Scoop! The MURALI REPORT !

[Richard Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Oliver

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.

And I was only warming up!!
Only kidding.
Where are proud aussie and RBLC, Was it handbags at dawn?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

Where are proud aussie and RBLC, Was it handbags at dawn?

It was on the BBC site...Proud Aussie was laying into overweight cricketers or "overweight crciketers" as he had it, I think.
And RBLC was trying to see how irate he could be in response before he was banned from posting.

When I left last night he still hadn't been banned, though I think he'd had one or two posts removed.

Quickly looking at the thread now...I would say that Richie has probably been banned, though I guess it may not be so...but there's only one message from him on that thread...and certainly one of Proud Aussies has been removed.

I thought it looked like an excellent way to spend a jolly hour.

[Richard Jenkins]

I've just read some of this, sounds highly hilarious. what fun!!

[Occasional Fan]

I agree that the 5 degrees rule is arbitrary. There are only two options which would not be: 0 degrees or to allow throwing. I do not see any reason to allow throwing or to move away from the requirement of the Laws, which is 0 degrees of straightening (something which at least everyone can understand and an umpire can make a ruling on instantaneously).

As to this issue of whether Murali cheats, well, the verb "to cheat" obviously carries a lot of negative connotations. I may have used it before as a shorthand, and if so I should be more careful. I don't want to besmirch the chap's character. However, it seems to me, based on all that I have read, that with his particular physical deformity, Murali simply is not able to bowl within the Laws of the game. That isn't anyone's fault, and it's a crying shame for someone who obviously wants to play. However, it's a fact of his life. I know a chap who is wheelchair bound who would love to play football for Manchester United - but they won't select him. I am not sure why Sri Lanka is allowed continually to use a disabled bowler who cannot, for an unfortunate but uncorrectable reason, bowl legally.

[Mark Kidger]

Fact 1.) Muralitharan is breaking the rules on throwing as currently defined.

Fact 2.) He is not cheating, because cheating implies that it is deliberate and conscious.

Fact 3.) The current 5º figure came from studies that show that almost all bowlers bend their arm to some degree and was put there in good faith to allow some leeway within the law. For quick bowlers the permissible figure is 10º (a 10º angle is quite a large and I would argue visible one).

Do we change the laws to allow someone with a physical disability to compete? And if so, by how much? And if we do, what is to stop people cheating and using the new rule to their advantage?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Richard Jenkins

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.

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.

Stupid rules deserve to go and 5° is (until shown by scientific inqury )an arbitary figure plucked out the air.
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.

One last thing on this point Richard.
The rules have already been changed since they first started looking "more scientifically" at Muralitharan.
With regard to Occasional Fan and anybody else with comments on this thread...
The rule used to be "straight arm" then the ICC plucked an arbitrary figure out of the air and suggested that 5° would be better.
Maybe in a few years time Bangladesh will have an untouchable sort of an off-spin type wallah who can only bowl within 25°.
Of course by then Bangladesh will need a fantastic bowler to enable them to compete with the other Test nations.
Do you suppose the ICC will change the law to allow him?

Now I'm just being ridiculous. Or am I?

[Occasional Fan]

You're not being ridiculous at all, Oliver. I am with you, I think. The Law is there and is workable. As soon as you start to introduce areas of acceptable infringement, you are in a minefield AND on a slippery slope. (And how's that for mixed metaphors? The point I am making is that it is dangerous to go that way.)

[Richard Jenkins]

Well guys, I've really thought logically about this and

1. if Muralitheran bowls with 14° of flex for the doorsa,(and the boffins say he does) that's breaking the laws of cricket as they stand.
2. You can't realistically make exceptions for players because of physical deformities, however much you'd like to.
3. If 5° has been scientifically decided upon then it should be applied.

I threw my toys out of my pram cos of the 'cheating' connotations that could go with chucking allegations.

I've just read that one of the scientists who looked at Muri Dr Bruce Yardley has gone on record saying how much he loves Muri, so perhaps the science could be questioned.

The ICC need to sort this out , and every cricket board will need to enforce the decision.