Island Cricket

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Muttiah Murali Muralitharan | Debunking The Urban Legend

Debunking Murali, his action and ICC Chucking laws.

"The ICC changed the rules for Murali "

Here's a classic! Completely and utterly false unless accompanied with the statement "The ICC also changed the rules because the human eye can only detect a flexation of 15° and beyond"

The study conducted by three prominent bio mechanics experts suggests that the human eye can only detect a kink in the action if the straightening is more than 15 degrees.

ICC study reveals that 99% chuck - Wisden Cricinfo.

The figure of 15 degrees was chosen after experts decided that was the cut-off point after which the action could be identified by the human eye.

"The regulations are based on the views of an expert panel of former players including Angus Fraser, Michael Holding and Tony Lewis - the current chairman of the MCC's Cricket Committee," said Richardson.

"This group studied the research of prominent bio-mechanists Professor Bruce Elliot, Dr Paul Hurrion and Mr Marc Portus and the scientific evidence they were presented with was overwhelming." Richardson insisted the regulations were beneficial for umpires, ensuring the burden of making a subjective judgement was removed and replaced by a scientific approach.

"What they do is take the pressure off umpires because it is now no longer one person's view of whether or not a bowler has an illegal action," added Richardson. "It is something that can be proved scientifically and the assessment is independent and not partisan.


"ICC defends 'chucking' procedures - BBC Sport

"The ICC were pressured to change the laws or the 'Asian Bloc' who serve large commercial interest of the ICC will cause an uproar. "

Another feeble attempt to discredit the game's governing body, which is run by elected officials representing many nations. The suggestions to amend the chucking laws came from non other than the scientist from the University of Western Australia and a six man panel which included the likes of Tim May (AUS) and Micheal Holding (WI).

The rule change was also authorised by the MCC.

References

"Those test conducted on him were rubbish, anyone would bowl differently under laboratory conditions."

To make that statement one must be aware that they are questioning the intelligence of the ICC and the panel which included Western Australia's finest Bio Mechanics experts. The ICC also appointed former Australian spinner Bruce Yardley to over look the testing.

"The testing occurred in a laboratory environment, which permitted a full bowling run up, such that a portion of the pitch was housed outside the laboratory. A laterally (side) placed video camera recorded his images during delivery to assist in the identification of ball release.

A front-on video camera was used to assist in the selection of the best `"doosra" deliveries.'

Mr. Bruce Yardley, a former Australian spin bowler, who commented on the quality of each delivery, also assisted this task. He had been present in Sri Lanka during the recent Test series and could therefore comment on the quality of the laboratory compared with on-field bowling."


Bowling Report — Mr. Muttiah Muralitharan - The Hindu

"Murali bowls Leg spin with a straight arm!"

This by far is the most tasteless.

Click here, I nipped this theory in the butt when a columnist in Australia decided to write about it in the Herald Sun!

Here is another piece of rubbish published in Australia questioning Murali's deformity. View this video from Sky News which explains Murali's congenital deformity with the assistance of a trained British physio.




5 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Fantastic, finally someone took the initiative to pen this rubbish accusations down!

Anonymous said...

Hilal, Can you suggest Herald Sun to publish this story. Goto heraldsun web site and click the suggest story link on the bottom. I've done it already and the editor said if enough people suggest they will publish it.

Hilal said...

Thanks Dasith. Will do.

Anonymous said...

What a very biased and partial representation of evidence. Though some of it is well written and backed up with facts much is not - this is far from a debunking and certainly doesn't settle the matter in my oppinion. Of course it is just that and we're all entitled to one.

Hilal said...

Anon> Care to point out which points are not backed up with fact? Every point I have made above is backed up by unbiased news sources. Yes, you are correct it may seem biased when it's disproving something you believe in. Sometimes when you read things with a biased mind set, it may appear 'inconclusive' and 'biased'.

Post a Comment