi critise Muralitharan's bowling action?,or imply he's a "Chucker"?.
I don't think race has anything to do with it, if I had been Hair i would have called him aswell, it looked like he was throwing the ball and it was Hair's job to call any bowl he deemed illegal as no balls. Evidently Hair was wrong but he was still justified in doing so because it seemed to him to be illegal.
Bishen Bedi has been very outspoken about Muralitharan's action, likening him to a javelin thrower. Bedi however is outspoken on many issues, and is often proven wrong, he just likes the attention.
dr nick
30 Jan 2003, 18:06
Originally posted by Bombers 2003
I think it's NOT Muralitharan who should be EXPUNGED from Cricket,But Racists like Emerson and Hair Brainless who cant see beyond White Cricketeers.
it was only a matter of time :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Bombers 2003
Also when did Bishen Bedi critise Muralitharan's bowling action?,or imply he's a "Chucker"?.
As Zombie said, he didn't really mince his words.
http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2002/FEB/090370_SL_02FEB2002.html
dr nick
30 Jan 2003, 18:18
Originally posted by K9-54
As Zombie said, he didn't really mince his words.
http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2002/FEB/090370_SL_02FEB2002.html
thanks k9, was looking for that myself, or previous threads on the issue. fancy having the audacity to label these two as racists when one does not know enough about the issue to have heard what others from asian nations have said about it.
Originally posted by Bombers 2003
Ok then,Have Hair or Emerson EVER called either Lee or Foley for "Chucking"?
Probably not, because after the Murali affair the rules were changed and umpires no longer have the power to call throws. They have to report it to a higher authority.
.Personally i would Doubt it,because they're just like Emerson and Hair.
I have to agree with you there, Hair and Emerson are very much like Emerson and Hair, particularly when viewed from behind.
Also when did Bishen Bedi critise Muralitharan's bowling action?,or imply he's a "Chucker"?.
You've been following cricket very closely for a long time now, haven't you? :rolleyes:
knuckles
30 Jan 2003, 22:28
The race card is played too often in this issue. But, am I the only one who noticed that it is an Indian passing judgement on a Sri Lankan....nothing else needs to be added. Its such an obvious issue that the journo added a "Bedi also criticised his own" comparison at a feeble attempt to balance the article. Though an arm ball is different to chucking, so he could have picked a better example. Nationalism is as bad as racism. Bad choice if he wanted another Asian nation to comment.
BTW, is it OK to flick your wrist when bowling?
......."Now they do it with their elbows and wrists. Anyone using the elbow to turn it the other way is doing it illegally," he said.
Originally posted by knuckles
BTW, is it OK to flick your wrist when bowling?
......."Now they do it with their elbows and wrists. Anyone using the elbow to turn it the other way is doing it illegally," he said.
Yes it is OK to flick your wrist, also all bowlers do it. You can't really spin the ball without doing it, unless you are a finger spinner, hence the term wrist spinner.