PDA

View Full Version : Murali found to throw delivery



shaun
20-04-2004, 11:44 AM
Murali has been found to break the ICC rules on throwing in tests conducted at the UWA.

Here is a news story
http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,9332814-23212,00.html

shaun
20-04-2004, 12:12 PM
Note. This is a multiple vote poll. You can choose more than 1 option.

diu lei
20-04-2004, 12:55 PM
He's still the god of bowling. Alot of other bowlers chuck anyway. For example, Brett and Shoab.

PHAT
20-04-2004, 01:04 PM
I am maximaly least suprised in all the options. Who the f... is Murali? Who the f... cares.?

Bill Gletsos
20-04-2004, 01:11 PM
I am maximaly least suprised in all the options. Who the f... is Murali? Who the f... cares.?
Clearly you are not a follower of cricket.

Alan Shore
20-04-2004, 02:22 PM
The critical sentences:


However, the Sri Lankan board is believed to have requested a rule change and has placed political pressure on the ICC by reporting Broad for drinking with Australian players during the tour.

This is just hilarious!! :D


He said that recent studies at the Australian Institute of Sport showed that up to half of fast bowlers bent their arm more than 10 degrees and the biomechanists believe the limits should be changed.

There you go. Maybe the rules will be changed after all...

chesslover
20-04-2004, 10:27 PM
I am maximaly least suprised in all the options. Who the f... is Murali? Who the f... cares.?

murali, or "chucky" as he is known by many, is a chucker who is going to cheat all the way to the world wicket record in cricket. Everyone who cares about ethics and integrity of cricket record cares

PHAT
20-04-2004, 10:53 PM
Everyone who cares about ethics and integrity of cricket record cares

There is no ethics or integrity in professional cricket anyway. They are a bunch of crooks and louts. Give cricket the heave-ho.

BroadZ
20-04-2004, 11:23 PM
i thought they did some scientific test on murali ages ago that proved he wasnt throwin it just really really really looked that way?

Rincewind
20-04-2004, 11:34 PM
i thought they did some scientific test on murali ages ago that proved he wasnt throwin it just really really really looked that way?

That was before he introduced the "doosra" into his repertoire. He was reported for having a suspect action in the latest test series against Australia in Sri Lanka.

shaun
21-04-2004, 07:33 AM
i thought they did some scientific test on murali ages ago that proved he wasnt throwin it just really really really looked that way?Actually all the tests on Murali did show that he straightened his arm when bowling almost all his deliveries. The ICC then changed the rules to take this into account. Now that he has shown to straighten his arm even more, the Sri Lankan Cricket Board want the rules changed again to take this into account.

arosar
21-04-2004, 09:36 AM
I heard this morn that under testing, this cheating bas.tard would slow his balls down by up to 20Km/hr thus giving the appearance that his arm is straight. Also, it was mentioned that Sri Lanka is an influential cricketing nation. How is this so? I reckon our PM should invade Sri Lanka immediately and send in the commandos to take out Murali. What do youse chaps reckon?

AR

Garvinator
21-04-2004, 10:07 AM
sri lanka are already in a kind of civil war, so dont worry arosar, we dont need to invade, they are doing it themselves :eek:

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2004, 11:21 AM
I was surprised to find that there is an allowance for marginal straightening of the arm (the issue being that Murali exceeds that allowance). Does anyone here (Shaun maybe) know the reasoning behind that - is it just to protect the player from measurement error or is it because a small degree of throwing now and then is unavoidable?

Garvinator
21-04-2004, 11:35 AM
I was surprised to find that there is an allowance for marginal straightening of the arm (the issue being that Murali exceeds that allowance). Does anyone here (Shaun maybe) know the reasoning behind that - is it just to protect the player from measurement error or is it because a small degree of throwing now and then is unavoidable?

the sceptics, which i am, says that the rule was changed back when the murali controversy first appeared. the rule used to be that the arm could not straighten at all during the delivery of the ball. After Darrell Hair called murali, the throwing rule was changed to allow some straightening of the arm. Now that murali has been nailed in tests again, they want the rules changed to allow more illegal actions from murali.

I would be willing to bet that if they allow more straightening of the arm, that in two years, murali will be found to have straighten his arm even more during the delivery of the ball.

Rincewind
21-04-2004, 11:36 AM
I was surprised to find that there is an allowance for marginal straightening of the arm (the issue being that Murali exceeds that allowance). Does anyone here (Shaun maybe) know the reasoning behind that - is it just to protect the player from measurement error or is it because a small degree of throwing now and then is unavoidable?

I thnk the latter, the human arm is not a rigid member and some flexing is unavoidable. There is a greater allowance given to fast bowling than to spin bowling which I believe is due to the higher rotational speed of the arm in the delivery action. However, what they've geen saying about Murali he has quite a brisk arm rotation too, hence to call to change the allowances.

Garvinator
21-04-2004, 11:37 AM
I thnk the latter, the human arm is not a rigid member and some flexing is unavoidable. There is a greater allowance given to fast bowling than to spin bowling which I believe is due to the higher rotational speed of the arm in the delivery action. However, what they've geen saying about Murali he has quite a brisk arm rotation too, hence to call to change the allowances.

bowlers have already been given an allowance.

shaun
21-04-2004, 12:23 PM
I was surprised to find that there is an allowance for marginal straightening of the arm (the issue being that Murali exceeds that allowance). Does anyone here (Shaun maybe) know the reasoning behind that - is it just to protect the player from measurement error or is it because a small degree of throwing now and then is unavoidable?

What they found when testing fast bowlers (Akhtar, Lee) was that some bowlers have hyper-extended elbows, allowing their arms to bend past what would normally be considered straight. This meant that even when some bowlers started with what looked like a perfectly straight arm, there arms would straighten even further during the delivery action. The ICC adjusted the rules for fast bowlers to allow a 10% straightening to take this into account.
What this has to do with spinners I have no idea. I guess that the ICC saw this as an escape hatch for not having to deal with Murali. The problem that the ICC and umpires have with this tinkering of the rules is that while you can usually determine straight versus bent using eyeball 1.0, determining bent by 5 degrees versus bent by 10 degrees generally requires more sophisticated measuring equipment, and cannot be done under match conditions. And of course once you are allowed to throw just a little, there is the temptation to start throwing that little bit more.

Ian Rout
21-04-2004, 12:35 PM
I hadn't realised that there was a different margin for fast and slow bowlers. Does this mean that an umpire has to estimate the pace of every delivery individually?

shaun
21-04-2004, 01:34 PM
I hadn't realised that there was a different margin for fast and slow bowlers. Does this mean that an umpire has to estimate the pace of every delivery individually?
In theory Yes. In practice the umpires let everything except the most obvious baseball pitch go and leave it to the Match Referee to report. Then when a player is reported, his supporters claim the action is fair "because he hasn't been called by the umpires".

Oepty
21-04-2004, 03:58 PM
Murali has been found gulity of throwing his doosra so he will have to stop bowling it. He had all of his other deliveries cleared by the same process so I don't think he throws them at all regularly. He may throw them very occasionally, but are you prepared to say none of the Australian bowlers have ever thrown a ball, I am not. I have absolutely no problem with him continuing to bowl as long as he doesn't bowl the doosra. If he does bowl it then it shows he cannot be trusted, is a deliberate cheat and should be banned.
In the
TERMS_OF_REFERENCE_FOR_BOWLERS (http://www.cricinfo.com/db/NATIONAL/ICC/RULES/TERMS_OF_REFERENCE_FOR_BOWLERS.pdf) on the offical ICC webpage it says that the tolerances are as follows,
fast bowler (>80mph): 10 degrees
fast medium bowler (65-80mph): 7.5 degrees
spin (Wrist/ Finger) : 5 degrees

Also the Sri Lankan Cricket board has not issued an offical complaint to the ICC about Chris Broad. Malcolm Speed said the ICC replaced Broad because it felt it was inappropriate to have him be match referee while the review of Murali's action was taking place, it has nothing to do with anything else he might have done.
Scott

shaun
21-04-2004, 05:01 PM
Murali has been found gulity of throwing his doosra so he will have to stop bowling it.
Crickinfo reported he used it to capture a wicket in the just completed One-Day against Zimbabwe.


He had all of his other deliveries cleared by the same process so I don't think he throws them at all regularly.
The same process showed that he didn't throw them during the testing process, no more, no less.


He may throw them very occasionally, but are you prepared to say none of the Australian bowlers have ever thrown a ball, I am not.

Irrelevant to Murali's guilt or innocence. All this shows is the ICC has been derelect in dealing with ALL throwers.


I have absolutely no problem with him continuing to bowl as long as he doesn't bowl the doosra. If he does bowl it then it shows he cannot be trusted, is a deliberate cheat and should be banned.

But what is the mechanism to determine this? Umpires have been nobbled, Match referees intimidated, and the guy who was paid to test Murali is now calling for the rules to be changed to let him continue throwing.



Also the Sri Lankan Cricket board has not issued an offical complaint to the ICC about Chris Broad. Malcolm Speed said the ICC replaced Broad because it felt it was inappropriate to have him be match referee while the review of Murali's action was taking place, it has nothing to do with anything else he might have done.
Scott
So the story about Chris Broad sharing a beer with the Australians is part of an unofficial Sri Lankan smear campaign?

chesslover
23-04-2004, 05:39 PM
is this the end of chucky's reign of throwing????

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/APR/130095_SL_21APR2004.html


yiou can fool some of the people for some of the time, but you cannpt fool all of the people all of the time

Thsi means that Warne gets the world record

Justice is served :)

and as for the disgraceful sri lankan slander on brave and just Chris Broad, the ICC has finally developed a spine and are standing up to the bullly boys from Srilakla who are trying to smear him - just as they did to emerson

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/APR/129847_SL_20APR2004.html

arosar
23-04-2004, 06:25 PM
The SL team are a bunch of [deleted] mate. We should expel them immediately from the world cricketing community. I tell you what, I reckon when they come down here to tour we should abuse the shi*te out of the bast.ards.

AR

Oepty
24-04-2004, 01:29 PM
Shaun. About Murali using the doosra in the one dayer, I wonder wether he had been offically informed of the results before the match. If he had then he should be banned.
Murali also been tested by others and has failed none of them on his other balls.
I think others throw occasionally, Afridi and Dharmensena are two who I have seen throw. Olonga also clearly threw in his first test match when his action totally feel apart. He was not a chucker before this or after this, the pressure of his selection as Zimbabwe's first black player got to him.
I have no problem with a player who might throw once every few hundred balls, as long as they don't do it deliberately. Of course like overstepping they should attempt to stop doing it.
As to the record, there was some talk when Walsh set the current record that he occasionally threw his bouncer. I don't know whether this is true, but it shouldn't take away from the record. Murali will hold the record and is still a great off spin bowler despite this episode with his doosra.
Scott

Garvinator
24-04-2004, 01:41 PM
the standing at the moment is, murali's doosra has been ruled illegal. If he continues to bowl it, then if an umpire or match referee reports him again, he can be banned for up to 12 months.

So the big question is, will he be reported again if he bowls he doosra?

shaun
24-04-2004, 07:04 PM
Shaun. About Murali using the doosra in the one dayer, I wonder wether he had been offically informed of the results before the match. If he had then he should be banned.
The SL Cricket Board are still "reviewing" the report, and have not passed it on to the ICC. The point of this is two-fold. Firstly, it prevents the ICC taking any official action and secondly it ICC has a 6 week period where a bowler cannot be reported again. By delaying the release of the report the SL board are extending the period of "protection" for Murlai until after the completion of the test series against Zimbabwe, where he will almost certainly capture enough wickets to break the world record.



Murali also been tested by others and has failed none of them on his other balls.

The other tests carried out on Murali showed that he straightens his arm on all his deliveries. Under the pre-Murali rules these were considered throws by umpires. Under the new "Murali" rules there was enough confusion to prevent umpires even enforcing the current rules.
I work with a leading researcher in the area of computer vision. He has written to Bruce Elliot (UWA tester) asking for A) details and protocols of the tests and B) the raw data collected. At this stage he hasn't had a response. He has serious doubts about how the tests were conducted and whether the conclusions presented were based on the data collected.


I think others throw occasionally, Afridi and Dharmensena are two who I have seen throw. Olonga also clearly threw in his first test match when his action totally feel apart. He was not a chucker before this or after this, the pressure of his selection as Zimbabwe's first black player got to him.
I have no problem with a player who might throw once every few hundred balls, as long as they don't do it deliberately. Of course like overstepping they should attempt to stop doing it.
And this is one of the key issues. There were some balls that Murali bowled that were considered "fair" by umpires. If he wished to continue bowling he just had to bowl those ones. If he "accidently" slipped in a throw, then the umpire should have the power to call no-ball, just as for a bowler who over steps. No fuss, no muss as they say.
Instead the Sri Lankans played the racism card and the ICC took away the power from umpires to deal with the problem on the field. And look where it has ended up.


As to the record, there was some talk when Walsh set the current record that he occasionally threw his bouncer. I don't know whether this is true, but it shouldn't take away from the record. Murali will hold the record and is still a great off spin bowler despite this episode with his doosra.
Scott
Murali might hold the record for the most number of wickets, but the fact that some of those wickets were taken with an illegal action will be the stain on his achievement.

Oepty
27-04-2004, 11:48 AM
Shaun. I would be interested in links to details on the tests that say he striaghted his arm. All of the reports I have heard of have said the opposite.
I would also be interested in links that prove the tolerances were introduced purely to allow Murali to bowl. I suspect it is another myth like the one that says Emerson was removed from Australian International umpiring panel because he called Murali.
Scott

Alan Shore
07-05-2004, 05:52 PM
Murali just took 6/45 to take his tally to 519, equal with Walsh. Zimbabwe all out for 199, perhaps not as bad as we had all expected.

Oepty
08-05-2004, 11:45 AM
Murali just took 6/45 to take his tally to 519, equal with Walsh. Zimbabwe all out for 199, perhaps not as bad as we had all expected.

Well it was not that good either. Taibu is doing an amazing job for a 20 year old under the pressure he is under. Allow I think Streak shouldn't have been cut from the captaincy Taibu is probably the best alternative they had. 2 or 3 of the players in the team that is playing would make a full strength Zimbabwe team, Taibu, Hondo and perhaps Ebrahim.

eclectic
08-05-2004, 03:39 PM
I interrupt this thread to ask if FIDE intends to introduce a law whereby if you straighten your arm when pressing the chess clock you are immediately disqualified.

eclectic

Garvinator
08-05-2004, 04:09 PM
yes, but it depends on the speed that you pressed the clock with, you know, different angle allowances :whistle:

Alan Shore
08-05-2004, 11:15 PM
Sri Lanka won by an innings and 240 runs.. Zimbabwe routed for 102 in their second innings, Murali gets the WR of 521 wickets.

Zimbabwe cricket is now officially a joke - the rebels must be reinstated otherwise the ICC has to take action and revoke Zimbabwe's status as a Test-playing nation. (of course they've been very reluctant to comment as of yet since it's their job to promote the game not take it away from countries yet this is would be a strong stance against Mugabe's politics.)

Garvinator
08-05-2004, 11:19 PM
its very 'interesting' that the cricket world refused to tour south africa during the aparthied years, but now countries are touring zimbabwe when their human rights record is at least just as bad as south africas during those years.

I cant believe countries that have sanctions against zimbabwe are still even entertaining the prospect of touring zimbabwe.

Alan Shore
08-05-2004, 11:32 PM
its very 'interesting' that the cricket world refused to tour south africa during the aparthied years, but now countries are touring zimbabwe when their human rights record is at least just as bad as south africas during those years.

I cant believe countries that have sanctions against zimbabwe are still even entertaining the prospect of touring zimbabwe.

It's not necessarily by choice - for example, in England's case, the political powers are against touring, the board certainly had reservations however the ICC has (ridiculously) taken a hard line, insisting England will be fined huge amounts for boycotting the tour.

Garvinator
08-05-2004, 11:41 PM
It's not necessarily by choice - for example, in England's case, the political powers are against touring, the board certainly had reservations however the ICC has (ridiculously) taken a hard line, insisting England will be fined huge amounts for boycotting the tour.
and im sure that since the blair government has given advice against touring to zimbabwe, that if the ECB put in writing that they didnt want to tour and faced financial problems cause of the icc, the blair government could cover the fines if enforced.

Alan Shore
09-05-2004, 12:06 AM
and im sure that since the blair government has given advice against touring to zimbabwe, that if the ECB put in writing that they didnt want to tour and faced financial problems cause of the icc, the blair government could cover the fines if enforced.

I'm sure they could but is it worth the cost of involving politics in sport? I think that's the last thing people want.

Garvinator
09-05-2004, 12:09 AM
I'm sure they could but is it worth the cost of involving politics in sport? I think that's the last thing people want.
and what, do you think the mugabe government wont use the opportunity with england and australia touring to make zimbabwe look good. Also mugabe is the president of the zimbabwe cricket union, so that is political involvement in cricket already.

Alan Shore
09-05-2004, 12:19 AM
and what, do you think the mugabe government wont use the opportunity with england and australia touring to make zimbabwe look good. Also mugabe is the president of the zimbabwe cricket union, so that is political involvement in cricket already.

The fitting phrase here is, two wrongs don't make a right. It's the ICC I am criticising for not doing more but I maintain political forces should not be involved in sport, despite the circumstances.

Rincewind
12-05-2004, 09:40 AM
Muttiah Muralitharan's controversial 'doosra' delivery was deemed illegal after the International Cricket Council (ICC) said it supported the decision by Sri Lanka cricket to tell the off-spinner not to bowl the delivery.

Story...

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/040511/5/jla.html

Looks like the doosra is just not cricket.

Garvinator
12-05-2004, 10:03 AM
Muttiah Muralitharan's controversial 'doosra' delivery was deemed illegal after the International Cricket Council (ICC) said it supported the decision by Sri Lanka cricket to tell the off-spinner not to bowl the delivery.

Story...

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/040511/5/jla.html

Looks like the doosra is just not cricket.

and papers up here are saying that he has bowled the doosra in the test series in zimbabwe.

Rincewind
12-05-2004, 11:40 AM
and papers up here are saying that he has bowled the doosra in the test series in zimbabwe.

He has it sounds like he was only directed to bowl it from now on. What's done is done.

Personally I would have like him directed to have never bowled it or even to have never developed the delivery at all. But alas the ICC are not going that far. ;)

shaun
12-05-2004, 12:16 PM
its very 'interesting' that the cricket world refused to tour south africa during the aparthied years, but now countries are touring zimbabwe when their human rights record is at least just as bad as south africas during those years.

I cant believe countries that have sanctions against zimbabwe are still even entertaining the prospect of touring zimbabwe.

The legalistic reason is that countries that refused to tour South Africa did so because they were signatories to the Gleneagles Agreement concerning sport and South Africa. At this stage no such agreement exists concerning Zimbabwe.