Sport Today

by **Ambul Thiy** » Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:23:47

Muttiah Muralitharan has admitted that he feared an abrupt end to his
cricket career after being called for chucking by Darrell Hair in
1995-96.

In an exclusive interview published in the August issue of 'Wisden
Asia Cricket', Murali gave a detailed account of the controversy, and
how the Sri Lankan board, Arjuna Ranatunga and the rest of the team
helped him overcome the crisis.

"I was shocked," Murali said, remembering the occasion when he was
first no-balled by Hair. "I had never considered the possibility of my
action being illegal. I first thought they [the Australians] were
scared of me, and that it was just one umpire.

But when Emerson and the other guy called me again, I wondered if
there might be a problem.

"Deep down I believed everything was all right because throwing and
bowling are completely different: one requires the shoulder and the
other the elbow. You can feel the difference. But there were times
when I thought that it might be the end of my career. I thought: `I
can't change my action ... this is how I have bowled from the start.'
I even considered taking up legspin as I can bowl that pretty well."

Murali survived that tour, but it wasn't the end of his ordeal.

When Sri Lanka toured Australia next - in 1998-99 - he was called for
chucking again, despite having been cleared by the University of
Western Australia. Having experienced the situation once, Murali was
much better prepared the second time around.

"We expected that," said Murali, recounting the incident. "Leading up
to the match we knew it was going to happen. In 1995-96, it had been a
shock - Hair had even umpired me before that Boxing Day Test and not
called me or indicated any problem. So in the next tour it was not a
problem for me. Yes, we were disappointed, and Arjuna was very upset,
but it was not so much of a problem for me."

Murali also spoke about how Ranatunga, the captain on both those
tours, supported him throughout the controversy. "The cricket board,
Arjuna, Aravinda (de Silva) and the team all gave me their full
backing and that reduced my fears. He [Ranatunga] really pushed the
cricket board, and maybe he did save my career."

Despite his altercations with Hair, Murali said that he shared a
cordial relationship with Hair.

"We said hello in the matches where he has officiated since. There is
no problem. People make mistakes and that episode is now gone for me.
I want to look forward." (WisdenCricinfo)

by **The Wo** » Thu, 07 Aug 2003 13:54:05

Quote:

> "I was shocked," Murali said, remembering the occasion when he was
> first no-balled by Hair. "I had never considered the possibility of my
> action being illegal.

ROTFL! Not even when the BCCSL said to him in 1992 "We've hired Bruce
Yardley because you're chucking it, go away and work with him to iron out
your action"?? Or did Yardley the whole thing?

Quote:

> I first thought they [the Australians] were
> scared of me, and that it was just one umpire.

If DBH was subject to CoC action for writing what he did about Merrily's
action (that in one game it was diabolical) under the "don't comment on
current player" rules, then Merrily writing "I though current umpire DBH
called me, not because he thought my action was illegal, but because he was
cheating to remove a threat to the AUS team" is actionable too.

Quote:

> But when Emerson and the other guy called me again, I wondered if
> there might be a problem.

> "Deep down I believed everything was all right because throwing and
> bowling are completely different: one requires the shoulder and the
> other the elbow. You can feel the difference. But there were times
> when I thought that it might be the end of my career. I thought: `I
> can't change my action ... this is how I have bowled from the start.'

Even when he was a medium pacer in school?

Quote:

> I even considered taking up legspin as I can bowl that pretty well."

> Murali survived that tour, but it wasn't the end of his ordeal.

> When Sri Lanka toured Australia next - in 1998-99 - he was called for
> chucking again, despite having been cleared by the University of
> Western Australia. Having experienced the situation once, Murali was
> much better prepared the second time around.

> "We expected that," said Murali, recounting the incident. "Leading up
> to the match we knew it was going to happen. In 1995-96, it had been a
> shock - Hair had even umpired me before that Boxing Day Test and not
> called me or indicated any problem.

So when the 3 umpires in Sharjah approached team mgt, and when DBH
approached team mgt after the "diabolical" ODI that wasn't considered the
indication of a problem?

Nice work of fiction, this interview.

Wog

by **Paul Robso** » Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:37:18

Quote:

> "Deep down I believed everything was all right because throwing and
> bowling are completely different: one requires the shoulder and the
> other the elbow. You can feel the difference.

No you can't. Most of history's throwers were not aware they threw the ball.

by **The Wo** » Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:59:34

Quote:

> > "Deep down I believed everything was all right because throwing and
> > bowling are completely different: one requires the shoulder and the
> > other the elbow. You can feel the difference.

> No you can't. Most of history's throwers were not aware they threw the

ball.

Mind you, it introduces the possibility of a new ruling for chuckers - "self
definition." I can see the playing conditions now:

"If the bowler feels that the ball was delivered using the elbow rather than
the shoulder (and we all know you can tell) then the bowler shall
immediately call 'No Ball' and administer himself a first warning and inform
the umpires of what has transpired. If there is any further occurrence in
the same innings..."

Wog

by **Andrew Dunfor** » Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:44:05

Quote:

> > > "Deep down I believed everything was all right because throwing and
> > > bowling are completely different: one requires the shoulder and the
> > > other the elbow. You can feel the difference.

> > No you can't. Most of history's throwers were not aware they threw the
> ball.

> Mind you, it introduces the possibility of a new ruling for chuckers -
"self
> definition." I can see the playing conditions now:

> "If the bowler feels that the ball was delivered using the elbow rather
than
> the shoulder (and we all know you can tell) then the bowler shall
> immediately call 'No Ball' and administer himself a first warning and
inform
> the umpires of what has transpired. If there is any further occurrence in
> the same innings..."

> Wog

Let me guess: you're one of those dinosaurs who can still remember the days
when batsmen gave themselves out.

<snip>

Andrew

by **kalu** » Fri, 08 Aug 2003 00:48:03

Quote:

>> "I was shocked," Murali said, remembering the occasion when he was
>> first no-balled by Hair. "I had never considered the possibility of my
>> action being illegal.

> ROTFL! Not even when the BCCSL said to him in 1992 "We've hired Bruce
> Yardley because you're chucking it, go away and work with him to iron
> out your action"?? Or did Yardley the whole thing?

Is this your imagination kicking in again? Do you want to provide some
evidence? A link perhaps, considering you are using quotation marks?
Perhaps you meant to use single quotes instead of double quotes?

http://www.334notout.com/murali/bernard.htm:

"Yardley was disgusted by the allegations against the bowler whom he had
coached in Sri Lanka four years before. Referring to Hair he said: 'Some
umpire goes back five metres to call him for chucking when he should be
watching his feet instead of his arm. Who does this bloke think he is?'
Regarding Muralidaran he added: 'The laws of cricket state a bowler is not
allowed to straighten his arm once it is bent in the delivery stride. We
should be celebrating his action, not trying to run him out of the game."

You sure Yardley's coaching wasn't in 1991? I vaguely recall reading
something about it.

Quote:

>> I first thought they [the Australians] were scared of me, and that it
>> was just one umpire.

> If DBH was subject to CoC action for writing what he did about Merrily's
> action (that in one game it was diabolical) under the "don't comment on
> current player" rules, then Merrily writing "I though current umpire DBH
> called me, not because he thought my action was illegal, but because he
> was cheating to remove a threat to the AUS team" is actionable too.

You'll note that Murali didn't actually phrase it in that manner.

A question regarding Hair's comments.

Are you sure Hair stated "that in one game it was diabolical" or anything
with similar meaning? Being such a staunch admirer of Hair, you probably
have his book lying around. Is that what he said?

Quote:

>> But when Emerson and the other guy called me again, I wondered if there
>> might be a problem.

>> "Deep down I believed everything was all right because throwing and
>> bowling are completely different: one requires the shoulder and the
>> other the elbow. You can feel the difference. But there were times when
>> I thought that it might be the end of my career. I thought: `I can't
>> change my action ... this is how I have bowled from the start.'

> Even when he was a medium pacer in school?

I think he's referring to the fact that his elbow's range of motion is
limited. Don't you think?

Quote:

>> I even considered taking up legspin as I can bowl that pretty well."

>> Murali survived that tour, but it wasn't the end of his ordeal.

>> When Sri Lanka toured Australia next - in 1998-99 - he was called for
>> chucking again, despite having been cleared by the University of
>> Western Australia. Having experienced the situation once, Murali was
>> much better prepared the second time around.

>> "We expected that," said Murali, recounting the incident. "Leading up
>> to the match we knew it was going to happen. In 1995-96, it had been a
>> shock - Hair had even umpired me before that Boxing Day Test and not
>> called me or indicated any problem.

> So when the 3 umpires in Sharjah approached team mgt, and when DBH

Actually, I suspect you've just made an incorrect statement. I don't think
the 3 umpires actually "approached team mgt". It was ICC Referee Raman
Subba Row who conveyed the report from the 3 umpires. I'm not aware that
Subba Row even agreed with the content of the report.

Quote:

> approached team mgt after the "diabolical" ODI that wasn't considered
> the indication of a problem?

Are you referring to Hair after the Test match?

http://www.334notout.com/murali/bernard2.htm

"At the end of the match the Sri Lankans requested from the ICC permission
to confer with Hair in order to find out exactly how to remedy the problem
with their bowler. Despite the game's controlling body agreeing to it, the
Australian Cricket Board vetoed it on the grounds that it might lead to
umpires being quizzed by teams after every game."

Quote:

> Nice work of fiction, this interview.

hmmmmm. You're are quite creative yourself!

kalu

Quote:

> Wog

by **Larry de Silv** » Fri, 08 Aug 2003 01:08:55

Quote:

> >> "I was shocked," Murali said, remembering the occasion when he was
> >> first no-balled by Hair. "I had never considered the possibility of my
> >> action being illegal.

> > ROTFL! Not even when the BCCSL said to him in 1992 "We've hired Bruce
> > Yardley because you're chucking it, go away and work with him to iron
> > out your action"?? Or did Yardley the whole thing?

> Is this your imagination kicking in again? Do you want to provide some
> evidence? A link perhaps, considering you are using quotation marks?
> Perhaps you meant to use single quotes instead of double quotes?

> http://www.334notout.com/murali/bernard.htm:

> "Yardley was disgusted by the allegations against the bowler whom he had
> coached in Sri Lanka four years before. Referring to Hair he said: 'Some
> umpire goes back five metres to call him for chucking when he should be
> watching his feet instead of his arm. Who does this bloke think he is?'
> Regarding Muralidaran he added: 'The laws of cricket state a bowler is not
> allowed to straighten his arm once it is bent in the delivery stride. We
> should be celebrating his action, not trying to run him out of the game."

> You sure Yardley's coaching wasn't in 1991? I vaguely recall reading
> something about it.

> >> I first thought they [the Australians] were scared of me, and that it
> >> was just one umpire.

> > If DBH was subject to CoC action for writing what he did about Merrily's
> > action (that in one game it was diabolical) under the "don't comment on
> > current player" rules, then Merrily writing "I though current umpire DBH
> > called me, not because he thought my action was illegal, but because he
> > was cheating to remove a threat to the AUS team" is actionable too.

> You'll note that Murali didn't actually phrase it in that manner.

> A question regarding Hair's comments.

> Are you sure Hair stated "that in one game it was diabolical" or anything
> with similar meaning? Being such a staunch admirer of Hair, you probably
> have his book lying around. Is that what he said?

> >> But when Emerson and the other guy called me again, I wondered if there
> >> might be a problem.

> >> "Deep down I believed everything was all right because throwing and
> >> bowling are completely different: one requires the shoulder and the
> >> other the elbow. You can feel the difference. But there were times when
> >> I thought that it might be the end of my career. I thought: `I can't
> >> change my action ... this is how I have bowled from the start.'

> > Even when he was a medium pacer in school?

> I think he's referring to the fact that his elbow's range of motion is
> limited. Don't you think?

> >> I even considered taking up legspin as I can bowl that pretty well."

> >> Murali survived that tour, but it wasn't the end of his ordeal.

> >> When Sri Lanka toured Australia next - in 1998-99 - he was called for
> >> chucking again, despite having been cleared by the University of
> >> Western Australia. Having experienced the situation once, Murali was
> >> much better prepared the second time around.

> >> "We expected that," said Murali, recounting the incident. "Leading up
> >> to the match we knew it was going to happen. In 1995-96, it had been a
> >> shock - Hair had even umpired me before that Boxing Day Test and not
> >> called me or indicated any problem.

> > So when the 3 umpires in Sharjah approached team mgt, and when DBH

> Actually, I suspect you've just made an incorrect statement. I don't think
> the 3 umpires actually "approached team mgt". It was ICC Referee Raman
> Subba Row who conveyed the report from the 3 umpires. I'm not aware that
> Subba Row even agreed with the content of the report.

> > approached team mgt after the "diabolical" ODI that wasn't considered
> > the indication of a problem?

> Are you referring to Hair after the Test match?

> http://www.334notout.com/murali/bernard2.htm

> "At the end of the match the Sri Lankans requested from the ICC permission
> to confer with Hair in order to find out exactly how to remedy the problem
> with their bowler. Despite the game's controlling body agreeing to it, the
> Australian Cricket Board vetoed it on the grounds that it might lead to
> umpires being quizzed by teams after every game."

> > Nice work of fiction, this interview.

> hmmmmm. You're are quite creative yourself!

Brilliant work Kalu!

Welcome back dude, good to have some support here.

Cheers

Laz

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> kalu

> > Wog

by **The Wo** » Sat, 09 Aug 2003 12:04:10

Quote:

> >> "I was shocked," Murali said, remembering the occasion when he was
> >> first no-balled by Hair. "I had never considered the possibility of my
> >> action being illegal.

> > ROTFL! Not even when the BCCSL said to him in 1992 "We've hired Bruce
> > Yardley because you're chucking it, go away and work with him to iron
> > out your action"?? Or did Yardley the whole thing?

> Is this your imagination kicking in again? Do you want to provide some
> evidence? A link perhaps, considering you are using quotation marks?
> Perhaps you meant to use single quotes instead of double quotes?

You know I paraphrase these things for brevity, and don't keep on file every
single article I've ever read on the web indexed.

Quote:

> http://www.334notout.com/murali/bernard.htm:

> You sure Yardley's coaching wasn't in 1991? I vaguely recall reading
> something about it.

Sorry, that changes the entire point. Yes, it was probably 1991, and he was
hired to iron out "initial flaws" in Merrily's action.

Quote:

> >> I first thought they [the Australians] were scared of me, and that it
> >> was just one umpire.

> > If DBH was subject to CoC action for writing what he did about Merrily's
> > action (that in one game it was diabolical) under the "don't comment on
> > current player" rules, then Merrily writing "I though current umpire DBH
> > called me, not because he thought my action was illegal, but because he
> > was cheating to remove a threat to the AUS team" is actionable too.

> You'll note that Murali didn't actually phrase it in that manner.

He attributed the calling by the umpires to the AUS players being afraid of
his wicket-taking potential. How do you read that?

Quote:

> A question regarding Hair's comments.

> Are you sure Hair stated "that in one game it was diabolical" or anything
> with similar meaning?

p6, referring to the prior ODI: With hindsight I should have called him...I
still have the tape of THAT GAME and I feel his action WAS diabolical" (my
emphasis added). The comment is very specific.

Quote:

> Being such a staunch admirer of Hair, you probably
> have his book lying around.

Yes, I have the book which I bought before I met him. I also have the bios
of many players incl Parore and Worn lying around. (The Worn bio I borrowed
from JPD and never got around to returning - perhaps that will be rectified
today.)

Quote:

> Is that what he said?

Yep.

Quote:

> >> I thought that it might be the end of my career. I thought: `I can't
> >> change my action ... this is how I have bowled from the start.'

> > Even when he was a medium pacer in school?

> I think he's referring to the fact that his elbow's range of motion is
> limited. Don't you think?

A frightfully disingenuous comment then, considering he's switched from
bowling from the front of the hand to bowling from the back of the hand, and
developed the topspinner that is considered by almost all and sundry the
most suspcious of his deliveries. Even if you restrict analysis to the bent
arm question and totally ignore how the ball leaves the hand, there is still
the matter that as an offspinner (unlike as a medium pacer) he would have
had to whip his arm around the leg side of the ball. As we all know, it's
the rapid rotation that creates the "coathanger illusion" that makes
bent-arm bowling look like throwing even when it's not.

Quote:

> > So when the 3 umpires in Sharjah approached team mgt, and when DBH

> Actually, I suspect you've just made an incorrect statement. I don't think
> the 3 umpires actually "approached team mgt". It was ICC Referee Raman
> Subba Row who conveyed the report from the 3 umpires. I'm not aware that
> Subba Row even agreed with the content of the report.

Can we read an implied "through the MR" into that then? I'm sure they didn't
just talk to the MR to give him something to put in his file and forget
about. It was done with the intention that the objections be passed on.

Quote:

> > approached team mgt after the "diabolical" ODI that wasn't considered
> > the indication of a problem?

> Are you referring to Hair after the Test match?

> http://www.334notout.com/murali/bernard2.htm

> "At the end of the match the Sri Lankans requested from the ICC permission
> to confer with Hair in order to find out exactly how to remedy the problem
> with their bowler. Despite the game's controlling body agreeing to it, the
> Australian Cricket Board vetoed it on the grounds that it might lead to
> umpires being quizzed by teams after every game."

Whether or not they were prevented from talking to DBH is irrelevant. He's
saying "I never thought there was a problem." When the umpire says he's sent
a report to the RIMR that you've been throwing" that's an indication there's
a problem. Whether your team mgr is then permitted to interrogate said
umpire or not.

Quote:

> > Nice work of fiction, this interview.

> hmmmmm. You're are quite creative yourself!

I have said nothing I don't stand by. You can object to the paraphrasing if
you like but there's nothing in there inconsistent with what is reported to
have transpired.

Wog

by **The Wo** » Sat, 09 Aug 2003 12:05:25

Quote:

> > > Nice work of fiction, this interview.

> > hmmmmm. You're are quite creative yourself!

> Brilliant work Kalu!

Yeah, brilliant dude. He picked up the gross error that Yardley was hired by
the BCCSL to correct Merrily's chucking in 1991, rather than 1992 as I said.
In the words of another poster who shall remain nameless, "Bravo!"

Wog

Sport Today

I never thought my action was illegal, says Murali

I never thought my action was illegal, says Murali

I never thought my action was illegal, says Murali

I never thought my action was illegal, says Murali

I never thought my action was illegal, says Murali

I never thought my action was illegal, says Murali

I never thought my action was illegal, says Murali

I never thought my action was illegal, says Murali

I never thought my action was illegal, says Murali

I never thought my action was illegal, says Murali