by Rats » Sat, 25 May 2002 09:13:28
Now the term "optical illusion" implies that to the *** eye it appears
that Muralitharan is chucking. If this is the case, and after all it did
take "extensive testing" to "clear" his action, then my question is was he
ever called for throwing by Sri Lankan umpires as a youngster? If not, then
why not?
by Mike Holman » Sat, 25 May 2002 09:23:31
>Now the term "optical illusion" implies that to the *** eye it appears
>that Muralitharan is chucking. If this is the case, and after all it did
>take "extensive testing" to "clear" his action, then my question is was he
>ever called for throwing by Sri Lankan umpires as a youngster? If not, then
>why not?
Cheers,
Mike
by dechuck » Sat, 25 May 2002 09:26:43
> Now the term "optical illusion" implies that to the *** eye it appears
> that Muralitharan is chucking. If this is the case, and after all it did
> take "extensive testing" to "clear" his action, then my question is was he
> ever called for throwing by Sri Lankan umpires as a youngster? If not,
then
> why not?
by Larry de Silv » Sat, 25 May 2002 10:37:37
> >Larry de Silva, resident RSC defender of everything Sri Lankan, uses the
> >argument of an "optical illusion" as his basis of defending Muralitharan
> >against chucking allegations.
> >Now the term "optical illusion" implies that to the *** eye it appears
> >that Muralitharan is chucking. If this is the case, and after all it did
> >take "extensive testing" to "clear" his action, then my question is was
he
> >ever called for throwing by Sri Lankan umpires as a youngster? If not,
then
> >why not?
> Of course not. All Sri Lankan umpires are quite superhuman in their
> powers of perception and could easily see that it was just an optical
> illusion. When you consider the greats of SL umpiring, such as BC
> Cooray and Peter Manuel, it is hard to see how anyone could come to
> any other conclusion.
Larrikin
> Cheers,
> Mike
by Rats » Sat, 25 May 2002 11:07:21
by Womba » Sat, 25 May 2002 11:10:04
> Now the term "optical illusion" implies that to the *** eye it appears
> that Muralitharan is chucking. If this is the case, and after all it did
> take "extensive testing" to "clear" his action, then my question is was he
> ever called for throwing by Sri Lankan umpires as a youngster? If not,
then
> why not?
Wombat
--
by Ton » Sat, 25 May 2002 16:35:02
I can't believe I'm getting involved in the Murali debate. I keep
trying to ignore it I swear. I keep telling myself "Hes been
investigated, hes been cleared, end of story. Hes one of the worlds
best bowlers, shut up and watch him play." but in the end I have
succumbed. I'm so fed up I have to say something, and so I add fuel
to this stupid debate that clutters rsc. Arrrggh!
Yoda would be disappointed in me. :)
Tony.
by AK » Sat, 25 May 2002 17:33:49
No one gives a shit about their whining. I don't even read 99% of their posts.
Murali is not even the best ODI spinner. Saqlain is (even though he had two bad
years, his average is still better).
by Mike Pric » Sat, 25 May 2002 17:42:46
Murali's BASIC ACTION was "cleared" under lab-conditions. What he does
in a test match is an entirely different story and he can be reported
just as easily as any other bowler. He does not have an automatic
"does not and cannot ever chuck" card to use for life because of some
inadequate testing done in Hong Kong.
by Phil Wis » Sat, 25 May 2002 18:31:37
> Yoda would be disappointed in me. :)
phil
> Tony.
by Faen Cotto » Sat, 25 May 2002 18:52:59
> >I can't believe I'm getting involved in the Murali debate. I keep
> >trying to ignore it I swear. I keep telling myself "Hes been
> >investigated, hes been cleared, end of story. Hes one of the worlds
> >best bowlers, shut up and watch him play." but in the end I have
> >succumbed. I'm so fed up I have to say something, and so I add fuel
> >to this stupid debate that clutters rsc. Arrrggh!
> These are a bunch of pathetic whiners either from NZ or India who are pissed
> that their***poor teams don't have a quality bowler or Australia who are
> worried that the fatty's record will be broken.
> No one gives a shit about their whining. I don't even read 99% of their posts.
> Murali is not even the best ODI spinner. Saqlain is (even though he had two bad
> years, his average is still better).
Read the stats and weep.
Be Lucky
Faen
by Andrew Dunfor » Sat, 25 May 2002 19:50:36
> >I can't believe I'm getting involved in the Murali debate. I keep
> >trying to ignore it I swear. I keep telling myself "Hes been
> >investigated, hes been cleared, end of story.
> So if someone walks into K-Mart
<snip>
Andrew.
by Andrew Dunfor » Sat, 25 May 2002 19:49:23
> >I can't believe I'm getting involved in the Murali debate. I keep
> >trying to ignore it I swear. I keep telling myself "Hes been
> >investigated, hes been cleared, end of story. Hes one of the worlds
> >best bowlers, shut up and watch him play." but in the end I have
> >succumbed. I'm so fed up I have to say something, and so I add fuel
> >to this stupid debate that clutters rsc. Arrrggh!
> These are a bunch of pathetic whiners either from NZ or India who are
pissed
> that their***poor teams don't have a quality bowler or Australia who
are
> worried that the fatty's record will be broken.
> No one gives a shit about their whining. I don't even read 99% of their
posts.
> Murali is not even the best ODI spinner. Saqlain is (even though he had
two bad
> years, his average is still better).
Andrew
by nissank » Sat, 25 May 2002 20:12:01
> >I can't believe I'm getting involved in the Murali debate. I keep
> >trying to ignore it I swear. I keep telling myself "Hes been
> >investigated, hes been cleared, end of story.
> So if someone walks into K-Mart and is "cleared" of shoplifting be
> their security system, does this mean that they can never shop-lift in
> the future?
> Murali's BASIC ACTION was "cleared" under lab-conditions. What he does
> in a test match is an entirely different story and he can be reported
> just as easily as any other bowler. He does not have an automatic
> "does not and cannot ever chuck" card to use for life because of some
> inadequate testing done in Hong Kong.
by Mike Pric » Sat, 25 May 2002 20:28:44
1. Former umpires say Murali's action worse than ever
2. Murali not the first Lankan to have action questioned
3. Lara will be in action after Sri Lankan Marvan Atapattu Put out of action
4. Murali's action is worse: umpire
5. ICC Probes Sri Lankan Spinner's Action, Newspapers Say
6. Umpiring Question - non-striker's action...
7. Sri Lankan umpiring and the 'pots'....
8. Sri Lankans in Australia rejoice over Murali's achievement
9. Lankans 'gave up joy' for Indians: Sri Lankan President His Excellency Rajapaksa
10. Sri Lankan Crickers are rapist too as the Sri Lankan army and Sinhales!!!!
11. Another Sri Lankan chucker in action.
12. Another Sri Lankan bowling action controversy?