eCharcha.Com   Support eCharcha.Com. Click on sponsor ad to shop online!

Advertise Here

Go Back   eCharcha.Com > Entertainment > Sports

Notices

Sports Your arena, your grounds, your pitch...

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old March 15th, 2004, 08:07 PM
Napolean Napolean is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,634
Napolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally posted by nayasavera
Which fraternity are you talking about ?

Can you name a few except for that mota Daryll Hair (sp. ?) and the ever envious Aussies and the fukkwits like Bedi?
The example which comes quickly to the mind is Nasser Hussain.
He told Murali f***king chucker when Murali came to bat in one of the tests of recently finished England-SriLanka series.Murali had even complained abt it to Match Referee and nothing happened.But that is another matter altogether.

Last edited by Napolean; March 15th, 2004 at 08:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old March 15th, 2004, 08:24 PM
Napolean Napolean is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,634
Napolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond repute
Re: uh oh

Quote:
Originally posted by Charchila
...as long as I get to chuck, I don't care
No you won't get to chuck because ICC is becoming sterner now in this regard.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old March 15th, 2004, 08:46 PM
ShivSainik's Avatar
ShivSainik ShivSainik is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 5,253
ShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally posted by nayasavera
Jis jis ne Murali ki gaand maarnay ki koshish ki is thread mein un sabko mera shraap hai ki wog agle janam me tayde haath lekar paida hoN.
Thank u naya Meri bachpan se acha cricket player banane ki icha thi. Is janam me na sahi, agle me to ban jaunga

Me 1000 wickets lunga
__________________
"Once you start thinking too much about your place in history, you're at a point where you're no longer trying as hard as you should be"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old March 16th, 2004, 09:27 AM
nayasavera
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

I am not done with this thread.

Murali ka samman jab tak waapas na dilaa dooN tab tak Savera chup nahin baithega.

Time milte hi..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old March 16th, 2004, 09:34 AM
Charchila's Avatar
Charchila Charchila is offline
Temporarily Unbanned
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ahmedabad, CA
Posts: 7,536
Charchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond repute
Yeh dekha? 2nd Test, 1st innings:
Aus 120
SL 92/7
__________________
.
March 16, 2012: Sachin Tendulkar scores his 100th century in Inter-fucking-national cricket

Sent from my iPhone.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old March 16th, 2004, 10:53 PM
Napolean Napolean is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,634
Napolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally posted by nayasavera
I am not done with this thread.

Murali ka samman jab tak waapas na dilaa dooN tab tak Savera chup nahin baithega.

Time milte hi..
time milte hi ooska samman waapas dila dega kya ...hahaha
first i thought you wrote samaan
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old March 16th, 2004, 10:55 PM
Napolean Napolean is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,634
Napolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally posted by Charchila
Yeh dekha? 2nd Test, 1st innings:
Aus 120
SL 92/7
SL 211 all out.
Vaas 68 not out
Murali 43 in 28 balls 5 fours 3 sixes
Warne again took 5 wickets(consecutive 3rd 5 wicket hall in this series).In fact he has taken 5 wickets in every innings.

Murali is a good batsman
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old March 16th, 2004, 11:22 PM
Charchila's Avatar
Charchila Charchila is offline
Temporarily Unbanned
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ahmedabad, CA
Posts: 7,536
Charchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond reputeCharchila has a reputation beyond repute
Talking

Great... he's now an allrounder
__________________
.
March 16, 2012: Sachin Tendulkar scores his 100th century in Inter-fucking-national cricket

Sent from my iPhone.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old March 17th, 2004, 12:17 AM
Napolean Napolean is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,634
Napolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond reputeNapolean has a reputation beyond repute
Has anyone noticed the forum names are not visible in drop down list navigation list boxes in Netscape 7?Will put it in Feedback.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old March 17th, 2004, 12:47 AM
YedaAnna's Avatar
YedaAnna YedaAnna is offline
Livin La Vida Loca
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: eCharcha!!!
Posts: 5,713
YedaAnna has a reputation beyond reputeYedaAnna has a reputation beyond reputeYedaAnna has a reputation beyond reputeYedaAnna has a reputation beyond reputeYedaAnna has a reputation beyond reputeYedaAnna has a reputation beyond reputeYedaAnna has a reputation beyond reputeYedaAnna has a reputation beyond reputeYedaAnna has a reputation beyond reputeYedaAnna has a reputation beyond reputeYedaAnna has a reputation beyond repute
maa dhuri
kya gangu saahab ne statement diyela hai bawa
ekdum dhaasu

http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2004/mar/17gang.htm

Asked whether he felt that all of Akhtar's deliveries were legal, Ganguly said, "What do you think, watching on TV? I think we all know the answer, don't we?".
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old March 17th, 2004, 04:04 AM
ShivSainik's Avatar
ShivSainik ShivSainik is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 5,253
ShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond reputeShivSainik has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally posted by Charchila
Great... he's now an allrounder
According to clik's definition of all-rounder, he is surely an all-rounder
__________________
"Once you start thinking too much about your place in history, you're at a point where you're no longer trying as hard as you should be"
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old March 17th, 2004, 04:50 AM
nayasavera
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by YedaAnna
maa dhuri
kya gangu saahab ne statement diyela hai bawa
ekdum dhaasu

http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2004/mar/17gang.htm

Asked whether he felt that all of Akhtar's deliveries were legal, Ganguly said, "What do you think, watching on TV? I think we all know the answer, don't we?".
It will be interesting to see how this story develops. So far everything was sugary sugary. Lets see what the Pakis have to say on this. I think that BCCI might ask Gangu to shut up.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old March 17th, 2004, 04:56 AM
nayasavera
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by ShivSainik
According to clik's definition of all-rounder, he is surely an all-rounder

And is right at the top of the list if I remember right.

Btw, King Murali took his 500th test wicket. There's an interesting race going on between Warnie and Murali. I am with Murali. Well he doesn't make obscene phone calls, is no drug addict and bowls cleanly too.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old March 17th, 2004, 05:14 AM
nayasavera
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

As promised, I am back with my defense of Murali.

Check this site:
http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/murali.html

And pls don't miss the Qs&As pasted below.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:47:02 +0800
From: David Lloyd, dlloyd@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
To: ravindra@ust.hk
Subject: Bowling action of Muttiah Muralitharan


Dear Prof Goonetilleke,
My name is David Lloyd (PhD) from the Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science at the University of Western Australia. We have something in common with our studies of bowling action of Muttiah Muralitharan. We were asked a second time by Sri Lankan Cricket team and the ICC to analyse and report on used a Muralitharan bowling action in early 1999, the first being in early 1996. We used a 3D Vicon motion analysis system in 1999 and have presented this work at the 1st World Congress of Science and Medicine in Cricket. June 1999, Shropshire, England, 13th Congress of the International Society of Biomechanics in Sport, Hong Kong, June 2000, and have paper in press in the Journal of Sports Sciences (Lloyd D.G., Alderson J. and Elliott B.C. An Upper Limb Kinematic Model for the Examination of Cricket Bowling: A Case study of Muttiah Muralitharan.) We came to the same conclusion as you did regrading the legality of his bowling action.


Your work was excellent and have a copy of your paper in Ergonomics on the topic.


I also happened across your web site (http://iesu5.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/murali.html) on your work with Muttiah Muralitharan and noticed the excellent images of Muralitharan bowling. Our video images of Muralitharan bowling are very poor quality. I was wondering if I could use your images in a talk I am giving on use of computer technology in sport and in course lectures in our department. I would reference you as the sources of these images.


Thanks for help in this regard.

Cheers
David
-------------------------------------------------------
David Lloyd PhD
Biomechanics Group
Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science
University of Western Australia
Nedlands 6907 WA
AUSTRALIA
Phone: +61 8 9380 3919
Fax: +61 8 9380 1039
Email: dlloyd@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
-------------------------------------------------------


Answer:
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:00:57 +0800 (HKT)
From: Ravi Goonetilleke
To: David Lloyd
Subject: Re: Bowling action of Muttiah Muralitharan


Hi David,

Thank you for your email and comments in regard to the Muralitharan studies. Yes, sure you may use the images!

I've heard that you had many publications in this regard. Unfortunately, I've not been able to access any of them, partially as a result of not knowing the authors. Would it be possible to mail me your publications on his action? I would love to read them.

I wish I had known that you were in Hong Kong in June this year. It may have been a good time to meet and share some of our experiences.

Anyway, would it be ok if I post your email on my website? I think it would be nice to "show" (at least indicate) that we have similar results with two different methods. Please let me know. Thanks.

cheers
Ravi Goonetilleke


Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 18:29:10 +0800
From: David Lloyd
To: Ravi Goonetilleke
Subject: Re: Bowling action of Muttiah Muralitharan

Hi Ravi,

> Thank you for your email and comments in regard to the Muralitharan studies.
> Yes, sure you may use the images!

Thank you for returning my email. Thank you also for allowing me to use the images.

> I've heard that you had many publications in this regard. Unfortunately, I've not been able to access any of them, partially as a
>result of not knowing the authors. Would it be possible to mail me your publications on his action? I would love to read them.

Yes that would be fine. I only the final accepted manuscript for the one in press at the Journal of Sports Science and I can send you the conference proceedings.

> I wish I had known that you were in Hong Kong in June this year. It may have been a good time to meet and share some of our experiences.

Yes, it would have been good to meet you also. I hope our paths cross in the near future.

> Anyway, would it be ok if I post your email on my website? I think it would be nice to "show" (at least indicate) that we have similar
>results with two different methods. Please let me know.

Yes I think that would be fine.

Take care and thanks again.


Cheers
David.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 xxx@aol.com wrote:

Being english i'm surely prejudiced, but if most of the umpires, who are experts in the field express their doubts about his bowling action then isn't something wrong there?
Apparently the Sri Lankan doctors said he was unable to move his arm to throw the ball ; didn't he do just that in the running out of Nick Night in the controversial one day match.
I would be interested in hearing your point of view.

thanx a lot

Sam Phillips , London


Answer:
From ravindra@ust.hk Fri Jan 29 09:49:28 1999
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:33:00 +0800 (HKT)
From: Ravindra Goonetilleke
Subject: Re: muralitharan

Hello,
I don't want to talk about prejudicium! As a researcher and scientist, my job involves evaluating the facts of a case and here they are:

1. There isn't anything wrong about his action ACCORDING to the ICC laws. But, there is something different. Any difference from a norm, always stands out and that is the case here.

2. I don't know where you gathered that he cannot throw the ball when fielding. He can move his arm and he can throw the ball, but his arm would not straighten like anyone else's.


3. Take a look at the digitized images at my web site.
Look at frame 6: The back view APPEARS to show a fully straightened arm. But the side view shows a bent arm. This is the visual illusion that takes place since he has a flexion deformity (arm cannot FULLY straighten). So, unless you are super human, such an action should NEVER be evaluated (judged) on the field. I think he may be the first bowler in the history of cricket with such an arm*. So, it is not surprising that it looks different, and will alarm many not so familiar with the throwing laws of cricket. If a human being wants to evaluate him on the field, then there should be two eyes in the bowler's end umpire position (for stereo viewing to get depth information) and another two eyes in the square leg's umpire's position (again to get depth information), and the 4 eyes linked to an artificial brain! I am serious!

4. I am NOT concerned about any umpires' ruling since the action can never be judged on the field by a pair of human eyes due to the human visual system limitations. Most people are unaware about what our eyes can do and what they cannot do! The ICC technical committee has looked at his action and indicated that it is fair based on ICC law 24.2.

5. Lastly, if you still have doubts, take a look at the technique I used to evaluate him which will be published by a BRITISH TECHNICAL JOURNAL very soon. /




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In response to my comment, "I think he MAY be the first bowler in the history of cricket with such an arm", on Wed, 03 Nov 1999, Bob Somerville (xxx@urgentmail.com) wrote "I have read the comments re the arm of Murali and there is one comment that needs to be corrected. That is that he is the first one with an arm like that which cannot be straightened. Ian Meckiff could not extend his arm completely unlike the other suspects of the era."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Connor Bourke, XXX@carnet.com.au wrote:

The laws of cricket as I understand them prevent a bowler from bending and then straightening his arm. This is in order to prevent the bowler from gaining extra pace or spin from doing so. Murali claims that he is unable to fully straighten his arm and as such is incapable of breaking this law. If this is the case it nonetheless does not stop him from gaining the same unfair advantage by straightening his arm as much as he can. As such surely the laws should be amended; not to change the intention or spirit of the law, but merely to prevent a player with a slight abnormality taking advantage of them.
Regards,
Connor, Sydney

Answer:
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:23:09 +0800 (HKT) From: Ravindra Goonetilleke
To: Connor Bourke, xxx@carnet.com.au
Subject: Re: Murali's action


Hello,
It is ignorance of the law that causes such controversies. Throwing is defined in Law 24.2 Note (a) of the ICC rules as "... the process of straightening the bowling arm, whether it be partial or complete, ... during that part of the delivery swing which directly precedes the ball leaving the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from the use of the wrist in the delivery swing."

One does not need to be able to fully straighten the arm in order to violate this law. As stated in the law, any partial or complete straightening directly preceeding ball release is all that matters. Murali is not taking advantage of the law. His deliveries are perfectly legal according to this law since he does not have any partial or complete straightening. The perceived straightening is a visual illusion as shown in the figures on the web pages.

Think about the advantages and disadvantages people have during batting, bowling and fielding as a result of their stature, strength, etc. Should the laws be changed to restrict these advantages too?

Of course, the law CAN be amended such that anyone who is unable to fully straighten their arms are barred from playing cricket. That is an awfully UNETHICAL suggestion. Imagine yourself with a deformity which people would try to use to prevent you from working. In the developed countries such as the USA, the American Disabilities Act is trying its best to promote and attract disable workers. But what you propose is totally unkind towards the human kind, especially those born with deformities. Try to be humane and positive towards life. /



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 mark cox, xxx@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Dear Sir
I am a young off spinner with Glamorgan County Cricket Club and a huge muttiah muralitharan fan having read your study of muttiah's action a wonder if it is atall possible 4 someone such as myself to copys his action and to the same effect that he does!!!!!


Mark Cox


Answer:
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:05:56 +0800
From: Ravindra Goonetilleke
Subject: Re: your mail


Dear Mark,
It is not an easy action to copy unless your range of motion at the elbow is similar to his. If you look at some of the pictures at one of the following sites you would realize the difference:

http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi...keter_int.html
and/or
http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi...cric_pics.html

If your arm is similar to Muttaih Muralidaran's, then it may be possible to train your bowling action to be similar to his. Hope this answers your question.


Ravindra Goonetilleke



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Luise Adams, xxx@bigpond.com wrote
Subject: Murali bowling action & the laws of cricket


Congratulations on your investigations and web page! I would like to request your permission to post a copy on the noticeboard of the LaTrobe University Cricket Club(located in Melbourne, Australia). Your findings should generate much discussion amongst our members, and I will be interested to see whether your scientific approach elicits any cricketing jingoism amongst my predominantly Aussie clubmates. I have a suspicion there may be a couple of "Hairites" lurking!

Yours
William Dalrymple.


Answer:
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:43:19 +0800 (HKT)
To: Luise Adams, xxx@bigpond.com
Subject: Re: Murali bowling action & the laws of cricket



Dear William,
Thank you for your email. I take it that you are referring to printing it out and posting the material as opposed to an electronic noticeboard. That is fine as long as the printer quality is good.

Keep in mind, the video images are only meant to explain the perceptual aspects. The actual tests that were performed involved electro-goniometers and are partially described at:
http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi...et/leader.html

You may also want to refer to the following pages, if you haven't looked at them before:
http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi...cric_pics.html
and
http://www.cricketer.com/asp/feature...id=-1140899398


Ravindra Goonetilleke





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:38:24 +1000
From: Martin Berry, xxx@ea.gov.au
To: Ravindra@ust.hk
Subject: Muralitheran's action


I have just looked at the photos on the CrickInfo Website. They are all very interesting. However, I do feel that they miss the point. Frames 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the 12 frame series clearly show his arm bent from both angles. The relevant point being that if the arm is straightened immediately prior to delivery, it is illegal. Those photos demonstrate that quite clearly. It is unfortunate if Mutiah's arm is perhaps bent congenitally, but your photos do appear to show that it can be straightened immediately prior to delivery.

Martin




Answer:
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:08:33 +0800(HKT)
From: Ravindra Goonetilleke
To: Martin Berry, xxx@ea.gov.au
Subject: Re: Muralitheran's action


Hello Martin,
I think you are saying that it APPEARS he is straightening his arm in Frame 9 from the back view. But take look at the side view - it is NOT straight. The back view perception is predominantly because his body has rotated and the pictures of his arm clearly indicate it. I don't know whether you have looked at the pictures in the following site:
http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi...cric_pics.html
Take a look. This is not an action that should be evaluated with the naked eye. That is why I had him hooked up with a lot of electrical gadgetry which are described at:
http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi...et/leader.html
and
http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi...et/island.html

Hope this helps.
Ravindra Goonetilleke


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:06:07 +1000
From: Martin Berry, xxx@ea.gov.au
To: ravindra@ust.hk
Subject: Re: Muralitheran's action


Ravindra Goonetilleke
Unfortunately, I am saying more than that. At best, your argument can be that his arm never completely straightens. My point is that the angle of bend in his arm varies, from relatively bent to more straight just before he delivers the ball. Given the angle of his wrist, it is hardly possible for him to do otherwise. With the back of his wrist facing the bat, the pressure on his elbow forces it to buckle and then straighten (to whatever extent possible). I have tried to bowl with my wrist forward in the nets, and it is impossible to do so without bending my elbow. With the back of my wrist facing away from the bat, the pressure as I bowl forces the elbow joint to actually lock. That is my point.

Thank you for your quick reply. As an ageing spinner myself, I have tried most of these things . I used to bowl with the late Jim Burke, who was an outrageous chucker. He could turn the ball a yard, and his topspinner jumped alarmingly. He did bowl in test, shield and grade games ~ but it was embarrassing and he was encouraged to stand at slip.



Martin




Answer:
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:11:25 +0800 (HKT)
From: Ravindra Goonetilleke
To: Martin Berry, xxx@ea.gov.au
Subject: Re: Muralitheran's action


Dear Martin,
I was out of town and was not able answer your email any earlier. I am sure you know a lot about spin bowling. Unfortunately, you are making some harsh assumptions:


1. Unless you do not have the complete range of motion at the elbow, you will really not be able to replicate his action. I think you have realized this when you say, "... it is impossible to do so without bending my elbow." Don't forget his elbow is bent and cannot be fully straightened. What you can do with your elbow bent is what he can do under normal circumstances (in other words he does NOT have the full range of motion of approximately 0 to 150 degres at the elbow) when the arm should be straight. See the set of pictures (1) at:

http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi...cric_pics.html


2. You are trying to judge the amount of straightening base on a video. It is true that the camera was fixed. Your claim is true only if the body and arm combination is also stationary. When the body and arm move, the relative angle has changed and then we are looking at a different viewing angle and relative comparisons are no longer valid. This is very basic in motion analysis. See the set of pictures (2) at: http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi...cric_pics.html The change in the viewing angle is the primarily the reason that we tested him using electro-goniometers, which are devices that give the elbow angle at rates of 500 per second. These devices are no comparison to a video or the human eye. I don't think I need to get into ilusions and what the eye can and cannot do. Hope this helps.


Ravindra Goonetilleke





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 "OMEAGHER,Hall", xxx@dewrsb.gov.au wrote
Subject: murali


Ravindra,
It is encouraging to see an offie bowling so well on the international stage. It has generally been the case that off spinners be used in a defensive mode and 'Murali' bowls in a more attacking style with fantastic loop, spin and bounce. An offie of his type is a match winner.

Just because his action is unique it is not necessarily illegal. However, I am not totally convinced. Your web sight photos demonstrate a straightening of the arm just prior to release (between photo set 8 and photo set 9). This may well be due to an "illusion" as you have pointed out but the camera is at the same angle (from behind) and the "butt" of his hand facing forward (therefore no change of viewing angle) indicates that this is not the case.

I enjoy watching him bowl and I think it is a shame that because he is different and successful he has been the cause of so much controversy.

Anyway, I am interested in your view and I look forward to your reply.

Hall,
Canberra.


Answer:
ate: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:17:36 +0800 (HKT)
From: Ravindra Goonetilleke
To: "OMEAGHER,Hall", xxx@dewrsb.gov.au
Subject: Re: murali


Dear Hall,
Thanks for your email. I have put the photographs and the illusion to illustrate what is really happening. Beyond that it is very scientific. I had him completely instrumented with an electro-goniometer (elbow angle measuring device) to see the change of elbow angle before and at point of release. The point of release was obtained using a paper thin force sensor on the finger. The video was really a means to understand the results we obtained using the objective measure of actual elbow angle. This test revealed that there is no "straightening" as defined in the ICC laws. These results will soon appear in a Technical journal. I cannot put this information on the web page since it is copyrighted.

Regarding your comment, I believe you are referring to the side view of set 8 and set 9. Yes, you are right, there is no change in the viewing angle. However, his body has moved and the orientation of the arm is different with respective to the camera, which again causes some problem to the naked eye.

Hope this helps about the evaluation that we performed. Also you may want to check the following site for more pics if you have not already done so.
http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi...cric_pics.html


Regards

Ravindra



Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:48:26 +1000 (EST)
From: "OMEAGHER,Hall", xxx@dewrsb.gov.au
To: 'Ravindra Goonetilleke'
Subject: RE: murali


Ravindra,
Thanks for your explanation.
Hall O'Meagher.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 11:01:13 +0930
From: Tony Hughes, xxx@adelaide.edu.au
Subject: murali's action


Hi there,
My question concerns the nature of the deliveries that were analysed. My point being that if Murali bowls his stock balls, he is probably able to control his arm action and keep his elbow in a constant position. If, however, its the fifth day of a close test match, he may instead try to really rip a few in order to get wickets - its these balls that should be analysed and I would argue that this can only really be done in the heat of battle by an experienced umpire.

I think this accords roughly with Darrel Hair's view, I certainly reject the notion that Murali chucks it every time he bowls. I think that the umpire (I can't recall who it was) who called him for bowling leggies was just plain wrong!

While on the laws of cricket, the law says that the umpire is the sole judge of the fairness of the delivery, the laws say nothing about ICC panels or bio-mechanical analyses. Of course these activities will help the umpire in forming a view but at the end of the day, the umpire must be the sole judge and decisions must be made on a ball-by-ball basis (which is a very difficult thing to do).

Finally, I'd like to say that Murali is one of the most skillful players ever to play cricket, he certainly has the wood on the Aussies at the moment. I think its a pity about this controversy and would like it if they changed the law to more fully accommodate bowlers like him. I just can't imagine how the law could be structured to make it water tight on this issue.


Cheers,

Tony Hughes




Answer:
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:42:09 +0800 (HKT)
From: Ravindra Goonetilleke
To: Tony Hughes, xxx@adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: murali's action


Dear Tony,
I think we all know that what you say applies not only to Murali but any bowler in general. When I tested him, he was labelled as someone having a SUSPECT ACTION and what you are pointing to is something else. Your point applies most of all to a fast bowler whose action can involve a throw and which would go undetected by the human eye as a result of sheer speed.

What I am saying is that if you want to label a bowler or a ball as a throw, then you need more than a human eye. It may not be easy to do in the playing field but at the same time it is not difficult to do with the available technology.

Ravindra Goonetilleke




Question:
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:50:43 +0930
From: Tony Hughes, xxx@adelaide.edu.au
To: Ravindra Goonetilleke
Subject: Re: murali's action


Dear Ravi,
the Murali issue cannot be resolved through the use of biomechanics - its not a question of bio-mechanical "fact" or "fiction", its purely a matter of legal interpretation. The relevant question is not "does Murali chuck?" but its "if Murali wanted to chuck, could he?" The answer to this second question is obviously "yes", implying that the umpire still has a role to play in adjudicating whether each ball is fair or otherwise. It doesn't matter that Murali's a spinner, the same notion applies to quicks as well (Olonga, Meckiff etc.)

The other point I'll demonstrate with a hypothetical. Suppose I was a young bowler, making my way through the ranks. I find that I take a lot more wickets by chucking than by keeping the arm straight - I therefore have a clear incentive to chuck. The ICC set up a panel to investigate my action. During the investigation I keep my arm straight, bowl balls that don't take many wickets, and get cleared by the panel. I then resume my test career - no one criticises or calls me because I've been cleared.

This illustrates the notion that if the law is flexible and if exceptions are allowed, people will change their behaviour in order to exploit loopholes in the law. If this type of thing happens, the game becomes different. Cricket history is full of these types of changes, for example: Improved padding lead to batsmen protecting the stumps with their legs which lead to the LBW law. If a new chucking law is passed (there's a recodification due next year), juristiction must remain with the umpires, bio-mechanical analyses and ICC panels surely won't be mentioned.

Finally, you've said in one of the articles on the website "You cannot call a person for throwing without actual proof. Human eyes cannot conclusively condemn a man,'' You imply that the burden of proof is on the umpire, in fact the umpire only requires some doubt in order to call a bowler for chucking.

Cheers,

Tony




Answer:
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 18:54:34 +0800 (HKT)
From: Ravindra Goonetilleke
To: Tony Hughes, xxx@adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: murali's action


Dear Tony,
I think you've misunderstood what I am saying. If you remember the boxing day incident and what Daryl Hair said afterwards, it would ring a bell. Hair claimed that he could have called him for every ball he bowled. But he didn't for some reason or the other (I don't remember the exact reason he gave). It was not a specific ball that he bowled and that is what we tested - Is his action illegal? The umpire comments were not that Murali throws a certain ball but has a suspect action. As written in his book a "diabolical action", implying a problem with his action. What I have shown is that there is nothing wrong with his action. If at all, you need to blame Hair and Emerson for really starting this issue. ACB realized this and pulled out Emerson from all test class umpiring. Hair and Emerson should have been more careful with what they did. It was not an on the spot call. It was a prejudged call which makes all their calls very suspicious!

I have no problem IF the umpires can make the correct call for throwing. But, having researched the limitations of the eye for a long time, it is not feasible especially when a bowler has an unorthodox action. The chances of misses and false alarms are too great. A quantity such as the "signal-to-noise ratio" should be used to rate the umpires first. If you know enough about illusions, you would not rely too much on the human eye. In your very first email, you said that Emerson's call when Murali bowled his leg spin was completely wrong. This is a test class umpire and if this is the standarad of umpiring, then we have a very poor umpire or "inspector". Everyone knew that the call was wrong. So do you want to rely on such poor evaluations? I don't even know whether the international umpires have 20/20 vision. This process is not any different from a quality control inspector. Having manually inspected items for a long time, people are now resorting to automated inspection equipment knowing the limitations of the human eye.

No one has really evaluated the umpires with respect to throwing. I am not aware of any tests that ICC or any governing body uses to check the umpires. This is why we end up with so many false alarms with respect to throwing, especially, with a bowler like Murali who has an unorthodox action.

You say it is a matter of legal interpretation. But, how do you PROVE that it is a throw - rely on the naked eye for a judgment? Suspicion is NOT sufficient if you want to be legal about the whole issue. Even an experienced policeman cannot make a call on a speeding driver based on perception. Most of all, speed estimated with the naked eye would not stand in any court. That is why they resort to the use of radar speed guns. Throwing and umpires is no different. The umpire should use a "tool" to evaluate such issues just like a slow motion TV replays that are used in cricket and other sports.

As far as I know, the new law that will come into effect will NOT allow the umpires to make a call on the field due to limitations of the human eye.

Cheers

Ravi




Question:
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Tony Hughes wrote:
Dear Ravi,
again, you claim that the umpire must prove that the ball is thrown, this is just not true, the umpire only needs doubt as to the legality of the delivery. Your analysis helps to remove some, but not all doubt as to the legality of the delivery.

The point about the umpire only calling some deliveries and possibly pre-judging the issue must also be taken in its historical perspective. First of all, whenever someone has been called for chucking, the umpire has allowed the over in question to be completed in a reasonable number of balls. No umpire would enjoy calling a guy for throwing. The umpire knows he's going to upset alot of people, perhaps destroy someone's career, its a much bigger decision than just giving someone for a close LB or something. In this context, umpire's are unlikely to make a hasty decision about whether to call someone for throwing. Before the Boxing Day Test where Murali was called, there was significant media attention paid to Murali's action, many cricket writers were expressing doubt about it and how it had come under close scrutiny on other Sri Lankan tours. It would take an exceptional person to be unaffected by this media discussion. Even a criminal court judge will form some opinion on a murder trial on the basis of media speculation, the more important question is whether the judge is prejudiced by this media attention. If someone has risen to be a criminal court judge we would like to assume that the person is wise and strong enough to deal with the media coverage in an impartial way.

My main concern over this incident is due to the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary in terms of cricket. The executive (the ICC and the country boards) have the power to change the laws of cricket and they also have power in the appointment of umpires. The judiciary (the umpires) has the role of interpreting the law as set down by the executive. If the judiciary make interpretations of the law that are defensible but that the executive don't like, the executive can move to change the law. Provided that the interpretation is defensible, the executive should not attempt to undermine the role of the judiciary, in other words the umpires should be protected at all costs. In this case, the Sri Lankan executive have undermined the authority of the umpires and have therefore breached the notion of the separation of powers. We've had a similar problem in Australia with the Government criticising the High Court's decisions on Native Title. In my view, if the Sri Lankan cricket authorities don't like the interpretations of some umpires, then they should suggest changes to the law that will invalidate these interpretations.

Cheers,

Tony





Answer:
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 15:12:12 +0800 (HKT)
From: Ravindra Goonetilleke
To: Tony Hughes, xxx@adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: murali's action


Dear Tony,
What you are saying is what is in the laws of cricket today. That is going to change very soon since the executive body has realized the problems. You should read a superb article in the Telegraph by Christopher Martin Jenkins about the umpireless cricket game. Why do you think the TV umpire was introduced? The third umpire (or TV umpire) was introduced to adjudicate on certain aspects of the game to OVERCOME the LIMITATIONS of field umpires.

One cannot condemn a man for homicide without actual proof. If you followed the Simpson saga in the USA, you would agree. A throwing call in cricket is not any different. As you say, a call for a throw is basically the end of a career. So the umpire better be 100% sure. Yes, what is in the laws of cricket is not proof but only a doubt. This is a loophole which the ICC will fix very soon quite differently from the way you think.

In Hair's mind, it was not a particular ball that was a throw, but it was Murali's action that was suspect. No umpire has said that Murali throws a particular ball. This is why I referred to Hair's comment, "diabolical action" and not "diabolical ball". Your view may be different but we have to stick to the judiciary as you have stated in your email.

My view is that if an umpire has a doubt and makes a call, the decision has to be correct or close to correct and this requires a fair amount of understanding of the human eye, 3-dimensional motion, illusions and preferably scientific techniques. How could an umpire (or the governing authorities) be fairly sure that a call for a throw is correct? It is quite easy. Hook up a few different bowlers with biomechanical devices and ask them to bowl normally and occasionally throw the ball and see whether the respective umpire can detect a throw from a legal delivery. This would allow the umpires to be rated for throwing (depending on position) and if they are unable to make the correct call, then they should not make a call for throwing on the field. Yes, it is not a perfect system, but at least the call is based on the ability of the umpire and not on media speculation. Today, there is no provision for such in the Laws of cricket. In any case, before an umpire can make a call for throwing, the umpires vision has to be close to perfect.

I believe your statement that "First of all, whenever someone has been called for chucking, the umpire has allowed the over in question to be completed in a reasonable number of balls." is incorrect. There is provision in the ICC laws that if a bowler is unable to complete an over for whatever reason, the umpire may allow a substitute to take over (the wording may not be exact). So Hair could have acted on this rule or else could have made it known before hand to Murali or the Sri Lanka captain that he was going to call every ball that Murali bowled since in his opinion he has an illegal action and throws every ball. This would have tremendously lessened the impact of the Boxing day incident. Also, after Murali learnt that Hair was calling for throwing, he resorted to leg spin.

As laid down by the ICC laws, it is true that only a doubt is necessary. As we know, doubt for a 10 year old is not the same as doubt for a novice umpire or doubt for a 50 year old umpire. So, experience and hence age plays a role. If the umpires cannot see (those that don't have at least 20/20 vision), how could they ever make a call for a throw even when they have a pre-conceived doubt? This is what happened with Ross Emerson. He made calls for a throw for the leg spin deliveries. Can he see properly or does he know the difference between an off spin and a leg spin delivery? Having stood in international games, I would imagine that he at least knows the difference between a leg spin and an off spin delivery. What that leaves is that he cannot see in order to identify what Murali bowled. Under these circumstances, how can he ever make a call for a throw?

Regarding Hair, all his calls were when he was the main umpire. He never made a call for a throw when he was the leg umpire. Why do you think that happened? If he had a basic knowledge of 3-dimensional motion, he would never have done it. It is our eyes (or the interpretation or the processing of what is seen) that are deceptive. For a person with poor eye sight, this illusion gets worse. I have had an Australian comment on the pictures that I posted on the web page saying that the back view clearly shows that Murali is throwing. This is why I have the side view also to show that this is a total misconception. This is and was the problem - people judge 3-D motion in 2-dimensions.

In my opinion, at least two basic tests are necessary before an umpire can stand on the field: Vision test and a Hearing test (for a nick and not related to throwing). As you can see from the AFP report given below, Steve Dunn made a poor call having a TV replay in front of him. Either he could not see or else he does not understand that a ball cannot bounce up without hitting the ground (basic physics). Shepherd did neither see a deflection nor hear anything. I don't think most of the umpires have anything close to 20/20 vision and most of them have hearing impairments as a result of age, which is quite normal.

I am surprised how your arguments have changed through this exchange of emails. In one of your very first emails you said, "if the law is flexible and if exceptions are allowed, people will change their behaviour in order to exploit loopholes in the law". Now you say, "In my view, if the Sri Lankan cricket authorities don't like the interpretations of some umpires, then they should suggest changes to the law that will invalidate these interpretations". Quite contradictory!

The Sri Lankan cricket authorities have acted very wisely in bringing about change after the Murali controversy. I don't think any changes to the laws are necessary now. It is well understood that no umpire is supposed to make a call for throwing on the field - contrary to what you think. They are only supposed to report the suspicion to the match referee who will then report to the ICC where a committee will critically look in further at the action of the bowler concerned.

I "hear" what you are saying with respect to the judiciary and the executive. The problem lies with the judges (umpires) who are appointed by the respective countries. I think it is here that something needs to be done but very little can be done to avoid the senior judges of each country from being ousted before their retirement. The executive board of each country has to make sure that the umpires appointed for International games can at least see and hear very well leave aside basic scientific principles. This would never be done. So controversy rages on as can be seen below.




-----------------


"Controversial umpiring mars Pakistan's Sharjah Cup triumph


AFP - 22 October 1999


By Kuldip Lal



SHARJAH, United Arab Emirates, Oct 22 (AFP) - Two shocking umpiring decisions halted Sri Lanka in their tracks as Wasim Akram's Pakistan won the Sharjah Cup final by 88 runs here on Friday. Sri Lanka, chasing Pakistan's modest 211-9 from 50 overs, got off to a flying start as Aravinda De Silva and Romesh Kaluwitharana tore into the new ball attack to post 49-1 by the ninth over.

Both batsmen, however, fell to umpiring errors within the space of one run, triggering a collapse which saw Sri Lanka fold up for 123 in the day-night international.

Third umpire Steve Dunne of New Zealand ruled De Silva caught at first slip by Inzamam-ul Haq off Abdur Razzaq even though repeated television replays confirmed the ball had hit the ground before lodging between the fielder's knees.

Kaluwitharana was unlucky to be ruled leg-before by English umpire David Shepherd in Wasim Akram's next over as the ball deflected from the bat on to the pad.

Shepherd may not have got the benefit of replays, but Dunne's shocking decision after watching at least 10 replays from the pavilion took the shine off Pakistan's victory.

Sri Lanka's Australian coach Dav Whatmore gestured angrily outside the dressing room as De Silva walked slowly back to the pavilion ..."


------------------------

To cap this incident, a creative reader wrote to cric-info:
Sri Lanka c Dunne b Shepherd 123"

Cheers
Ravi






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 22:55:18 +1100
From: Jay A, ??@net.au
To: Ravi Goonetilleke, ravindra@ust.hk
Subject: Murali and the Australian Media


Dear Ravi,

Thank you for maintaining a web-site devoted to Muralitharan and presenting objective, scientific evidence in support of the legitimacy of his action.

Having followed the world cricket very closely over the past three decades, I would like to offer the following comments on the controversies surrounding Murali's action. Perhaps not having lived in Australia, you are not aware of certain pertinent issues; such as the parochial nature of the Australian media, the partisan commentators and how the so called cricket journalists try to manipulate the public opinion to suit their whims and fancies and to undermine the opposition teams. The media has the sole say in influencing views, opinions and creating impressions etc

1. With due respect to the Australian cricket, one must note that umpiring is definitely the weakest part in Australian cricket. (Please also refer to Peter Roebuck, Sydney Morning Herald: 1 Feb 00: "Hair must follow Shepherd....")

2. The media in Australia thrives in controversy. Usually the visiting cricket teams are the unfortunate subject of their well-orchestrated campaigns and often are helpless because their point of view is rarely presented or would not get a hearing at all.

3. The media in this country hardly gives any publicity to cricket played outside Australia, unless Australia is involved. Hence the average public is blissfully ignorant of the capabilities of players outside Australia or the quality of cricket played by other countries not involving Australia. (The Australians took lot of pride in trashing Pakistan recently in the one day series at home. Two weeks later the same Pakistan team were thrashed by Sri Lanka 3-0 in Pakistan with Pakistan having the home advantage. There was no publicity given to these matches in the media in this country)

4. When the Sri Lankan team arrived in Australia in Nov 95, they received little publicity despite having recently beaten Pakistan in Pakistan 2-1, a feat that even overshadowed the mighty Lloyd's achievement in 1980 when his team beat Pakistan 1-0. In Nov - early Dec 95, Pakistan was in Australia for a 3 match test series and as soon as they left, the media turned its attention to Muralitharan. Suddenly the media (TV, Radio and more specifically the tabloids) was replete with accounts of the legitimacy of his bowling action. The question posed was; is he bowling or chucking? There was not a single reference in defense of Murali at this stage. Suddenly the whole of Australia was looking forward to seeing whether appropriate action would be taken against some one with an illegal action.

5. There is no doubt that the media applies tremendous pressure on the hapless umpires and it would not be incorrect to say that Darrell Hair succumbed to this pressure when he decided to call Murali for throwing. The media even pre-empted the call for throwing! The way Hair called Murali for throwing (standing at the bowlers end way back from the bowling crease, which normally umpires do not do) shows that his act was perhaps pre-meditated. (Also read Chapter 1 of Darrell Hair's Autobiography: "The Decision Maker" to get his own juicy account).

Your photographs of Murali's action taken from different angles clearly illustrates that Hair has committed a grievous error in his judgement of the bowler's action when he opted to stand way back so that he gets a rear view of his bent arm which must appear straight from that angle. Consequent to Hair no-balling Murali, similar photographs were published in the "Sydney Morning Herald" and "The Australian" newspapers in NSW which explained how Murali's arm may appear straightened viewed from behind which was termed as an optical illusion in layman's term. After Hair no-balled Murali six or seven times, Murali continued to bowl from the other end at least another 15 or 20 overs watched by Hair (now from the square leg) and Steve Dunn from the bowler's end, the latter standing at the usual place that the main umpire would normally occupy. None of these deliveries appeared to be illegal in the eye of both umpires.

6. It is pertinent to note that certain sections of the media was speculating that the call for throwing would come in the first test match played at Perth a fortnight before the Boxing Day Test. However, barely in to the second day the Sri Lankans were accused of ball-tampering and it is said that it is this episode that prevented Murali being called for throwing in the first test. (Sri Lankans were exonerated from the charges consequently, but this issue raises serious doubts about the capability of match referees who appear to have different standards to different countries and different players).

7. Once Darrell Hair called Murali for throwing, it appeared that the whole issue boiled down to the pound of flesh scenario. Emerson's consequent call on Murali at Brisbane in Jan 96 was probably motivated by support to Hair. It also appeared that some umpires wanted to distance themselves from the controversy. The media and the commentators were suddenly sympathetic towards Darrell Hair for doing the right thing and paying the penalty by being isolated. It was against this background that Emerson called Murali for throwing at Brisbane in the one day international against the West Indies. It is also interesting to record that on that day during the post match interview with Tony Greig the West Indian captain Ritchie Richardson (who was facing Murali when Emerson no-balled him) maintained that the umpires have got it wrong. The fact that Emerson called Murali even when he was bowling leg breaks demonstrates that his decision to call Murali was premeditated. ( Peter Roebuck always claims that Emerson should have been stepped down after this act)

8. Bruce Yardley (who had coached Murali), a very strong advocate of the legitimacy of Murali's action, came forward to defend the spinner. However, the media and some biased commentators did not support Yardley at all. Alan Border was another observer who was sympathetic towards Murali, although at that time Border was not probably as convinced as Yardley. In Jan 99 Alan Border stated that he has no problem in accepting the legitimacy of Murali's action.

9. After the first call on 26 Dec 95, commentators like Ritchie Benaud added fuel to fire by orchestrating further bias in the media by stating that Murali should change his action implying that he believed that Murali chucked. Geoff Lawson and Dean Jones are two other personalities that appear to still cast serious doubts about Murali's action. (These two appear to be totally against the findings of the ICC throwing committee, which comprises a panel of eight or 9 experts). Are these guys not demanding for their pound of flesh?

10. Consequent to the tour of 1995-96, documentary evidence was accumulated to demonstrate that Murali's action is legitimate. The ICC intervened to come out with a most sensible step by formulating the "Throwing Committee" to look at the bowlers with suspect actions and to assess whether their actions are legitimate or otherwise. It must be noted that more eminent umpires such as Dick Bird has openly claimed that the system wherein a panel of experts would look at the bowling actions is the best way to deal with suspect actions. It is certainly superior and fair than the previous system where we had to rely on the naked eye judgement of an individual umpire to make the call in an actual match situation.

11. When ICC formulated the throwing committee, which was triggered by the Hair-Emerson fiasco, the media here regarded it as the biggest snub on the Australian umpires, notably their authority, and the "integrity". The media in this country did exceptionally well, not to give any proper coverage to the new process. Hence by and large, the average public in this country were not aware of a new process in place to deal with the bowlers with suspect actions. The media and the biased commentators continued as if they were not aware of the new Committee and its role. It is amazing how the Australian media and the biased commentators refuse to see the merits of this process , which is based on technology, and the involvement of experts.

12. When the ICC Committee concurred that Murali does not chuck this was NEVER given publicity in the media in Australia. Newspapers were replete with accounts that the ICC is inefficient and that a chucker is still allowed to play!. The media opted not to divulge any detail about the process or its findings. Biased commentators like Benaud who promote the use of technology in the game and who also promoted the theory that Murali is a chucker showed little enthusiasm in telling the Australian public about the new ICC throwing committee and its findings. When Murali took 16 wickets in that historic test against England in Sept 98, the media in Australia was more keen in giving publicity to the comments made by the England's coach David Lloyd on Murali's action, than on Murali's achievements or to the fact that his action is OK.

13. Hence when Murali came back in Dec 98, in the eye of the ignorant Australian public he was still a chucker. A very few people knew of the ICC Throwing Committee, its recommendations on Murali's action and the committee's role. The media created so much of pressure even the match referee Peter Van der Merwe made a statement to the press about Murali's action probably forgetting his role. Prior to the unfortunate match in Adelaide in 25 Jan 99 the media laid the trap by focussing attention on Emerson Vs Murali. The high handed decision that Emerson took to call Murali in spite of the fact that now there is a process to follow with respect to dealing with bowlers with doubtful action, was also probably intended to snub the ICC and its throwing committee and to convey the message that the Australian umpires could decide on the basis on what they see.

14. As a result of all this, in every ground and in every match each time Murali came to bowl, the entire spectators "no-balled" him, which I think, is a very poor reflection of the Australian public and the media. (This booing occurred even before Emerson's call, I was there in the SCG on 13 Jan 99 to witness this sad spectacle. Even the Australian School kids were booing him). One must acknowledge that this great bowler has a deformity by birth and hence should be treated with admiration for being able to participate in the game in the most dignified manner at the highest level in spite of being handicapped. I think the Australian media and the public owe an apology to this very great sportsman.

15. Emanating from all this, to me the utterly alarming and disappointing aspect is the Autobiography of Darrel Hair released around Oct- Nov 98, its timing tailor made for the media to re-ignite the controversy. It's intent, contents and the tone are unworthy of a test quality umpire who is still practicing his trade. The book is written primarily for the consumption of the ignorant Australian cricket fan. It is amazing to note that how an active umpire could completely disregard the findings of a committee comprising distinguished cricketers and go on to call that Murali's action is diabolical and still be regarded as the best umpire in the country. Even without any reference to Murali, his book is certainly a very poor piece of cricket journalism and certainly the biggest embarrassment to Australian umpiring!

16. Peter Roebuck, probably the best and the most fair cricket journalist at the current time recently wrote a typically interesting article picking his 10 personal highlights in the field of cricket in nineties. At the end of the article Roebuck has also picked three of the lowest points in the game that took place in nineties. I would like to conclude my e-mail by quoting Roebuck: "The booing of Muttiah Muralitharan: Stirred up by a campaign in the newspapers, itself a product of bone-headed work behind the scenes, the Australian spectators booed the spinner as soon as he arrived in the country. The inhospitable treatment continued throughout the tour and showed the Australians at their worst. The attempt by local umpires, cricket followers and journalists to take the high ground had little appeal" (Sydney Morning Herald, 20 Dec 99). Commenting on the famous match in which Murali was called for throwing (25 Jan 99) Roebuck concludes that "The match was a ripper but it left a sour taste, for which Australian umpires and officials were largely to blame."

Are you aware of these happenings?

Jay A (Spectator)


Answer:
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:32:29 +0800 (HKT)
From: Ravi Goonetilleke ravindra@ust.hk
To: Jay A, ???@net.au
Subject: Re: Murali and the Australian Media


Dear Jay,

Definitely not! This sounds like a gang attack on Muralitharan. Thank you for your detailed report of the situation in Australia. I would least imagine that a few could inititate and execute such an attack.

This reminds me of a great analogy: The QC (quality control) inspector of a company doing pretty well thought that he ought to be the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the company since he was inspecting quality before the world class product left the factory. To cut a long story short, the QC inspectors (some of the umpires) ought to be more qualified and familiar with the development and "manufacturing" process of the products (cricketers) before trying such a miserable take over!

Very recently, an Australian umpire (Adam Cole) wrote to me saying that he would call Murali if he was the umpire. Umpires such as these have no knowledge of science and technology. They tend to make judgments based on their naked eye, which is not even perfect and thereby putting cricketers, officials and the game in to disrepute. Thanks again.

Cheers

Ravi
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old March 17th, 2004, 07:10 AM
nayasavera
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
KahaaN gaye sab ke sab ?

Sabki bolti band ?

Ok, Pick one of the two options:

1. Murali cheats. There's no deformity. He fakes it take unfair advantage. (The opinion of Hairites)

2. He has a deformity. But just like a blind man is not allowed to drive a car, he shouldn't be allowed to bowl. (Bedi's opinion)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ball ke liye kuch bhi karega! Will do anything for ball! echarcha SoapBox 0 September 7th, 2010 10:57 PM
Can you throw like this? AmthaLal Sports 11 June 5th, 2009 08:10 AM
Murali ki shadi !! nayasavera Sports 9 March 21st, 2005 04:11 PM
Murali scores over Tendulkar Arabian Knight Sports 1 December 30th, 2003 01:14 AM
Murali 'best bowler ever' - Cricket bible Wisden Freedom_Peace Sports 3 December 13th, 2002 11:38 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Site Copyright © eCharcha.Com 2000-2012.