Delhi deadshit isn't racist. He's a deadshit and if he's from new delhi, then the acromym works.Actually no I believe in what I type
Calling him a flog is acceptable, calling him the first thing is a bit racist!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Delhi deadshit isn't racist. He's a deadshit and if he's from new delhi, then the acromym works.Actually no I believe in what I type
Calling him a flog is acceptable, calling him the first thing is a bit racist!
When the Murali apologists wheel out their evidence, it's all "he was scientifically tested" and then they show the footage of him bowling in the nets. As for the blanket check, it's never mentioned, meaning it wasn't that conclusive or scientifically based, otherwise THAT would become the yardstick for his legal action.
Loved Handscomb trolling Kohli by not even nothering to run when he could have strolled through for two.
Was a perfect way to treat with distain his idiocy of playing on when nothing to gain.
Really think that was a petfect backhand to the Delhi deadshit.
Show should learn from that and the captain. Words are cheap. Let your bat do the talking and DD looks like an even bigger flog.
Who cant wait for India to tour? Can you imagine the fear of facing Starc, Cummins, Patto and Hazlewood on some nice bouncy greentop.
Would make the Poms look positively brave in 2013
Not really, given the initial appeal also covers all modes of dismissal.Yep, and this whole idea of the fielding team appealing for LBW and then somehow the review also includes caught behind is a joke as well.
Anything you say about Warne's record can be countered by Murali
Fact remains Murali has more wickets than Warne and thus he's the greatest bowler of all time - stats prove it.
Which says to me the way the review is allowed to be used isn't tight enough. The DRS was brought in to remove the not-out call when Stuart Broad smashes one to first slip. Instead now the whole argument is "does 45% of the ball striking the stumps constitute the ball actually hitting the stumps?"
Agreed. The worst thing to come out of the Darrell Hair incident is that umpires aren't allowed to call throwing, they have to report it after the match. An umpire probably isn't going to report someone for ten or twelve throws in a test match, but that just means a bowler with a dodgy action gets a lethal variation ball where they only have to bend their arm more.
Fact remains Murali has more wickets than Warne and thus he's the greatest bowler of all time - stats prove it. Everyone can moan about Warne being the better bowler, but he's not the GOAT because he doesn't have the highest amount of wickets to back up the claim .
You are replacing the question "who is the greatest bowler" with "who took the most wickets", a substitution fallacy.
”greatest bowler of all time" is merely an opinion that can be supported by, but never proven, by facts.
In your theory Don Bradman is not up to Steve Waugh or Ricky Ponting, they have more runs.
So can anyone tell me, what is the rule now that stops me from running in and just clearly pegging it at the batsman? Surely something other than some generic "unfair play" bullshit?
The rule states that in the process of delivering a ball, your arm cannot straighten more than 15 degrees. In other words, you can have your arm bent at a right angle but if that angle becomes 61 degrees as you release the ball you've broken the rule.
As far as poor Darrell goes, I don't understand how an umpire could conceivably watch a bowler's front foot, analyse a bowler's arm action from an awkward position, make an assessment and still make correct decisions up the batsman's end.
Right from the start it probably should have been something that was assessed from a more technical standpoint. Same with the ball tampering incident when Pakistan walked off the field. Iirc he made that assessment based on seeing the condition of the ball. Now he may well have been correct, but by penalising Pakistan there and then, he basically tried and convicted them with circumstantial evidence rather than actual proof. Darrell isn't a bad bloke (he lives in the next town over from mine) but he could have handled both situations better.
Emerson iirc called Murali for a throw when he bowled a legspinner trying to get the end of his over without getting called.
His doosra that he was allowed to bowl for ages was a blatant throw, disgrace that he got so many wickets with it.
Yeah i get the rule, but what stops me from doing it on the day? If i throw it at the batsman as hard as i can and it breaks the stumps, are they out, but then i get reported at the end of the game and then suspended?
I'm being a little bit silly and would hope some sensible umpiring would prevail, but what do the rules say an umpire can do about this one the day?
The old rule was that if the umpire had any doubt of legitimacy, it was a no ball. This was a manifestly poor rule. Should there be a rule, augmenting the one you cited, that allows the calling of no ball if (either) umpire had no (or little) doubt it was a throw?
Curious
You conveniently always forget to mention Warnies enormous charity work that he does worldwide. Not to mention all the work he did for the Sri Lankan community after the Tsunami disaster.I didn't like either of them but I'd pick McGrath comfortably over Warne. That doesn't begin to address people like Lille's etc.
You conveniently always forget to mention Warnies enormous charity work that he does worldwide. Not to mention all the work he did for the Sri Lankan community after the Tsunami disaster.
Not true, that's Murali he has more wickets and thus the greatest bowler.
Touched by the deity of your choice when it comes to bowling over the wrist spin though.
Not true. Murali is the greatest chucker of all time. If the ICC hadn't changed the rules to allow his extreme elbow bending, he would have had a very short career
As would every other bowler they studied aside from a part time West Indies leg spinner.
Wow, how desperate was that?
Others have had their actions tested and passed. Murali's didn't pass, so they changed the rules. Try real facts instead of alternative ones
So can anyone tell me, what is the rule now that stops me from running in and just clearly pegging it at the batsman? Surely something other than some generic "unfair play" bullshit?
Not true. Murali is the greatest chucker of all time. If the ICC hadn't changed the rules to allow his extreme elbow bending, he would have had a very short career