What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Zimbabwean cricketer reported for suspect action

weasel

First Grade
Messages
5,872
Well when the recent first test between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka was played you'd be forgiven for assuming the match officials had decided to pay no attention to bowling actions in the game, what with the eventual man of the match taking some of his wickets with a delivery that only weeks earlier had been proven to be illegal. But with the reporting of Blessing Mahwire for a suspect action following the test it appears the match officials were actually on the ball, they were merely being selective about whose actions they were observing.

If I was Blessing I would feel extremely insulted right now. It's not enough for the officials to turn a blind eye to a proven chucker (for the good of the game I s'pose?), they also have to go report a player from the other side for chucking in the same match, and for all we know Blessing's action may be less suspect than Murali's.

Link here.
 

weasel

First Grade
Messages
5,872
Just to clarify my view on Murali. I am happy to accept his regular action. The ICC had cleared it as legal and that was fine with me. I enjoy watching him bowl and thrill at the amazing spin he produces with the ball. But these recent investigations have shown that, even if his normal bowling action is legit, his doosra is not and by deciding to allow him to continue using that delivery the ICC are showing they are willing to bend the rules to appease certain cricketing nations. Murali did actually take wickets against Zimbabwe with the doosra, which is why I find it appalling that a player from the opposition side is reported in the same match that Murali's chucking is being ignored.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
151,139
Again we say, is there any surprises here.

Good to see the umpires ans match referee really on the ball.
 

fish eel

Immortal
Messages
42,876
, his doosra is not and by deciding to allow him to continue using that delivery the ICC are showing they are willing to bend the rules to appease certain cricketing nations. Murali did actually take wickets against Zimbabwe with the doosra, which is why I find it appalling that a player from the opposition side is reported in the same match that Murali's chucking is being ignored.


Not true.

The ICC have issued a statement saying should be bowl it again, he will face a 12 month ban.
 

fish eel

Immortal
Messages
42,876
ICC supports Sri Lanka Cricket action on Muralitharan
ICC Media Release - May 11, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The International Cricket Council today announced that it supports the decision of Sri Lanka Cricket to instruct Muttiah Muralitharan not to bowl his "doosra" delivery.

ICC Chief Executive Malcolm Speed said that after being forwarded a copy of the Sri Lankan Cricket report compiled by the University of Western Australia, the ICC had discussed the report's finding that this delivery was in breach of the laws of the game with Sri Lanka Cricket.

"The report forwarded by Sri Lanka Cricket proves that the degree of straightening is well outside the ICC's specified levels of tolerance.

"In light of this finding, Sri Lanka Cricket has now advised the ICC that it has instructed Mr Muralitharan not to bowl this delivery in international cricket. The ICC supports this action.

"At the same time, the authors of the report expressed their opinions about the current regulations governing the levels of tolerance used to assess a bowler's action and Sri Lanka Cricket has advised the ICC that it will be seeking to have these regulations changed at the earliest opportunity."

The Western Australian University report showed an initial straightening of the arm of around 14 degrees which after some remedial work was reduced to 10 degrees. This compares to an allowable level of tolerance for spinners of five degrees under the ICC regulations.

Mr Speed said that he hoped that the action by Sri Lankan Cricket in recognising that the delivery did not comply with the ICC regulations would prevent Mr Muralitharan being reported again for this delivery.

Mr Muralitharan is currently within the six week Stage One phase of the ICC's bowling review process having been reported in Sri Lanka during the final Test against Australia.

During this phase Mr Muralitharan is required to undergo an assessment of his action and though it is open for umpires to "call" him on the field if his action does not conform to the laws of cricket, no second report can be made until this six week period is completed. This period expires at midnight on Thursday, 13 May 2004.

Should the bowler go against the wishes of his Board, bowl this delivery and subsequently be reported within 12 months of the initial report, the issue would progress to Stage Two of the ICC's process for dealing with bowlers with suspected illegal bowling actions.

This would result in this delivery being scrutinized by the ICC's own Bowling Review Group which has the power to impose a ban of 12 months on the bowler if his action is deemed illegal.

Mr Speed said that the way in which the report had been leaked into the media had created considerable confusion over the purpose of the levels of tolerance permitted when conducting a bio-mechanical analysis of a bowler's action.

"Unfortunately the contents of this report were leaked into the public domain and this has done nothing to assist the general understanding of the science necessary to properly scrutinize illegal actions at international level," said Mr Speed.

"The first point that must be recognised is that most bowlers straighten their arm during delivery.

"While in many cases, the level of straightening is imperceptible to the naked eye; scientific research has established the reality that straightening of the arm is likely because of the bio-mechanical forces at work during a bowling action.

"It is not a case of if bowlers straighten their arm but a case of at what level does this straightening become likely to give a bowler an unfair advantage over other bowlers.

"This is essentially what the levels of tolerance tell us.

"They provide a guide to be used in the bio-mechanical analysis of a bowler's action to establish at what level a bowler is going to get an unfair advantage.

"The levels were introduced after consultation with well-qualified experts in the field and are based on research into the actions of all types of bowlers - spinners, medium pacers and fast bowlers.

"The levels vary according to the style of bowler because different styles of bowlers will gain an advantage at different levels."

Mr Speed said that these regulations reflected the current level of understanding on this issue and that ICC is now well-advanced in its arrangements for further research into the actions of spin bowlers.

"The current regulations reflect the current levels of understanding.

"The ICC is well aware that the existing body of scientific knowledge in relation to spin bowlers would benefit from additional research and has previously announced that it will undertake this work.

"It will only be after this research is completed that the ICC will be in a position to know if there is a sufficiently strong fact-based argument to alter the levels of tolerance currently in place.

"Until this time, the ICC will continue to apply the levels of tolerance that are in place."

For further information:

Brendan McClements
General Manager - Corporate Affairs
Ph + 44 (0) 20 7266 1818
Mob + 44 (0) 7786 194974
 

weasel

First Grade
Messages
5,872
Yeah, I've noticed that Fish Eel, although that decision was only made in the last day or so. A good decision but I wonder how well it will be policed, and I would have thought that they could have made this decision before the test series had started, and not conveniently after he had already claimed the world record with the help of his illegal delivery.:|

What's happening to me, I'm starting to believe in conspiracy theories. :oops: :roll:
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
151,139
So the upshot is that he is still allowed to bowl, using the illegal action, until midnight tomorrow night.

At least that explains why he has not been reported for his action over the past week or so, but if it is illegal, why should he be allowed to bowl it at all.

Interresting to see what will happen if he bowls it after tomorrow night.

This just keeps getting better.

If it weren't so serious, it would be a joke.
 

Latest posts

Top