As the "squash ball controversy" is heating up the cricket world phenomenally, some Aussies are rubbing some old wounds by dragging in the Murali-Hair controversy into this. Some Aussies with extraordinary loss of "short & medium term memory", are accusing "ICC changed the rules of throwing, to accommodate Murali's action". And they further accuse, ICC did this under the pressure from Sri Lanka and the Sub Continent.
It's really amazing to see how these people tend to forget the facts so quickly. Some one has to speak up and remind these people the facts they try to forget.
History of The Issue
Let's just go back to the history. At the time of Murali-Hair affair took place in 1995, it was the duty of on-field umpires to judge a delivery as illegal or "thrown" on with visual judgment alone. The accepted way of doing this was, the square leg umpire to watch the bowlers arm and make the judgment. Because the head umpire (standing behind the non-strikers wicket) is assigned with a duty to watching the bowlers front leg for over stepping, at the point of ball leaving the bowlers hand. No human being could watch a bowlers front leg, and the elbow positioning of the bowler, at a same instance when the ball is delivered.
But Australian umpire Darrel Hair did that miracle. He re-written the history book, as the first umpire in the history of cricket, to call a bowler for throwing while standing in the head umpire's position. So, it was very clear that Mr. Hair was deliberate of calling Murali for throwing, and therefore he forgot that "throwing" should be called by the square leg umpire.
This issue was raised before the ICC by the Sri Lanka Cricket Board, and ICC demanded an investigation into Murali's action. In an biomechanical test done with Murali's hand, it was revealed that his elbow had an unusual tilt at his birth. This tilt, would have actually helped Murali in turning the ball, but it was nothing purposely adjusted by Murali.
Biomechanical Test in 2004 ICC Champions Trophy
With the topic of "throwing" becoming a hot topic in Cricket World, during late 90's, ICC conducted a biomechanical test, using sophisticated technology. And, in those tests it was discovered that it is virtually impossible for the human arm to legally "bowl" the ball without any flex of the elbow, more than 15 degrees. The old law allowed to bend the elbow 10 degrees for fast bowlers, 7.5 degrees for medium pacers , and 5 degrees for spin bowlers. Thus according to the old laws, "legal" bowling would be practically impossible for any human being, so some thing had to be done.
After the Muralitharan issue, the ICC carried out a test on all bowlers through video footage during the 2004 Champions Trophy in England. The test brought up some startling results: ninety-nine percent of all bowlers tested were found to flex their elbow to some degree, which was often much greater than the limit set at the time. According to this test, all the Australian bowlers in 2004 Champions Trophy were also chuckers. Looking at some of the old video footages of some great Australian fast bowlers in the past, it was revealed that all of them were chuckers according to this old law.
Change of Rules
It was realized that 99% of the modern day bowlers are chuckers, under the old law of "throwing". So, what can ICC do? Ban all the bowlers? Including Shane Warne, McGrath and Shaun Pollock? The only way forward for ICC was to change the rules.
After a review by an expert panel, the ICC decided to raise the limit to 15 degrees for all bowlers. This limit was chosen as the ICC believed that any flexing of the elbow above 15 degrees would be visibly noticeable.
So, I guess this summarize the whole story. The arguments of some pathetic Australian fans are completely invalid. ICC did not changed the rules to accommodate Murali's action. They did change the rules, after they realized that the old rules were wrong, and it's humanly impossible to be abide by those rules (for 99% of the bowlers, to be precise. Including Shane Warne. Not only Murali).
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Did ICC really Changed the Rule Books to Legalize Murali's Action?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
According to your logic then Hair was right to call Murali - since he was chucking according to the old law. The only thing is, 99% of all bowlers were chucking as well.
This is not MY logic or your logic. This is what the experts said. According to the old law, Hair had the right to call any bowler for chucking, if he's convinced enough that the bowlers action is illegal. But, the umpire is suppose to judge that from the square leg possition. That's where the point that cat jump out of the box. It was clear there was a deliberate effort by Aussies for calling Murali for chucking on that day. When Murali was balling right arm (wrist) leg spins, Hair called them for chucking as well. But any one who tried balling right arm leg spins, will tell you that there's no way on earth to chuck a right arm leg spin. Ask Shane Warne or Anil Kumble. It's totally impossible to chuck a leg spin, for a right arm bowler. But Hair called Murali for chucking, even for right arm leg spins. That's the point. Hair and Aussies were in a deliberate attempt of ending Murali's career. It's not that, "Hair was right"
I'm just trying to be clear. Please correct any factual errors below:
The old law made no allowance for a bend in the arm. So if Murali's arm bends (five degrees even), then according to the old law he was chucking (along with most others of course). Also I don't think that the laws specified from where you should call the bowler - only that the umpire should use his judgement.
So taking the fact that:
1) Murali's arm straightens
2) The old law says this is throwing
3) The position from which the umpire can call is not specified
Then Hair was right. After all, all he was saying by calling Murali is that he thinks his arms straightens - which I think we all agree now is the case.
Also, I think it was Ross Emerson who called him for bowling leg-spin. In any case, can you provide evidence that you cannot chuck a leg-break (a quote from Warne, Kumble etc)?
As a person who played the game (at a very low level due to lack of talent - but under some good coaches) I would think it's not that straightforward. It would depend on your leg-spin action (not all are the same), the amount of wrist you put into it etc. I'm not so sure on this point though.
I'm so glad to see an Aussie fan (I hope you are, but I dunno exactly, since you are anonymous) talking about "facts" rather than "emotions". Good positive move. I hope, all the Aussies should look at things more factually, even for the matters don't favor Australia.
Getting back to topic. You may be able to prove that Hair was right, based on your "3 facts" in an Australian court. (Congratulations! The judge will also be an Aussie)
But the build up to the incident "Hair calling Murali for throwing" is much more complex than these 3 simple "facts" you are trying to emphasize, and it cannot be explained in a simple blog post. Hair warned Murali, even before Sri Lanka team land in Australia. So, with that "prejudices" in the mind of Hair, can we simply ignore the fact #3? Hair was so deliberate and intentional for calling for throwing on that day, so that he forgot to watch murali's front foot for overstepping.
I thoroughly recommend you to read this book to clarify the things further.
Thank you for correcting me. It was Emerson (who was standing in his first ODI, if I can remember correctly) who called Murali's leg spins as chucking. BTW why all these umpires called Murali for throwing are Australians? Have you thought about it? And why don't we hear fans shouting "no ball" every time murali bowls, in other countries?
//In any case, can you provide evidence that you cannot chuck a leg-break\\
Sorry, I do not have any reference since this incident took place 12 years ago. If you can go to your nearest local library, and refer the sports pages of newspapers published those days, you will see the experts views on whether you can or cannot chuck a leg spin. And read this thread, specially the reply posted by "neocor" on 21st March 2005, 01:47 PM.
I noticed you skipped a few other reports and concerns by other "non-Australian" umpires. Strange how you never let facts get in the way of a good story Voice in Colombo.
Also the Doosra was banned for a short time until the rules were changed. So the concerns were hardly unwarranted.
"in March 2004 he was reported by ICC match referee Chris Broad (english)"
"South African match referee Peter van der Merwe had clearly said on ABC Radio on Friday he was concerned over Muralitharan's action. " 16Jan1999
"The ICC has effectively blackballed Muttiah Muralitharan's doosra, confirming that they are not about to increase the permitted five-degree tolerance level for spin bowlers to accommodate Muralitharan, and warned that he risks being reported and possibly banned if he continues to use the delivery."April 21, 2004 (the doorsa later was cleared when the 15 degree changed was introduced)
"Steve Bucknor has admitted that Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action "appears terrible" to the naked eye, but has urged those who doubt its legality to judge him by the evidence of TV replays "April 22, 2004
Murali's action is now legal, however there was a lot of concern about his action.
To summarise, Murali's action did look bad. Many umpires agreed with that, NOT just Hair and other "australian" umpires.
Stonewall,
I appreciate your comment alot, and appreciate that you look at it from an unbiased angle.
//To summarise, Murali's action did look bad. Many umpires agreed with that, NOT just Hair and other "australian" umpires.\\
Here, "Did look bad" doesn't necessarily mean "It was bad", as many Aussies suggest. Obviously, it had to be "looking bad" otherwise, there wouldn't have been any issue. What happened was Aussies tried to take advantage of that "bad look" but ultimately they failed. Now they complain ICC for changing rules. And, your comment about "many umpires agreed with that", what I have to say is "majority disagreed with that". One New Zealand umpire said (Sorry I can't recall his name) "just leave him alone!".
The fact is, as you said, some time back Murali's action would have been "looking" bad, but it was never "bad". It was verified by 3 medical tests, that his elbow has some degree of tilt, at his birth. (It's nothing like stuffing a squash ball in your glove). And ICC cleared him. Motive behind the change of rules is, the development in technology. And identification of the fact that it's too dangerous to leave the future of individual player, in the hands of on field umpires alone, so that it's prone for personal revenge based on prejudices, like in the case of Murali-Hair affair.
To summarize, ICC never changed the rules to accommodate Murali's action.
I passionately disagree.
There is nothing stopping the umpire at the bowler's end calling a throw.
Hair DID consult with the square leg umpire that day.
"Birth defects" don't excuse rule breaking.
Murali's birth defect suddenly disappears when he's batting, when his arm straightens just fine.
He throws the ball. Botha from South Africa, wasn't afforded the same luxury when his action was a mirror image of Murali's - obvioiusly South Africa didn't need the same assistance as Sri Lanka did 10 years ago.
The problem with making some blanket statement like "his action is passed" simply means the umpires have to forget about it and let him bowl, which is wrong. He can go along, bowling his 15% benders for most of the day, then when the heat is on, and he needs something special, he can "bend away" with impunity because he's been cleared... It's a great shame he will always be compared to Shane Warne...
All the players and umpires at the time knew this was illegal but the issue was a political "hot potato" and most were too scared to speak openly in public about it. Read between the lines of any interview about it at the time
Oh Come on! Why all these Aussies are so afraid of Murali. Every one know Darrell hair is a maniac. Otherwise, why requested such a big "ransom" money from ICC to get retired? Don't froget he was banned by ICC some time back, for bad umpiring.
Here's something from Wikipedia about the controversial decision by Darrel Hair.
"Former Australian batsman, Sir Donald Bradman, was quoted as saying it was the "worst example of umpiring that [he had] witnessed, and against everything the game stands for. Clearly Murali does not throw the ball".[12] [13]"
If greats like Bradman is confident about Murali's action, who care's about what some ignorant Aussie bloggers think.
Just face the truth. Murali is the best bowler ever. Warney may be the second best. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/2572069.stm
Tell me that Wisden is wrong.
Wisden is wrong.
Murali doesn't bowl legitimately, and actually doesn't worry the Aussie's that much anyway.
It's gone too far for the spineless ICC to do anything about it anyway.
Darryl Hair was never banned for bad umpiring and has actually never been proven wrong in any of his controversial decisions, least of all Murali chucking, or Pakistan boycotting.
The subcontinent should put as much effort into beating Australia as they do manipulating workd cricket from behind the scenes.
OX,
You said Wisden is wrong???
And that justify why Wisden is the best selling cricket magazine in the world, not your crappy "Inside Cricket" magazine :-)
May be you read too much of bullshit on Australian dailys. Open your eyes. Murali is one of the greatest cricketers ever, and admit it. You Aussies got something seriously to be straightened, before talking about Murali's arm.
I'm American so I recognize a throw when I see one...
If Wisden says Murali's action is legal, they ARE wrong. They more than anyone can't be seen to be taking a stand against the sub-continent - it's a disgrace!
BTW, does "best selling" mean right!?!? I bet Playboy magazine sells more than Wisden and I bet McDonalds sells more hamburgers than Wisden does cricket publications - doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make Murali any less of a cheat...
And it doesn't stop you are being a complete asshole... OX
Meckkiff was Called by the central umpire in the 60s
And boys look today ..2018 april. Who are the organized disgraceful cheaters? World knows it now..whole aussie team are organized cheaters of the game. They just spoiled the good name of cricket.
Shameful aussie cricket. Cheaters become cry babies when exposed on camera..shameful
Post a Comment