Time for ICC to revist chucking issue

[Doctor]

Read this article, using the source of Bishen Bedi - the comments and indeed the article are more than two years old, but I still agree.

http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2002/FEB/090370_SL_02FEB2002.html

What I still cannot understand is all the investigation into whether he can fully straighten his arm or not - that isn't the issue.

I refuse to believe that anyone can look at his action and not say he is straightening his arm at some point between the level of the shoulder and the ball being released - surely the ICC can see this too, but they refuse to act.

I agree with Darrell Hair's wording in his autobiography: His action is "diabolical".

Of course, that comment caused the ACB to give Hair a suspension. Hair missed selection for the 1996 World Cup, and found himself on the outer for many years, despite being Australia's best umpire.

The other official: Ross Emerson was sacked two days later, never to officiate again.

The match referee: Never officiated again because he was disappointed in the way the issue was handled.

Clearly an umpire's adherance to the strict laws of the game is not required - umpires must suddenly filter all their decisions to ensure it does not compromise a country's cricketing success and/or their development.

Another article:
http://www.sportstaronnet.com/tss2525/25250740.htm

Pertaining to Adam Gilchrist (who said that he believes Muralitharan has an illegal action):
His crime to answer a question at a private function. The question was whether he thought Sri Lankan spinner Muttiah Muralitharan was a "chucker."

"Yes" replied Gilchrist.

"Technically, if you read the rules, I think he's probably not quite within them."

To me a simple straight forward reply.

Not however to the Board who immediately charged him, found he did contravene a particular section of the ICC's laws, but did not impose any penalty.

I would suggest that 99% of international cricketers outside Sri Lanka would agree with Gilchrist's logic: "If you read the rules, I think he's probably not quite within them" - understatement of the century right there.

 

[budz]

Can i just ask everyone here why the believe Warne when he says that his mum gave it to him and that he was just dumb for not checking?? Just because he is a great bowler does it mean that everyone trusts the words that come out of his mouth? So many people except his excuse just because he is a great Aussie bowler. What bullshit.

 

[salivor]

""Warney was given a suspension for one year for taking a bloody dieuretic, for god's sake.""

it wasnt for gods sake, it was for warnes sake.
the diuretic was used to mask a drug he had taken, in all probability a performance enhancing drug.
were you one of the many sucked in by his b/s excuse ?

warnie (bless his heart) should have been banned for 2 years, that was the minimum,, the max was life.
he got away with 12 months..
now, you dont have to be a rocket scientist ( or a cronulla fan ) to work out that every fan of cricket was shafted by the ICC when they let warnie off the hook.
the ICC, in fact, gave liscence for illegal drug use...

and you have the cheek to whinge about a bowling action.. check out brett lee,,, chucka if ever i saw one.

How typical, another goose rewriting history. Prove it Ozbash or sh*t in it.

Actually McSharkie, there is no re-writing of history there, the suspension that went with Warne's crime was 2 years, there was no option of 1 year but magically the rules were re-written to give him just a 1 year ban and thus keep his career alive.
As for whether his intention was to mask another performance enhancing drug we'll never know but his excuse that his mum gave it to him just doesn't wash, about as believable as a track and field athlete that tried to say that a night of drinking and sex accounted for his high testostorone levels.

 

[incredible_holc]

Just because he is a great bowler does it mean that everyone trusts the words that come out of his mouth

as the great (fake) Bill Lawry once said in the 12th Man: If Shane Warne says he got a touch on it, he got a touch on it' same applies here ;-) ;-)

 

[Twizzle]

I like Bishen Bedi's comment in the article by Oswin.

"If a man is blind he is not allowed to fly a plane. If a man cannot straighten his arm, he should not be allowed to bowl"

I don't agree with his logic, but he sees it as black and white, simple.

One point that has not been raised in this debate, is that Murili's action has been cleared by experts in Hong Kong and WA, based on his action being recorded at 1000 frames a second and from 6 angles.

The point I think alot of people miss, is that the 1000 frames a second and 6 camera angles, should have applied to the actions that were no balled by Darryl Hair and Co.

When Murili was "bowling for the camera" he did not need to spin the ball, hence his action on those cameras could have looked OK.

Then he gets on the cricket pitch and reverts back to his "suspect" action.

I'm not saying that this is what he did as I was not present, but that is why the experts do not convince me, and I am not the only one that remains unconvinced.

 

[Azkatro]

While I'll probably never agree with you guys that the man is a chucker, as I would rather side with the findings of reports that had the benefits of footage capturing his action at 1000 frames per second, and with some of my personal cricketing heroes including Allan Border and more importantly Don Bradman, whose comments were very fondly in favour of Muralitharan.

But one thing I will agree with is that, because of the way it looks, it may have a detrimental effect to potential youngsters coming through the ranks. To me the idea that a young kid will start *really* chucking the ball down because his hero Muralitharan might seem to, will do more damage to the game. And I personally think that's the biggest issue of all.

 

[Iafeta]

If they chuck it though, in the future, and even now in the present, with 1000 frames per second biomechanics cameras, they will be caught. There seems to be a crack down on it.

Murali survives it because his arm stays bent throughout delivery, the flick of the wrist is what deceives the eye. Any youngsters following him should be aware that it is the only change in action. Anyhow, I think it'd be tough to copy that action, its so unique it'd be a challenge to learn - I'm a believer in youngsters should do whats comfortable, and adapt and learn and add from watching others only, not completely remodel their actions with what is not comfortable to them. They go how they go because it is easiest to them, most effective and their bodies will get used to it and prevent injuries. Copying Murali, or any other bowler from scratch would be extremely difficult I would think.

 

[budz]

I like Bishen Bedi's comment in the article by Oswin.

"If a man is blind he is not allowed to fly a plane. If a man cannot straighten his arm, he should not be allowed to bowl"

I don't agree with his logic, but he sees it as black and white, simple.

But the fact is that in the laws of cricket it says that it is a throw if he straightens his arm during the bowling process. And that is something that Murali doesnt do. What he does do is bowl with a permanant bent arm because he isnt able to straighten his arm. So it is actually legal to bowl with a bent arm as long as you dont striaghten it. So those comments dont apply at all.

One point that has not been raised in this debate, is that Murili's action has been cleared by experts in Hong Kong and WA, based on his action being recorded at 1000 frames a second and from 6 angles.

The point I think alot of people miss, is that the 1000 frames a second and 6 camera angles, should have applied to the actions that were no balled by Darryl Hair and Co.

When Murili was "bowling for the camera" he did not need to spin the ball, hence his action on those cameras could have looked OK.

Then he gets on the cricket pitch and reverts back to his "suspect" action.

I'm not saying that this is what he did as I was not present, but that is why the experts do not convince me, and I am not the only one that remains unconvinced.

The problem with that is that there werent cameras which were being recorded at 1000 frames per second when he got no balled because that would have taken some sought of ability to look into the future. And to the second part about him changing the way he bowls, he actually looks like he throws it to the naked eye in the ones where he is being recorded by the 1000 frame per second cameras.

 

[Doctor]

What he does do is bowl with a permanant bent arm because he isnt able to straighten his arm. So it is actually legal to bowl with a bent arm as long as you dont striaghten it. So those comments dont apply at all.

There has to be straightening of the arm in order to propel the ball at 80km/h. Try bowling in the backyard with a permanent bent arm, without straightening it.....

They are saying that Murali's arm cannot straighten. This is irrelevant - it is the straightening of the arm that is both obvious and indeed illegal.

 

[Iafeta]

Flick of the wrist Oswin?

I also think you could achieve 80 ks an hour quite easily. Its not that hard. His arm isn't as bent as a shot putters!!!! Goodness sakes, really.

So obvious independent doctors, heavily qualified, have said his action is legal? These doctors also being from Australia? I think I know whos opinion I'll stick with.

 

[Macca]

Turn on the telly and have a look for yourself. It starts at right angles and ends up nearly straight.

 

[broncos2008]

While I'll probably never agree with you guys that the man is a chucker, as I would rather side with the findings of reports that had the benefits of footage capturing his action at 1000 frames per second, and with some of my personal cricketing heroes including Allan Border and more importantly Don Bradman, whose comments were very fondly in favour of Muralitharan.

But one thing I will agree with is that, because of the way it looks, it may have a detrimental effect to potential youngsters coming through the ranks. To me the idea that a young kid will start *really* chucking the ball down because his hero Muralitharan might seem to, will do more damage to the game. And I personally think that's the biggest issue of all.

unfortunately this is in fact happening sri lanka. I went there recently on a holiday and all the kids (5-10yrs) were chucking. On a side note i honestly believe murali does not chuck his stock off-spinner however his doozera is a bit suspect. Unfortunately many aussies are blinded and jealous of the fact that for once they don't have the best bowler in the world, as evidenced by the disgraceful actions of some members of the ODI at the Gabba last year, when cans and food was thrown at murali. To finish my ramble, most of you also forget or choose to forget is that is much harder to pick whether an off-spinner chucks becuase of the wrist and arm rotation. A fast bowlers arm does not rotate at all making it much harder to pick up whether he chucks.