Scoop! The MURALI REPORT !

[cantplaycantalk]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Wow! One thing's for sure: you get a full report in The Hindu! I'm afraid, though, I don't understand all this stuff. How is an umpire ever meant to determine whether a bowler's arm straightens by more or less than five or ten degrees? It's just unworkable, isn't it? Everyone knows what a straight arm looks like (although Murali has never seen one in the mirror), but all this work on the question of "how bent is bent" seems strange to me. Nothing can convince me that Murali is not a habitual chucker, I'm afraid. I feel sorry for the guy having a congenital defect in his arm, but if he's got one and it makes it impossible for him to be a bowler, well maybe he shouldn't be bowling.

I also have a congenital defect which makes it difficult for me to play cricket (No Talent) does that make it OK for me to chuck as well?

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by cantplaycantalk

I also have a congenital defect which makes it difficult for me to play cricket (No Talent) does that make it OK for me to chuck as well?

Absolutely. You can be like me. I could bowl off spin as a variation on my normal medium pace, but occasionally I would bend my arm and throw in a leg-spinner or a top-spinner.

[James M]

If I chucked I still wouldnt get a Test wicket

[Mark Kidger]

Sad fact of life, James, old boy, is that probably none of us on this board would even be able to bowl Harmison out on a Durham greentop. It's a darn sight easier to criticise players than it is to do as well as them. Someone like Ashley Giles would probably open the bowling in most village sides and be regarded as an unplayable hairy quick! I know that in my 3 seasons or so of playing cricket at my low level I bowled one, possibly two deliveries that would have had a real chance of getting a wicket in a first class match - mind you, they were both beauties!

[Richard Jenkins]

I'm very dissapointed in the 'chucker 'allegations made by various people. Nowhere in the article does it state that muri chucks the ball; Indeed it states that muri has a natural hyper tension of the elbow of 35 degrees at rest.
"The Bowling Report highlights the fact that the "anthropometry assessment clearly shows that Mr. Muralitharan has a natural 35 degrees of elbow flexion during standing, which during the delivery action (under load) reduces to a value of approximately 24 degrees. Therefore any biomechanical assessment of his bowling action must take this 24-degree angle into account"

If I came on here and started to make accusations about certain cricketers being cheats there would rightly be uproar and I'd get modded. Yet some people feel able to be judge jury and executuioner on this matter, which is unhelpful for the bowler and unhelpful for the game.
the report states

"In conclusion, Murali, who has been tested more than any other bowler in the history of the game - 1995, 1999 and now, possesses different physical characteristics which make him a unique bowler. The results from these tests suggest that a straightening of 10 degrees when he bowls his `doosra' is not excessive and that should not therefore be deemed advantageous.""

Blind people play cricket with a football with a bell in it and nobody questions there disability. Sport should be for all, not just those of us who are able to bost a "normal" body ( whatever that is.)

If his deformity gives him an advantage , (and I don't think that this has been conclusively proven as yet,) then it needs to be investigated, sure.
But You cannot start making crazy allegations about chucking. The sport needs to bench mark all the other spinners first to really understand what is a reasonable limit of flex, and move from there; it may well be that five degrees , an arbitary figure,(I'm not sure how this figure was determined but I'll bet it wasn't as a result of any extensive scientific investigation) is broken by a lot of bowlers.

it's not up to you or me to determine who is or isn't cheating, its a matter for the ICC and only after a full, clear and proper investigation.

[Mark Kidger]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

it's not up to you or me to determine who is or isn't cheating, its a matter for the ICC and only after a full, clear and proper investigation.

Richard, this is true. However, the ICC takes a slightly different line on this issue. It states that there should be a maximum 5º degree of flexure of the elbow at delivery. The report measures Muralitharan's flexure as 14º. That excedes the ICC recommendation by a factor of 3. End of story. That is the rules, as defined by the ICC. The ICC Technical Committee has recommended that he should not bowl the doosra. No I don't know what that means in ICC-speak, but one has to suspect that they would not recommend him stopping using a delivery that is perfectly legal.

The ICC has already modified the rules to allow hyperextension, mild degrees of straightening, and wrist flexure - this last was specifically included to cover Muralitharan's case. The Technical Committee may decide to relax the rules still further but, if they do, the whole law on throwing will become unworkable - many would argue that it is already - as no umpire or match referee has the capacity to use a clinometer to measure the degree of flexure in delivery... that can only be done in a specialist laboratory. You'll also have the somewhat ridiculous situation of players with no physical deformity being allowed to take advantage of the special rules put in place.

Now you have mentioned the case of disabled sport. This is a very interesting one. Now we all know the rules of blind cricket. They use a special, large ball with a bell in it and catches are permitted on the bounce according to whether you are partially sighted (one bounce) or totally blind (two). However, if a blind player plays in a game with a sighted player we do not apply the blind rules. There is also the case of that American middle-distance runner - Martha Runyan, I think her name is. She is nearly blind and completes in disabled games in the events for blind people where you are allowed a guide. She is though, an extraordinary runner, and qualified for the 2000 Olympics, running against sighted runners in the American trials. Now, on the track she has special difficulties because she can't really see where she is going and where she is in relation to other runners and has to rely on sound and very limited vision to avoid accidents. Despite the fact that she is at an enormous disadvantage, nobody suggested changing the rules to allow her to run with a guide in the Olympics - she had to cope with the rules for athletes without her disability and it could well have cost her a medal chance

Sport for all, yes, but in disabled sport, athletes compete against those with similar disabilities (and look at the scandal that erupted when it was discovered that certain countries, including one where I reside, were introducing competitors with no disability, or doubtful disability into teams to boost their medal haul). One agrees to abide by the rules and although one adapts the rules as best as possible, there has to be a limit whereby they can't adapt much more.

If one allows someone with a deformity to break the rules, you risk losing control of the sport. Not everyone agrees that Muralitharan gets no advantage, but if you change the rules to allow him to bowl in a special way, how are you going to stop other bowlers doing it? Are we to take a complete testing laboratory to each ground and wire up players during the games so that the umpires and match referees can see who is within the laws of the game? If matches get played out in the laboratory days and weeks later the whole thing is getting ridiculous. Are we going to here that Darryl Hare, on getting the results of the tests, has decided to call a "no ball" for that doosra that got a well-set Zimbabwean and that the ICC will now adjust of the match the result accordingly and estimates that it would have been a narrow defeat for Sri Lanka?

Just to add a rider to the above. I am sorry if my tongue in cheek views have offended you in this issue. I now that personally, when I was bowling leg spin in the nets, that I would bend my arm - I could feel it move, even though I did get people to watch me from square leg and they said that I was okay. Nowhere will you find that I am calling Muralitharan a cheat. My frustration is with the rules and special treatment to those unable to play within them.

[Richard Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark Kidger

Richard, this is true. However, the ICC takes a slightly different line on this issue. It states that there should be a maximum 5º degree of flexure of the elbow at delivery. The report measures Muralitharan's flexure as 14º. That excedes the ICC recommendation by a factor of 3. End of story. That is the rules, as defined by the ICC. The ICC Technical Committee has recommended that he should not bowl the doosra. No I don't know what that means in ICC-speak, but one has to suspect that they would not recommend him stopping using a delivery that is perfectly legal.

The ICC has already modified the rules to allow hyperextension, mild degrees of straightening, and wrist flexure - this last was specifically included to cover Muralitharan's case. The Technical Committee may decide to relax the rules still further but, if the do, the whole law on throwing will become unworkable - many would argue that it is already - as no umpire or match referee has the capacity to use a clinometer to measure the degree of flexure in delivery... that can only be done in a specialist laboratory. You'll also have the somewhat ridiculous situation of players with no physical deformity being allowed to take advantage of the special rules put in place.

Now you have mentioned the case of disabled sport. This is a very interesting one. Now we all know the rules of blind cricket. They use a special, large ball with a bell in it and catches are permitted on the bounce according to whether you are partially sighted (one bounce) or totally blind (two). However, if a blind player plays in a game with a sighted player we do not apply the blind rules. There is also the case of that American middle-distance runner - Runyan, I think her name is. She is nearly blind and completes in disabled games in the events for blind people where you are allowed a guide. She is though, an extraordinary runner, and qualified for the 2000 Olympics, running against sighted runners in the American trials. Now, on the track she has special difficulties because she can't really see where she is going and where she is in relation to other runners and has to rely on sound and very limited vision to avoid accidents. Despite the fact that she is at an enormous disadvantage, nobody suggested changing the rules to allow her to run with a guide in the Olympics - she had to cope with the rules for athletes without her disability and it could well have cost her a medal chance

Sport for all, yes, but in disabled sport, athletes compete against those with similar disabilities (and look at the scandal that erupted when it was discovered that certain countries, including one where I reside, were introducing competitors with no disability, or doubtful disability into teams to boost their medal haul). One agrees to abide by the rules and although one adapts the rules as best as possible, there has to be a limit whereby they can't adapt much more.

If one allows someone with a deformity to break the rules, you risk losing control of the sport. Not everyone agrees that Muralitharan gets no advantage, but if you change the rules to allow him to bowl in a special way, how are you going to stop other bowlers doing it? Are we to take a complete testing laboratory to each ground and wire up players during the games so that the umpires and match referees can see who is within the laws of the game? If matches get played out in the laboratory days and weeks later the whole thing is getting ridiculous. Are we going to here that Darryl Hare, on getting the results of the tests, has decided to call a "no ball" for that doosra that got a well-set Zimbabwean and that the ICC will now adjust of the match the result accordingly and estimates that it would have been a narrow defeat for Sri Lanka?

Where does this 5° figure come from and how was it obtained?

my Point was blind players play in blind teams, disabled players play in disabled teams; You mention a brave athelete who wishes to try her skills agianst able bodied athletes. No one tries to stop her; indeed I personnally would applaud this effort.
Yet when this happens in cricket, there's a hullabaloo beyond belief and cries of 'cheat'. I don't see that the rules are being changed for Muralitheran ,just an enormous pickle that the ICC are in because they decided on five degrees, and the umpire called a throw (his opinion is all that counts in the middle) before they researched how much flex happens naturally.
Other rules have changed in cricket, after "bodyline" the rules were changed and nobody said it was to help bradman, and the LBW law has changed, But nobody said that was to help Shane Warne get more wickets did they?


If i had double musculation and this gave me extra speed, would i still be able to run over the distance? of course i would. You wouldn't make me were lead shoes .

Fact 1 Muralitheran has a deformed arm.

The icc need to decide

1. What is a scientific figure for arm flexing by testing a sample of fast and slow bowlers and finding a stastically relevant figure, and to train umpires to know what is beyond that figure.
2. Encourage umpires to call throw if they think it is a throw and to back them to discourage bandwaggoners
3. Take control of the sport instead of petty squabbling amongst themselves.
4. Ban throwers immediately the umpire calls it; said player can be studied and the matter dealt with by the icc. Not by the press .or me or you.

the report concludes
"In conclusion, Murali, who has been tested more than any other bowler in the history of the game - 1995, 1999 and now, possesses different physical characteristics which make him a unique bowler. The results from these tests suggest that a straightening of 10 degrees when he bowls his `doosra' is not excessive and that should not therefore be deemed advantageous."

So why did the ICC ban the doosra? The experts ( lets face it they know more about this than any one else in the world)
say 'no advantage'
They wouldn't say this unless they really thought there was a reason to do so, would they?

As for cheating, its a personal thing but as the level of cricket goes up so do the financial incentives and hence the temtation to cheat; We'd never cheat on a cricket ground, our team mates might possibly find it funny once, but they'd take a very dim view of it if we continued afterwards.
I guess we all cheat, and we all pretend not to, it's part of the 'must have it now society'

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

You mention a brave athelete who wishes to try her skills agianst able bodied athletes. No one tries to stop her; indeed I personnally would applaud this effort.

Yet when this happens in cricket, there's a hullabaloo beyond belief and cries of 'cheat'. I don't see that the rules are being changed for Muralitheran ,just an enormous pickle that the ICC are in because they decided on five degrees, and the umpire called a throw (his opinion is all that counts in the middle) before they researched how much flex happens naturally.
Other rules have changed in cricket, after "bodyline" the rules were changed and nobody said it was to help bradman, and the LBW law has changed, But nobody said that was to help Shane Warne get more wickets did they?

If i had double musculation and this gave me extra speed, would i still be able to run over the distance? of course i would. You wouldn't make me were lead shoes .

Fact 1 Muralitheran has a deformed arm.

The icc need to decide

1. What is a scientific figure for arm flexing by testing a sample of fast and slow bowlers and finding a stastically relevant figure, and to train umpires to know what is beyond that figure.
2. Encourage umpires to call throw if they think it is a throw and to back them to discourage bandwaggoners
3. Take control of the sport instead of petty squabbling amongst themselves.
4. Ban throwers immediately the umpire calls it; said player can be studied and the matter dealt with by the icc. Not by the press .or me or you.

the report concludes
"In conclusion, Murali, who has been tested more than any other bowler in the history of the game - 1995, 1999 and now, possesses different physical characteristics which make him a unique bowler. The results from these tests suggest that a straightening of 10 degrees when he bowls his `doosra' is not excessive and that should not therefore be deemed advantageous."

So why did the ICC ban the doosra? The experts ( lets face it they know more about this than any one else in the world)
say 'no advantage'

This is an incredibly irritating argument...and not very well thought out by you.
By the "brave athlete who wishes to try her skills agianst able bodied athletes. No one tries to stop her; indeed I personnally would applaud this effort" I imagine you are talking about the South African swimmer who lost the lower part of one of her legs, yet still believes she is (or will be) quick enough to compete at the Olympics. The aren't changing the rules of swimming to allow her to compete. Though there might be a bit of an outcry if some of those with fewer than the average amount of legs with their spring loaded articulated knee joints were allowed to take part in the sprint or jumping events.

The ICC according to all arguments have decided that because Muralitharan has a deformed elbow the degree of straightening that he requires to bowl his "doosra" is not advantageous.

If that is not a changing of the rules to enable someone, who is beyond them, to play. Then I don't know what is.

I'm just trying to draw the right analogy to get my point across here...the boxer who has a sledgehammer for a fist, but doesn't possess the wherewithall to throw it...
No, that won't do.

The triple jumper with three legs... no that won't do.

The robotic formula one driver...no that won't do. They all are.

The suggestion is that because Murali cannot straighten his arm...the fact that he straightens it outside the guideline rules that the ICC use to govern what is or isn't a throw...he gains no advantage.

Now let's look through the history of Test cricket in the sheer effectiveness of off-spin bowlers through almost 300 years.

Now let's see how many of those 520-ish victims believe the bowler had no more advantage than say...Robert Croft...John Emburey, Peter Such, Tony Lock, Jim Laker, Srinivas Venkataraghavan, etc.

What the ICC is saying is everybody must bowl with a straight arm within a few degrees, except Murali who is deformed so it doesn't matter. That is changing the rules to allow somebody to play.

And that isn't right.

[Richard Jenkins]

Read it again Oliver.
I'm challenging the rule of 5°
I'm saying lots of bowlers bowl over 5° and they don't get called.
I'm saying that athletes who excell concievably do so due to Genetic and environmental influences. We could argue which has most inflence all day.

I was talking about the blind althelete Mark refered to.

The rules of most gmes evolve and change over time. The ICC need to be clear why they feel the need to change the rule and back it up with scientific evidence.
If the ICC follow the suggestions I make, the row will die down.


Of course breaking the rules of any sport isn't a good thing.
But I seem to remember a certain William Webb Ellis doing exactly that!
Stupid rules deserve to go and 5° is (until shown by scientific inqury )an arbitary figure plucked out the air.
So far he ICC have properly investigated Muri after being called for throwing and found him to have 14° of bend (3 times the limit). He probably shouldn't play under the current rules until he has rectified his bowling (if this is possible and the article hints that it isn't.)
Being deformed doesn't automatically make him a cheat.
But they( the ICC) haven't investigated a stastistically relevant sample to know if this 14° is really out side the 'norms'
And then they can make a reasoned decision on what could be an allowable amount.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

Read it again Oliver.
Of course breaking the rules of any sport isn't a good thing.
But I seem to remember a certain William Webb Ellis doing exactly that!
Stupid rules deserve to go and 5° is (until shown by scientific inqury )an arbitary figure plucked out the air.

OK I shall draw back from the edge of a RBLC/Proud Aussie type discussion...I didn't read the entire thread, I leapt on a point.

And I'm leaping on another one here...

Don't bring William Webb Ellis into this argument. He will hurt your point of view.

You probably know the history...Ellis was playing Association Football (they probably didn't call it that then) he didn't like the game - one must assume - so to upset everybody around he picked up the ball and ran with it.

He changed the rules and a new game was born.

I wonder how it was that the English came to invent Baseball.