Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rapa" data-source="post: 492659" data-attributes="member: 212">not over see below<a href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_VFnTUjTu4T0/RkBl9QSB_7I/AAAAAAAAAHk/wNNDbZAG9cs/s1600-h/murali_hair.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_VFnTUjTu4T0/RkBl9QSB_7I/AAAAAAAAAHk/wNNDbZAG9cs/s320/murali_hair.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a> As the "squash ball controversy" is heating up the cricket world phenomenally, some Aussies are <a href="http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/how-legal-was-adam-gilchrists-hidden-ball/#comment-32457" target="_blank">rubbing some old wounds </a>by dragging in the Murali-Hair controversy into this. Some Aussies with extraordinary loss of "short medium term memory", are accusing "<a href="http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/how-legal-was-adam-gilchrists-hidden-ball/#comment-32888" target="_blank">ICC changed the rules of throwing, to accommodate Murali's action</a>". And they further accuse, <a href="http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/how-legal-was-adam-gilchrists-hidden-ball/#comment-33092" target="_blank">ICC did this under the pressure from Sri Lanka </a>and the Sub Continent.It's really amazing to see how these people tend to forget the facts so quickly. Some one has to speak up and remind these people the facts they try to forget.History of The IssueLet's just go back to the history. At the time of Murali-Hair affair took place in 1995, it was the duty of on-field umpires to judge a delivery as illegal or "thrown" on with visual judgment alone. The accepted way of doing this was, the square leg umpire to watch the bowlers arm and make the judgment. Because the head umpire (standing behind the non-strikers wicket) is assigned with a duty to watching the bowlers front leg for over stepping, at the point of ball leaving the bowlers hand. No human being could watch a bowlers front leg, and the elbow positioning of the bowler, at a same instance when the ball is delivered.But Australian umpire Darrel Hair did that miracle. He re-written the history book, as the first umpire in the history of cricket, to call a bowler for throwing while standing in the head umpire's position. So, it was very clear that Mr. Hair was deliberate of calling Murali for throwing, and therefore he forgot that "throwing" should be called by the square leg umpire.This issue was raised before the ICC by the Sri Lanka Cricket Board, and ICC demanded an investigation into Murali's action. In an biomechanical test done with Murali's hand, it was revealed that his elbow had an unusual tilt at his birth. This tilt, would have actually helped Murali in turning the ball, but it was nothing purposely adjusted by Murali.Biomechanical Test in 2004 ICC Champions TrophyWith the topic of "throwing" becoming a hot topic in Cricket World, during late 90's, ICC conducted a biomechanical test, using sophisticated technology. And, in those tests it was discovered that it is virtually impossible for the human arm to legally "bowl" the ball without any flex of the elbow, more than 15 degrees. The old law allowed to bend the elbow 10 degrees for fast bowlers, 7.5 degrees for medium pacers , and 5 degrees for spin bowlers. Thus according to the old laws, "legal" bowling would be practically impossible for any human being, so some thing had to be done.After the Muralitharan issue, the ICC carried out a test on all bowlers through video footage during the 2004 Champions Trophy in England. The test brought up some startling results: ninety-nine percent of all bowlers tested were found to flex their elbow to some degree, which was often much greater than the limit set at the time. According to this test, all the Australian bowlers in 2004 Champions Trophy were also chuckers. Looking at some of the old video footages of some great Australian fast bowlers in the past, it was revealed that all of them were chuckers according to this old law.Change of RulesIt was realized that 99% of the modern day bowlers are chuckers, under the old law of "throwing". So, what can ICC do? Ban all the bowlers? Including Shane Warne, McGrath and Shaun Pollock? The only way forward for ICC was to change the rules.After a review by an expert panel, the ICC decided to raise the limit to 15 degrees for all bowlers. This limit was chosen as the ICC believed that any flexing of the elbow above 15 degrees would be visibly noticeable.So, I guess this summarize the whole story. The arguments of some pathetic Australian fans are completely invalid. ICC did not changed the rules to accommodate Murali's action. They did change the rules, after they realized that the old rules were wrong, and it's humanly impossible to be abide by those rules (for 99% of the bowlers, to be precise. Including Shane Warne. Not only Murali).</blockquote>

Verification: Winadiyakata thappara keeyak tibeda?

Top Bottom