MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

Post by higg » Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:54:21



Quote:






> >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>> Just thought I'd get that in before Muralicheat starts chucking out
> >>>>>> the Black Craps (TM).
> >>>>> Ah.
> >>>>> The rational, well thought out, well argued and irrefutable PoV of the
> >>>>> anti-Murali brigade
> >>>> Makes more sense than most of the shite the Murali arselicking brigade
> >>>> come up with.
> >>>> CDK
> >>> To me it comes across as as nothing more than a childish taunt from a
> >>> bigot and a fool, devoid of any intellectual value.
> >>> Perhaps that's what similar-minded people appreciate in it
> >> Tell me paul, didn't the last test that Murali took at the UWA show his
> >> action to be illegal?

> > Not to my knowledge.

> > I know Bruce Elliott (of UWA) raised concerns about the doosra in
> > 2004, but when Murali was tested again in 2006 (at UWA), he was found
> > to be within legal limits.
> > To quote Elliott (from Cricinfo):

> > 'There's nothing more he could do," said Bruce Elliot, a UWA
> > scientist. "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
> > bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
> > degrees, so none were illegal." He said Muralitharan was bowling
> > faster because of a shoulder surgery he underwent in 2004.'

> > Note the comment "so none were illegal".

> > Has he been tested since 2006?
> > I'm sure you'd know, because you keep a close eye on this sort of
> > thing, but certainly in 2006, he was fine.

> Except that at the time of the tests, the Murali alteration had not yet
> been made to the ICC plaing conditions and the legal limit for a spinner
> was 5 degrees.

> And he barely scraped under the 15 degrees with straightening in the
> high 14 degrees for his chuckra

> CDK- -

So we ARE talking about the 2006 tests?

I'm assuming you put some faith in these UWA tests?
If not, you could have a look at similar tests on bowling done at
Imperial College London, or the Universities of Waikato and Auckland.
Or view the ICC website.

Bruce Elliott said, and I quote again

"The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
degrees, so none were illegal."

My understanding was that tests carried out at the 2004 Champions
Trophy uncovered the extent of 'throws' by almost all bowlers
(including McGrath) under the old tolerances (five degrees for
spinners, 7.5 for medium pacers and 10 for pacemen), led to a blanket
extension of 15 degrees for all bowlers. I thought this came into
effect on 1st March 2005.

To quote from the ICC Annual Report (04/05) p.34:

"New illegal deliveries process:
The contentious and emotive subject of
dealing with suspect bowling actions in
international cricket was addressed by the ICC
with the introduction of a revised and
streamlined process that came into effect on
1 March 2005...........
2. All bowlers are permitted to straighten
their bowling arm up to 15 degrees, which
has been established as the point at which
any straightening will become visible to
the *** eye."

Therefore, the 2006 tests that Murali underwent found all his
deliveries to be legal, including the doosra.

Higgs

 
 
 

MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

Post by Jellor » Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:17:47


Quote:
> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

> Just thought I'd get that in before Muralicheat starts chucking out
> the Black Craps (TM).

Well well....3 for 66 with an economy rate of 1.78. Not bad for a
chucker what?

 
 
 

MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

Post by higg » Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:16:32


Quote:







> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> Just thought I'd get that in before Muralicheat starts chucking out
> > >>>>>> the Black Craps (TM).
> > >>>>> Ah.
> > >>>>> The rational, well thought out, well argued and irrefutable PoV of the
> > >>>>> anti-Murali brigade
> > >>>> Makes more sense than most of the shite the Murali arselicking brigade
> > >>>> come up with.
> > >>>> CDK
> > >>> To me it comes across as as nothing more than a childish taunt from a
> > >>> bigot and a fool, devoid of any intellectual value.
> > >>> Perhaps that's what similar-minded people appreciate in it
> > >> Tell me paul, didn't the last test that Murali took at the UWA show his
> > >> action to be illegal?

> > > Not to my knowledge.

> > > I know Bruce Elliott (of UWA) raised concerns about the doosra in
> > > 2004, but when Murali was tested again in 2006 (at UWA), he was found
> > > to be within legal limits.
> > > To quote Elliott (from Cricinfo):

> > > 'There's nothing more he could do," said Bruce Elliot, a UWA
> > > scientist. "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
> > > bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
> > > degrees, so none were illegal." He said Muralitharan was bowling
> > > faster because of a shoulder surgery he underwent in 2004.'

> > > Note the comment "so none were illegal".

> > > Has he been tested since 2006?
> > > I'm sure you'd know, because you keep a close eye on this sort of
> > > thing, but certainly in 2006, he was fine.

> > Except that at the time of the tests, the Murali alteration had not yet
> > been made to the ICC plaing conditions and the legal limit for a spinner
> > was 5 degrees.

> > And he barely scraped under the 15 degrees with straightening in the
> > high 14 degrees for his chuckra

> > CDK- -

> So we ARE talking about the 2006 tests?

> I'm assuming you put some faith in these UWA tests?
> If not, you could have a look at similar tests on bowling done at
> Imperial College London, or the Universities of Waikato and Auckland.
> Or view the ICC website.

> Bruce Elliott said, and I quote again

> "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
> bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
> degrees, so none were illegal."

> My understanding was that tests carried out at the 2004 Champions
> Trophy uncovered the extent of 'throws' by almost all bowlers
> (including McGrath) under the old tolerances (five degrees for
> spinners, 7.5 for medium pacers and 10 for pacemen), led to a blanket
> extension of 15 degrees for all bowlers. I thought this came into
> effect on 1st March 2005.

> To quote from the ICC Annual Report (04/05) p.34:

> "New illegal deliveries process:
> The contentious and emotive subject of
> dealing with suspect bowling actions in
> international cricket was addressed by the ICC
> with the introduction of a revised and
> streamlined process that came into effect on
> 1 March 2005...........
> 2. All bowlers are permitted to straighten
> their bowling arm up to 15 degrees, which
> has been established as the point at which
> any straightening will become visible to
> the *** eye."

> Therefore, the 2006 tests that Murali underwent found all his
> deliveries to be legal, including the doosra.

> Higgs-

Any comment on this yet, Col?

You've had more time to think fabricate an answer than an australian
sports administrator

Higgs

 
 
 

MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

Post by Dipak Jone » Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:40:03


Quote:








> > > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > > >>>>>> Just thought I'd get that in before Muralicheat starts chucking out
> > > >>>>>> the Black Craps (TM).
> > > >>>>> Ah.
> > > >>>>> The rational, well thought out, well argued and irrefutable PoV of the
> > > >>>>> anti-Murali brigade
> > > >>>> Makes more sense than most of the shite the Murali arselicking brigade
> > > >>>> come up with.
> > > >>>> CDK
> > > >>> To me it comes across as as nothing more than a childish taunt from a
> > > >>> bigot and a fool, devoid of any intellectual value.
> > > >>> Perhaps that's what similar-minded people appreciate in it
> > > >> Tell me paul, didn't the last test that Murali took at the UWA show his
> > > >> action to be illegal?

> > > > Not to my knowledge.

> > > > I know Bruce Elliott (of UWA) raised concerns about the doosra in
> > > > 2004, but when Murali was tested again in 2006 (at UWA), he was found
> > > > to be within legal limits.
> > > > To quote Elliott (from Cricinfo):

> > > > 'There's nothing more he could do," said Bruce Elliot, a UWA
> > > > scientist. "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
> > > > bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
> > > > degrees, so none were illegal." He said Muralitharan was bowling
> > > > faster because of a shoulder surgery he underwent in 2004.'

> > > > Note the comment "so none were illegal".

> > > > Has he been tested since 2006?
> > > > I'm sure you'd know, because you keep a close eye on this sort of
> > > > thing, but certainly in 2006, he was fine.

> > > Except that at the time of the tests, the Murali alteration had not yet
> > > been made to the ICC plaing conditions and the legal limit for a spinner
> > > was 5 degrees.

> > > And he barely scraped under the 15 degrees with straightening in the
> > > high 14 degrees for his chuckra

> > > CDK- -

> > So we ARE talking about the 2006 tests?

> > I'm assuming you put some faith in these UWA tests?
> > If not, you could have a look at similar tests on bowling done at
> > Imperial College London, or the Universities of Waikato and Auckland.
> > Or view the ICC website.

> > Bruce Elliott said, and I quote again

> > "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
> > bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
> > degrees, so none were illegal."

> > My understanding was that tests carried out at the 2004 Champions
> > Trophy uncovered the extent of 'throws' by almost all bowlers
> > (including McGrath) under the old tolerances (five degrees for
> > spinners, 7.5 for medium pacers and 10 for pacemen), led to a blanket
> > extension of 15 degrees for all bowlers. I thought this came into
> > effect on 1st March 2005.

> > To quote from the ICC Annual Report (04/05) p.34:

> > "New illegal deliveries process:
> > The contentious and emotive subject of
> > dealing with suspect bowling actions in
> > international cricket was addressed by the ICC
> > with the introduction of a revised and
> > streamlined process that came into effect on
> > 1 March 2005...........
> > 2. All bowlers are permitted to straighten
> > their bowling arm up to 15 degrees, which
> > has been established as the point at which
> > any straightening will become visible to
> > the *** eye."

> > Therefore, the 2006 tests that Murali underwent found all his
> > deliveries to be legal, including the doosra.

> > Higgs-

> Any comment on this yet, Col?

> You've had more time to think fabricate an answer than an australian
> sports administrator

Ah Mr Higgs! Welcome back! Alas it seems that you have not improved in
your absence. You are still demanding of others what you refuse to do
yourself. So, to business! I have been assiduously improving my
Googling and have made some very interesting discoveries. You are
obsessed with honesty and yet it seems that you use socks in
newsgroups. Do you recall this embarrassing moment Mr Higgs? On

exchange between yourself & dechucka. Unfortunately the poster

posing as somebody else is a dishonest action Mr Higgs?
 
 
 

MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

Post by Bob Duber » Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:48:10


Quote:
> Following remediation Mr Muralitharan bowled with an increased flexion
> angle. However, the remediation had the effect of reducing elbow
> extension range from 14 degrees to 10 degrees. (See Figures 2 & 3) "

> Now the legal limit at the time for a spinner was 5 degrees.

> Even after remediation Muraliwas still double the straightening allowed.

> So the tests showed him to be a blatant chucker.

Under the regulations at the time.

I'm not accusing you of fabricating anything, but the report in it's
entirety is very interesting, especially in light of the suspicion
about the change in the regs and why that change happened. Is Ken
right that the blanket 15 degree limit came in to force on March 1st?
That's 11 months after this testing.

"The International Cricket Council (ICC) guidelines have been
structured around fast bowling, so ranges of acceptability (10 degree
fast bowling; 5 degree spin bowling) may, in fact, need to be modified
for spin bowling. Portus et al (2003), the only published work in the
area of changes of elbow angle during fast bowling, suggested the ICC
range of acceptability should be increased to 15 degrees if a large
number of current fast bowlers are not to be subject to scrutiny and
then remediation (none has been called for "throwing"). The logic in
reducing the margin for fast bowlers compared with spin bowlers is
based on the lower speed delivery of this classification of bowler.
However, while run-up speed and length of arm are generally higher for
fast bowlers, spinners such as Muttiah Muralitharan actually have a
similar rotational speed of the arm system. Mr Muralitharan recorded a
similar time (= 0.08s), from arm horizontal to release, to that
recorded by Shabbir Ahmed Khan, the Pakistan fast bowler recently
tested by this team. Therefore a case can certainly be made for some
spin bowlers such as Mr Muralitharan to have the same range of
acceptability in elbow angle to that of fast bowlers."

That's an interesting one. Only one published paper "in the area of
changes of elbow angle during fast bowling". Hmmm... where did the ICC
get their figures from?

And again: "A case may be made for Mr Muralitharan's initial elbow
extension to be acceptable at 14 degrees. Particularly when one
considers the speed of his arm rotation is similar to that of a fast
bowler and the only scientific data related to fast bowling suggested
an increase in the acceptable extension threshold from 10 degrees to
15 degrees."

Daryl Foster asks the question as well: "ICC tolerance figures of 10
degrees, 7.5 degrees and 5 degrees for bowlers ranging from fast to
spin are based on what information, studies or research?"

And he further states: "Murali's arm velocity from horizontal to ball
release is very similar to that of Shabbir Ahmed's, a fast bowler
recently tested at the University of Western Australia. This raises
the question of why 10 degrees of extension for a fast bowler is
acceptable, with only 5 degrees of tolerance granted to a spin bowler
whose arm speed is similar. The question also has to be posed as to
when does a bowler gain an advantage from 'straightening'. Marc
Portus, in his latest research into fast bowling, suggests 15 degrees
as being a point after which there may be some speed advantage gained
by the fast bowler. However, no such research has been conducted into
spin bowling. It may be that 15 degrees of extension be allowed to all
types of bowlers no matter what speed they bowl at, beyond which it be
termed an illegal delivery."

Were these comments the motivation for the changes in the ICC's
tolerances?

 
 
 

MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

Post by higg » Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:55:24


Quote:









> >>>>>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>>>>> Just thought I'd get that in before Muralicheat starts chucking out
> >>>>>>>>> the Black Craps (TM).
> >>>>>>>> Ah.
> >>>>>>>> The rational, well thought out, well argued and irrefutable PoV of the
> >>>>>>>> anti-Murali brigade
> >>>>>>> Makes more sense than most of the shite the Murali arselicking brigade
> >>>>>>> come up with.
> >>>>>>> CDK
> >>>>>> To me it comes across as as nothing more than a childish taunt from a
> >>>>>> bigot and a fool, devoid of any intellectual value.
> >>>>>> Perhaps that's what similar-minded people appreciate in it
> >>>>> Tell me paul, didn't the last test that Murali took at the UWA show his
> >>>>> action to be illegal?
> >>>> Not to my knowledge.
> >>>> I know Bruce Elliott (of UWA) raised concerns about the doosra in
> >>>> 2004, but when Murali was tested again in 2006 (at UWA), he was found
> >>>> to be within legal limits.
> >>>> To quote Elliott (from Cricinfo):
> >>>> 'There's nothing more he could do," said Bruce Elliot, a UWA
> >>>> scientist. "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
> >>>> bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
> >>>> degrees, so none were illegal." He said Muralitharan was bowling
> >>>> faster because of a shoulder surgery he underwent in 2004.'
> >>>> Note the comment "so none were illegal".
> >>>> Has he been tested since 2006?
> >>>> I'm sure you'd know, because you keep a close eye on this sort of
> >>>> thing, but certainly in 2006, he was fine.
> >>> Except that at the time of the tests, the Murali alteration had not yet
> >>> been made to the ICC plaing conditions and the legal limit for a spinner
> >>> was 5 degrees.
> >>> And he barely scraped under the 15 degrees with straightening in the
> >>> high 14 degrees for his chuckra
> >>> CDK- -
> >> So we ARE talking about the 2006 tests?

> Nope the 2004 tests that showed his action to be illegal

You said:

"Tell me paul, didn't the last test that Murali took at the UWA show
his
action to be illegal?"

The last time Murali was tested at UWA was 2006.

The 2004 tests are irrelevent
in this context

Higgs

 
 
 

MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

Post by higg » Sun, 06 Sep 2009 13:01:22


Quote:

> > Following remediation Mr Muralitharan bowled with an increased flexion
> > angle. However, the remediation had the effect of reducing elbow
> > extension range from 14 degrees to 10 degrees. (See Figures 2 & 3) "

> > Now the legal limit at the time for a spinner was 5 degrees.

> > Even after remediation Muraliwas still double the straightening allowed.

> > So the tests showed him to be a blatant chucker.

> Under the regulations at the time.

> I'm not accusing you of fabricating anything, but the report in it's
> entirety is very interesting, especially in light of the suspicion
> about the change in the regs and why that change happened. Is Ken
> right that the blanket 15 degree limit came in to force on March 1st?
> That's 11 months after this testing.

That's what I found on the ICC website.

I also found that the last time (that I could find) Murali was tested
at UWA was 2006.

Col stated:

"Tell me paul, didn't the last test that Murali took at the UWA show
his
action to be illegal?"

If, as the ICC website indicates, the tolerances were changed in 2005,
the tests in 2006 did not find Murali's action to be illegal.

Col appears to be operating under the impression that Murali was last
tested at UWA in 2004.

In fact the testing body goes out of its way to say that Murali's
action can in no way be considered illegal in 2006:

 " 'There's nothing more he could do," said Bruce Elliot, a UWA
 scientist. "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
 bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
 degrees, so none were illegal." He said Muralitharan was bowling
 faster because of a shoulder surgery he underwent in 2004.'  "

Higgs

 
 
 

MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

Post by Bob Duber » Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:56:38


Quote:






> >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> >>>>>> Just thought I'd get that in before Muralicheat starts chucking out
> >>>>>> the Black Craps (TM).
> >>>>> Ah.
> >>>>> The rational, well thought out, well argued and irrefutable PoV of the
> >>>>> anti-Murali brigade
> >>>> Makes more sense than most of the shite the Murali arselicking brigade
> >>>> come up with.
> >>>> CDK
> >>> To me it comes across as as nothing more than a childish taunt from a
> >>> bigot and a fool, devoid of any intellectual value.
> >>> Perhaps that's what similar-minded people appreciate in it
> >> Tell me paul, didn't the last test that Murali took at the UWA show his
> >> action to be illegal?

> > Not to my knowledge.

> > I know Bruce Elliott (of UWA) raised concerns about the doosra in
> > 2004, but when Murali was tested again in 2006 (at UWA), he was found
> > to be within legal limits.
> > To quote Elliott (from Cricinfo):

> > 'There's nothing more he could do," said Bruce Elliot, a UWA
> > scientist. "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
> > bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
> > degrees, so none were illegal." He said Muralitharan was bowling
> > faster because of a shoulder surgery he underwent in 2004.'

> > Note the comment "so none were illegal".

> > Has he been tested since 2006?
> > I'm sure you'd know, because you keep a close eye on this sort of
> > thing, but certainly in 2006, he was fine.

> Except that at the time of the tests, the Murali alteration had not yet
> been made to the ICC plaing conditions and the legal limit for a spinner
> was 5 degrees.

> And he barely scraped under the 15 degrees with straightening in the
> high 14 degrees for his chuckra

The 15 degree limit came into effect March 1st 2005. So if Murali was
tested at just under 14 degrees in 2006 then he was legal.

Now that may not have been the last test *at UWA*, so maybe that is
the card you are playing - tests HAVE to be at the UWA. But as far as
I can see the last bout of tests involving Murali showed him to be
bowling within the regulations.

 
 
 

MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

Post by Bob Duber » Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:06:53


Quote:







> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> Just thought I'd get that in before Muralicheat starts chucking out
> > >>>>>> the Black Craps (TM).
> > >>>>> Ah.
> > >>>>> The rational, well thought out, well argued and irrefutable PoV of the
> > >>>>> anti-Murali brigade
> > >>>> Makes more sense than most of the shite the Murali arselicking brigade
> > >>>> come up with.
> > >>>> CDK
> > >>> To me it comes across as as nothing more than a childish taunt from a
> > >>> bigot and a fool, devoid of any intellectual value.
> > >>> Perhaps that's what similar-minded people appreciate in it
> > >> Tell me paul, didn't the last test that Murali took at the UWA show his
> > >> action to be illegal?

> > > Not to my knowledge.

> > > I know Bruce Elliott (of UWA) raised concerns about the doosra in
> > > 2004, but when Murali was tested again in 2006 (at UWA), he was found
> > > to be within legal limits.
> > > To quote Elliott (from Cricinfo):

> > > 'There's nothing more he could do," said Bruce Elliot, a UWA
> > > scientist. "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
> > > bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
> > > degrees, so none were illegal." He said Muralitharan was bowling
> > > faster because of a shoulder surgery he underwent in 2004.'

> > > Note the comment "so none were illegal".

> > > Has he been tested since 2006?
> > > I'm sure you'd know, because you keep a close eye on this sort of
> > > thing, but certainly in 2006, he was fine.

> > Except that at the time of the tests, the Murali alteration had not yet
> > been made to the ICC plaing conditions and the legal limit for a spinner
> > was 5 degrees.

> > And he barely scraped under the 15 degrees with straightening in the
> > high 14 degrees for his chuckra

> The 15 degree limit came into effect March 1st 2005. So if Murali was
> tested at just under 14 degrees in 2006 then he was legal.

> Now that may not have been the last test *at UWA*, so maybe that is
> the card you are playing - tests HAVE to be at the UWA. But as far as
> I can see the last bout of tests involving Murali showed him to be
> bowling within the regulations.

Well the 2006 tests were also at UWA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/4680246.stm

Oddly, BBC's report quotes 12.2 for the doosra. Now I'm sure that
figure is not one that you consider to be acceptable, but it is by no
definition "in the high 14 degrees".

 
 
 

MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

Post by higg » Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:19:30


Quote:







> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> Just thought I'd get that in before Muralicheat starts chucking out
> > >>>>>> the Black Craps (TM).
> > >>>>> Ah.
> > >>>>> The rational, well thought out, well argued and irrefutable PoV of the
> > >>>>> anti-Murali brigade
> > >>>> Makes more sense than most of the shite the Murali arselicking brigade
> > >>>> come up with.
> > >>>> CDK
> > >>> To me it comes across as as nothing more than a childish taunt from a
> > >>> bigot and a fool, devoid of any intellectual value.
> > >>> Perhaps that's what similar-minded people appreciate in it
> > >> Tell me paul, didn't the last test that Murali took at the UWA show his
> > >> action to be illegal?

> > > Not to my knowledge.

> > > I know Bruce Elliott (of UWA) raised concerns about the doosra in
> > > 2004, but when Murali was tested again in 2006 (at UWA), he was found
> > > to be within legal limits.
> > > To quote Elliott (from Cricinfo):

> > > 'There's nothing more he could do," said Bruce Elliot, a UWA
> > > scientist. "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
> > > bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
> > > degrees, so none were illegal." He said Muralitharan was bowling
> > > faster because of a shoulder surgery he underwent in 2004.'

> > > Note the comment "so none were illegal".

> > > Has he been tested since 2006?
> > > I'm sure you'd know, because you keep a close eye on this sort of
> > > thing, but certainly in 2006, he was fine.

> > Except that at the time of the tests, the Murali alteration had not yet
> > been made to the ICC plaing conditions and the legal limit for a spinner
> > was 5 degrees.

> > And he barely scraped under the 15 degrees with straightening in the
> > high 14 degrees for his chuckra

> The 15 degree limit came into effect March 1st 2005. So if Murali was
> tested at just under 14 degrees in 2006 then he was legal.

> Now that may not have been the last test *at UWA*, so maybe that is
> the card you are playing - tests HAVE to be at the UWA. But as far as
> I can see the last bout of tests involving Murali showed him to be
> bowling within the regulations.- Hide quoted text -

My understanding was that the 2006 tests were carried out at UWA, in
fact Cricinfo says they were (which is where I got my information
from).
I've quoted Bruce Elliott because he is the UWA scientist who carried
out the tests.
He quite categorically goes out of his way to say "all his deliveries
were under 15
 degrees, so none were illegal.".

That's the key term, illegal, because Col specifically used that term
as well.
The last round of UWA tests did NOT find Murali's action to be illegal
(unless there have been some more recent tests that have found
something else. I don't think this is the case because Col has twice
referred to the 2004 tests).

Higgs

 
 
 

MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!

Post by dechuck » Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:09:42



Quote:








> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> MURALITHARAN MURALITHARAN CHUCKING CHEAT MURALITHARAN!
> > >>>>>> Just thought I'd get that in before Muralicheat starts chucking
> > >>>>>> out
> > >>>>>> the Black Craps (TM).
> > >>>>> Ah.
> > >>>>> The rational, well thought out, well argued and irrefutable PoV of
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>> anti-Murali brigade
> > >>>> Makes more sense than most of the shite the Murali arselicking
> > >>>> brigade
> > >>>> come up with.
> > >>>> CDK
> > >>> To me it comes across as as nothing more than a childish taunt from
> > >>> a
> > >>> bigot and a fool, devoid of any intellectual value.
> > >>> Perhaps that's what similar-minded people appreciate in it
> > >> Tell me paul, didn't the last test that Murali took at the UWA show
> > >> his
> > >> action to be illegal?

> > > Not to my knowledge.

> > > I know Bruce Elliott (of UWA) raised concerns about the doosra in
> > > 2004, but when Murali was tested again in 2006 (at UWA), he was found
> > > to be within legal limits.
> > > To quote Elliott (from Cricinfo):

> > > 'There's nothing more he could do," said Bruce Elliot, a UWA
> > > scientist. "The latest testing shows, irrespective of whether he's
> > > bowling a doosra or an off-break, all his deliveries were under 15
> > > degrees, so none were illegal." He said Muralitharan was bowling
> > > faster because of a shoulder surgery he underwent in 2004.'

> > > Note the comment "so none were illegal".

> > > Has he been tested since 2006?
> > > I'm sure you'd know, because you keep a close eye on this sort of
> > > thing, but certainly in 2006, he was fine.

> > Except that at the time of the tests, the Murali alteration had not yet
> > been made to the ICC plaing conditions and the legal limit for a spinner
> > was 5 degrees.

> > And he barely scraped under the 15 degrees with straightening in the
> > high 14 degrees for his chuckra

> The 15 degree limit came into effect March 1st 2005. So if Murali was
> tested at just under 14 degrees in 2006 then he was legal.

> Now that may not have been the last test *at UWA*, so maybe that is
> the card you are playing - tests HAVE to be at the UWA. But as far as
> I can see the last bout of tests involving Murali showed him to be
> bowling within the regulations.- Hide quoted text -

My understanding was that the 2006 tests were carried out at UWA, in
fact Cricinfo says they were (which is where I got my information
from).
I've quoted Bruce Elliott because he is the UWA scientist who carried
out the tests.
He quite categorically goes out of his way to say "all his deliveries
were under 15
 degrees, so none were illegal.".

That's the key term, illegal, because Col specifically used that term
as well.
The last round of UWA tests did NOT find Murali's action to be illegal
(unless there have been some more recent tests that have found
something else. I don't think this is the case because Col has twice
referred to the 2004 tests).

============================================

The whole point is that Murali was a chucker the laws changed and he may now
or may not be a chucker. Hair was correct to call him his arm straightened
at the time ( as it still does ) it was not an optical illusion. Great
umpiring by Hair as your cites prove.