Re: Murali's legacy

by Big Dog Sun 03 Apr 2011, 08:08

As to the bent arm excuse....yes excuse. Ian Meckiff was also born with a bent arm however this didn't save his test career when he was called. To my memory, he didn't even raise the issue in his own defence. The Aust Cricket Board accepted the umpires decision & he was removed from the team. The churlish Sri Lankan board could do worse than to take note of how it should be done.

by taipan Sun 03 Apr 2011, 11:57

Dello wrote:I think the handball interpretation has widened from "deliberate" to "neglectful". For example, if you block a shot or cross with an arm pressed tight against your side, it's not handball as, short of cutting your arm off, there's not a lot else you could have done to avoid it.

However if you're waggling an arm around all over the place and the ball strikes it, you're liable to get punished as you were kind of asking for trouble, rather than trying to minimise the possibility of it.

Something like that. I haven't looked it up.

The rule is simple."If you deliberately handle the ball it is an offense". So it's all down to interpretation.

Personally I found it the hardest rule to adjudicate on.

by Basil Mon 04 Apr 2011, 00:11

So, we're agreed then - Murali is/was a chucker ( except when he was bowling leg-breaks)

by horace Mon 04 Apr 2011, 01:52

the only throwing that is illegal now is matches and that is only enforced by the tabloid press...mumu seems a great bloke but sadly the asterisk remains and the game remains in disrepute until the 15 degree rule is jettisoned and the doosra is outlawed

by Bradman Mon 04 Apr 2011, 02:40

Basil wrote:So, we're agreed then - Murali is/was a chucker ( except when he was bowling leg-breaks)

I reckon he threw the doosra, which is what he's bowling in Dello's arm straight pic. You just don't have to bend it as much, just enough to really add some flick to the wrist. I doubt he could've bowled consistently or as economically with the leg break (actually qmy that probably goes without saying).

by Zat Mon 04 Apr 2011, 05:20

Gary 111 wrote:So basically the report is sham science.

Which echoes what anyone who can look at the process rationally has been saying for years.

Will Murali be remembered as the man who legalised throwing in cricket?

By many, yes.

Gary 111 wrote:Has the ICC ever even published the findings it came from? I can't find them on the net.

You can, with a bit of mucking around, get hold of the report in full, on paper. But it's not easy to get hold of, outside the summary, which contains the accusation that 'every bowler' has some degree of flexion.

by skully Mon 04 Apr 2011, 05:36

Possibly the greatest scandal in recent times (bar the filthy match-fixing episodes) was Mikey Holding's committee that decided to allow 15 degrees of flex, in a bogus attempt to legitimise Chuck's action. Weak.as.p!ss.

by Zat Mon 04 Apr 2011, 05:38

He did leave us the legacy of CBER in the forum glossary.

by Bradman Mon 04 Apr 2011, 05:41

What sh!t me off was the number of people who insisted he didn't chuck under the old rule (pretty straight forward "Don't straghten your arm"), then ignored the fact that the rule change allowed him to bowl legally thus making him guilty as sin prior. At the very least a big farking asterix next to every wicket prior.

by skully Mon 04 Apr 2011, 05:41

The sad thing is he'll still be forum fodder for years to come, for all the wrong reasons.

by Zat Mon 04 Apr 2011, 05:43

Only if we can be bothered to continue the redundant debate.

Of course, eventually someone will get close to his numbr of wickets, and the discussion will spark up again.

by Bradman Mon 04 Apr 2011, 05:46

[quote="Zat"]Only if we can be bothered to continue the redundant debate.

Of course, eventually someone will get close to his numbr of wickets, and the discussion will spark up again.[/quote]

That's one hell of an ask Zat. I don't think my Great grandkids, grandkids will see it unless there's another dramatic rule change. If nothing else he was prolific for a very long time.

by skully Mon 04 Apr 2011, 05:47

Actually, I can't see anyone getting near 800 Test wickets so that won't be the catalyst.

Wouldn't it be massive though if there was another Warnie unearthed in some country (preferrably ours) as a 19 year old genuis and as he approaches his 35th birthday he has passed TGM and is on his way to Chuck's record.

I find it hard to believe this joint will still be chugging along at that point though. Say, 2030 or beyond!! Shocked

by Zat Mon 04 Apr 2011, 05:54

It'll happen eventually.

Who would have said, pre Warne or MuMu, that the leading wicket takers in 20 years time would be spinners, and they'd have 1500 Test dismissals between them? With or without an asterisk attached to some of them.

by horace Mon 04 Apr 2011, 07:04

Zat wrote:It'll happen eventually.

Who would have said, pre Warne or MuMu, that the leading wicket takers in 20 years time would be spinners, and they'd have 1500 Test dismissals between them? With or without an asterisk attached to some of them.

of course Stevie Nix could surprise us all

by embee Mon 04 Apr 2011, 08:04

landing one on the pitch would be a surpise ...800 wickets would leave the loaves and fishes way behind in the miracle stakes

by horace Mon 04 Apr 2011, 08:19

hehehe....and the Lazarus that is Oz cricket would rise again

by Sponsored content