| | |
| | |
| Welcome to the World-A-Team Cricket Forum. We promote friendly, good-natured, quality cricket discussion. |
| |||||||
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-02-2005, 02:22 PM
in reply to Occasional Fan's post starting "Hondo and Ern: Please don't get me..." | |||
| |||
| Occasional Fan, I don't think you are trying to start an argument. It's finally good to see we can dicuss such things with out having start abusing each other.  You say that Murali is one of the bowlers that flex more 15 degrees, well that's not the case. He has been able to bowl the doosra sucessfully with less that 15 degrees. |
| |||
| No, you're right, Hondo - I didn't mean argument as "conflict", more argument as "line of reasoning". Of course, if Murali can bowl anything within the 15 degree tolerance, he won't be called for throwing - but he wouldn't have been anyway, as no flex would have been visible. You say that he has bowled his doosra within the tolerance, and I'm quite prepared to believe that he has done that in the laboratory. It's no guarantee that he will always be within the tolerance, though, any more than it would be reasonable to say that anyone else is always within the rule. I'm not sure how this new regulation will be operated, but I am sure that there will not be an automatic end to controversy as a result of its introduction, for Murali or anyone else who is called or referred in the future.
__________________ Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy. Spike Milligan |
|
06-02-2005, 09:51 PM
in reply to Occasional Fan's post starting "No, you're right, Hondo - I didn't mean..." | |||
| |||
| From what I read on the articles, the umpires should be able to clearly see if the arm is flexing more than 15 degrees with the naked eye, and that is the reasoning for coming up with that number. Don't forget, it's Murali's Doosra that has been under conterversy, all his other deliveries are fine. If he does flex his arm more than the tolerence level the umpires should be able to pick it up. This goes to all other bowleres as well. |
| |||
| That's exactly right. Murali is unfortunate with this deformity in his arm - I have to confess that, to me, his action just looks horrible, but it could all be an optical illusion, and certainly I wouldn't want to be the umpire charged with watching for throws by any bowler. Hopefully we can all move on now and get on with the cricket!
__________________ Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy. Spike Milligan |
| |||
| Firtly, if they discover that Murali in fact bends his arm 17 degrees, will they then change the law (again)to allow bowlers to bowl 17 degrees. Secondly, seeing Murali,s doosra was illegal under the current laws, how many wickets did he get with that delivery and why are they not stripping him of those test wickets. They were not legal at the time he took them
__________________ |
|
07-02-2005, 01:44 PM
in reply to Seamer's post starting "Firtly, if they discover that Murali in..." | |||
| |||
| As to the first one, Seamer, I doubt they would do that. The authorities have had plenty of time to consider the way they wanted to draft this regulation, and they have taken some flak from various quarters about "changing the regulations to accommodate one man". They won't want to do it again - at least not for as long as Murali is still operational. As to the second, of course they won't strip him of these wickets. It would make no more sense than refusing to credit a bowler with an lbw wicket where Hawkeye showed the umpire's decision to have been questionable. If the umpire on the day did not see fit to call no ball against Murali, then the ball was good and the wicket also.
__________________ Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy. Spike Milligan |
|
08-02-2005, 12:33 AM
in reply to Seamer's post starting "Firtly, if they discover that Murali in..." | |||
| |||
| Quote:
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
