Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by Larry de Silv » Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:58:19


Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

By Chris Martin-Jenkins

Dave Richardson, the ICC's director of cricket operations, kept the throwing
issue on the boil on Thursday when he announced that there is to be a year
of extensive research into the actions of spin bowlers.

Speaking on Sky TV during the first day of the final Test in Colombo,
Richardson implied that Muttiah Muralitharan may not be allowed to continue
bowling his new and more vigorously spun leg break if it is found that he
straightens his arm beyond the five-degree tolerance level allowed to spin
bowlers.

"It will be similar to the kind of research we have done with fast bowlers
and then we'll be in a better position to advise umpires," Richardson said.

"The starting point is always, does that action look suspect with the ***
eye or when viewed at normal speed? When you're dealing with the *** eye,
you can't deal with degrees of straightening - you have to deal with: 'Does
it look like he bends his arm and straightens it from the horizontal to when
he lets it go?'

"Research on fast bowlers showed that with 99 percent, if not all of them,
there is an element of straightening that takes place in the action. That
was why we felt a need to introduce 'levels of tolerance', but they only
come into play when you start to scientifically analyse a player's action.
The umpire just relies on what he sees." Richardson added that it was
possible that Muralitharan or Shoaib Akhtar could be reported again if an
umpire was not satisfied.

"Muralitharan went before a bowling review group and they decided, on the
evidence that was available at that stage, that they couldn't tell whether
he was straightening his arm to any degree or not, so he was cleared for
that purpose. But that's not to say that he's cleared for ever and the day,"
Richardson said.

"What we're saying is that his action up until that point, or the action in
that match in which he was reported, was OK. The bowler is only as good as
his last delivery.

"What we are going to say to umpires is if you suspect that there might be
something wrong, report him and we'll take the procedure from there.

Then we'll bring in the scientist, the bowler will have his action analysed
and, if there is a problem, he'll be sent for rehabilitation. If there isn't
a problem, he continues.

We're saying to umpires, if you notice something and with your experience
you think it's suspect, then you have to report it."
- The Times, London.

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

So as I have always said, this stupid myth about the umpires being asked NOT
to call/report Murali was pure & utter ***y buillshit. Will those who
perpetuated this rubbish on rsc now like to apologise??

We'll wait with anticipation.....................

Laz

 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by p » Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:50:09



Quote:
> Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Have you seen this new ball Larry?

pharro

 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by Larry de Silv » Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:21:07


Quote:



> > Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

> Have you seen this new ball Larry?

> pharro

Unless he bowled it in Australia early this year or at the World Cup, I
havent as yet dude. Looks like it is a cause for concern.

Laz

 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by p » Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:13:01



Quote:





> > > Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

> > Have you seen this new ball Larry?

> > pharro

> Unless he bowled it in Australia early this year or at the World Cup, I
> havent as yet dude. Looks like it is a cause for concern.

It's intriguing that a Murali leg break is creating controversy as that was
always the ball that was safest when he was being called by the Australian
umpires. Or is the "leg break" a misnomer? Some sort of finger spun mystery
ball wrong 'un that turns toward slip rather than the more orthodox wrist
spin leg break that is virtually impossible to "chuck" perhaps.

pharro

 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by Paul Robso » Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:22:57

Quote:





>>>Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

>>Have you seen this new ball Larry?

>>pharro

> Unless he bowled it in Australia early this year or at the World Cup, I
> havent as yet dude. Looks like it is a cause for concern.

I haven't seen it before ; it is very difficult to play. Judging from
Murali's comments in the media he has been working on it in Sri Lanka'
hiatus (four months ?)
 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by Paul Robso » Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:23:33

Quote:

> It's intriguing that a Murali leg break is creating controversy as that was
> always the ball that was safest when he was being called by the Australian
> umpires. Or is the "leg break" a misnomer? Some sort of finger spun mystery
> ball wrong 'un that turns toward slip rather than the more orthodox wrist
> spin leg break that is virtually impossible to "chuck" perhaps.

It is not a leg break of the sort Murali bowled in Australia ; it is
kind of like an extended doosra.
 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by Shripathi Kamat » Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:24:12



Quote:
> Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

<snip>

Quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------

> So as I have always said, this stupid myth about the umpires being asked
NOT
> to call/report Murali was pure & utter ***y buillshit. Will those who
> perpetuated this rubbish on rsc now like to apologise??

> We'll wait with anticipation.....................

Larry, is Murali being reported like Perera?  Or is he being called like he
was before?

This looks more like Murali getting a break--if it were Lawson or Perera,
they would have been reported.  Instead the ICC is looking into 'all
spinners'.

Not that the umpires being *asked* NOT to call/report Murali was pure BS.
The Wog, Ron Knight (umpires) said so when I asked them.   They said that no
one would *ask* them.
--
Shripathi Kamath

 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by Bob Duber » Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:56:46

Quote:

> So as I have always said, this stupid myth about the
> umpires being asked NOT to call/report Murali was pure &
> utter ***y buillshit. Will those who perpetuated this
> rubbish on rsc now like to apologise??

What there was, and there was no secret about it, was an
instruction to not call ANYBODY until the reporting and
remediation process had been exhausted.
 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by alve » Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:49:20

snip

Quote:
> Or is the "leg break" a misnomer? Some sort of finger spun mystery
> ball wrong 'un that turns toward slip rather than the more orthodox wrist
> spin leg break that is virtually impossible to "chuck" perhaps.

He's been bowling this one for years now. And for almost exactly the
same length of time I've been essaying that it's impossible to deliver
this ball legally.

http://tinyurl.com/yu3ka (7 dec 00)

I'm assuming that the "new" delivery is something different to this, his
version of the dhoosra. I guess we'll see when Aust tour in Feb(?).

alvey

 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by Colin Kynoc » Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:47:19

Quote:

> Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

> By Chris Martin-Jenkins

> Dave Richardson, the ICC's director of cricket operations, kept the throwing
> issue on the boil on Thursday when he announced that there is to be a year
> of extensive research into the actions of spin bowlers.

> Speaking on Sky TV during the first day of the final Test in Colombo,
> Richardson implied that Muttiah Muralitharan may not be allowed to continue
> bowling his new and more vigorously spun leg break if it is found that he
> straightens his arm beyond the five-degree tolerance level allowed to spin
> bowlers.

> "It will be similar to the kind of research we have done with fast bowlers
> and then we'll be in a better position to advise umpires," Richardson said.

> "The starting point is always, does that action look suspect with the ***
> eye or when viewed at normal speed? When you're dealing with the *** eye,
> you can't deal with degrees of straightening - you have to deal with: 'Does
> it look like he bends his arm and straightens it from the horizontal to when
> he lets it go?'

> "Research on fast bowlers showed that with 99 percent, if not all of them,
> there is an element of straightening that takes place in the action. That
> was why we felt a need to introduce 'levels of tolerance', but they only
> come into play when you start to scientifically analyse a player's action.
> The umpire just relies on what he sees." Richardson added that it was
> possible that Muralitharan or Shoaib Akhtar could be reported again if an
> umpire was not satisfied.

> "Muralitharan went before a bowling review group and they decided, on the
> evidence that was available at that stage, that they couldn't tell whether
> he was straightening his arm to any degree or not, so he was cleared for
> that purpose. But that's not to say that he's cleared for ever and the day,"
> Richardson said.

> "What we're saying is that his action up until that point, or the action in
> that match in which he was reported, was OK. The bowler is only as good as
> his last delivery.

> "What we are going to say to umpires is if you suspect that there might be
> something wrong, report him and we'll take the procedure from there.

> Then we'll bring in the scientist, the bowler will have his action analysed
> and, if there is a problem, he'll be sent for rehabilitation. If there isn't
> a problem, he continues.

> We're saying to umpires, if you notice something and with your experience
> you think it's suspect, then you have to report it."
> - The Times, London.

> --------------------------------------------------------

> So as I have always said, this stupid myth about the umpires being asked NOT
> to call/report Murali was pure & utter ***y buillshit. Will those who
> perpetuated this rubbish on rsc now like to apologise??

Not at all.

The law was froamed specifically with Murali in mind, to make it
virtually impossible to call him.

Richards comments haven't changed that Law by one word.

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by The Wo » Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:53:26


Quote:







> > > > Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

> > > Have you seen this new ball Larry?

> > > pharro

> > Unless he bowled it in Australia early this year or at the World Cup, I
> > havent as yet dude. Looks like it is a cause for concern.

> It's intriguing that a Murali leg break is creating controversy as that
was
> always the ball that was safest when he was being called by the Australian
> umpires. Or is the "leg break" a misnomer? Some sort of finger spun
mystery
> ball wrong 'un that turns toward slip rather than the more orthodox wrist
> spin leg break that is virtually impossible to "chuck" perhaps.

It's a misnomer. It's the standard reverse wrist-spin action that he bowls
the off break out of the back of his hand pointing to the SEU, except that
he turns his forearm around more than 90 deg, points the back of his hand to
second slip and makes the ball go from the leg.

Wog

 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by Philip Felto » Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:38:44

Quote:


> > It's intriguing that a Murali leg break is creating controversy as that was
> > always the ball that was safest when he was being called by the Australian
> > umpires. Or is the "leg break" a misnomer? Some sort of finger spun mystery
> > ball wrong 'un that turns toward slip rather than the more orthodox wrist
> > spin leg break that is virtually impossible to "chuck" perhaps.

> It is not a leg break of the sort Murali bowled in Australia ; it is
> kind of like an extended doosra.

It was this ball that sparked Atherton's article, also M. himself boasted about
the delivery before the series, as commentted on here by Larry.
If I recall he said he had developed it to counter the success that the England
Left-handers had had against him.

Phil.

-- Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by Conehea » Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:23:06


Quote:

> So as I have always said, this stupid myth about the umpires being asked
NOT
> to call/report Murali was pure & utter ***y buillshit. Will those who
> perpetuated this rubbish on rsc now like to apologise??

Nice try, Larry.
Call and report are not the same thing.
Weren't the umpires asked not to call chuckers like Murali until after the
report & review process was exhausted (you know, about the time he'll be
ready to retire with a thousand ill-gotten wickets)?

Conehead

 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by Larry de Silv » Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:20:08


Quote:


> > So as I have always said, this stupid myth about the umpires being asked
> NOT
> > to call/report Murali was pure & utter ***y buillshit. Will those who
> > perpetuated this rubbish on rsc now like to apologise??

> Nice try, Larry.
> Call and report are not the same thing.
> Weren't the umpires asked not to call chuckers like Murali until after the
> report & review process was exhausted (you know, about the time he'll be
> ready to retire with a thousand ill-gotten wickets)?

For the ump***th time, I request that you provide concrete EVIDENCE for
this so called directive freom the ICC. POST IT or SHUT UP!

As usual, this request will fall on deaf ears because we all know that there
was no such ICC directive and this is just the usual rsc bullshit myth
making to further victimise and redicule Murali because most of you hate his
guts.

Laz

Quote:

> Conehead

 
 
 

Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

Post by Larry de Silv » Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:25:41


Quote:


> > Murali's 'new ball' draws ICC attention on throwing

> > By Chris Martin-Jenkins

> > Dave Richardson, the ICC's director of cricket operations, kept the
throwing
> > issue on the boil on Thursday when he announced that there is to be a
year
> > of extensive research into the actions of spin bowlers.

> > Speaking on Sky TV during the first day of the final Test in Colombo,
> > Richardson implied that Muttiah Muralitharan may not be allowed to
continue
> > bowling his new and more vigorously spun leg break if it is found that
he
> > straightens his arm beyond the five-degree tolerance level allowed to
spin
> > bowlers.

> > "It will be similar to the kind of research we have done with fast
bowlers
> > and then we'll be in a better position to advise umpires," Richardson
said.

> > "The starting point is always, does that action look suspect with the
***
> > eye or when viewed at normal speed? When you're dealing with the ***
eye,
> > you can't deal with degrees of straightening - you have to deal with:
'Does
> > it look like he bends his arm and straightens it from the horizontal to
when
> > he lets it go?'

> > "Research on fast bowlers showed that with 99 percent, if not all of
them,
> > there is an element of straightening that takes place in the action.
That
> > was why we felt a need to introduce 'levels of tolerance', but they only
> > come into play when you start to scientifically analyse a player's
action.
> > The umpire just relies on what he sees." Richardson added that it was
> > possible that Muralitharan or Shoaib Akhtar could be reported again if
an
> > umpire was not satisfied.

> > "Muralitharan went before a bowling review group and they decided, on
the
> > evidence that was available at that stage, that they couldn't tell
whether
> > he was straightening his arm to any degree or not, so he was cleared for
> > that purpose. But that's not to say that he's cleared for ever and the
day,"
> > Richardson said.

> > "What we're saying is that his action up until that point, or the action
in
> > that match in which he was reported, was OK. The bowler is only as good
as
> > his last delivery.

> > "What we are going to say to umpires is if you suspect that there might
be
> > something wrong, report him and we'll take the procedure from there.

> > Then we'll bring in the scientist, the bowler will have his action
analysed
> > and, if there is a problem, he'll be sent for rehabilitation. If there
isn't
> > a problem, he continues.

> > We're saying to umpires, if you notice something and with your
experience
> > you think it's suspect, then you have to report it."
> > - The Times, London.

> > --------------------------------------------------------

> > So as I have always said, this stupid myth about the umpires being asked
NOT
> > to call/report Murali was pure & utter ***y buillshit. Will those who
> > perpetuated this rubbish on rsc now like to apologise??

> Not at all.

Nice dodge here LC.........

Quote:
> The law was froamed specifically with Murali in mind, to make it
> virtually impossible to call him.

Not talking about the law at all, LC. Talking about this supposed directive
given to the umpires from the ICC NOT to call or report Murali. I have asked
for evidence time and time on rsc again but not surprisingly, no evidence so
far..............

Quote:
> Richards comments haven't changed that Law by one word.

No but it has truly demolished the stupid ***y myth that the umpires had
been instructed by the ICC previously not to call/report Murali. In fact it
wouldn't surprise me at all now to see Murali reported or called in the near
future, probably when SL plays in Australia in a few months.

Laz

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Colin Kynoch