Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New posts
All threads
Latest threads
New posts
Trending threads
Trending
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New ads
New profile posts
Latest activity
Free Ads
Latest reviews
Search ads
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Contact us
Latest ads
Colombo
Red Hat Certified System Administrator (RHCSA) - RHEL 10
Sanjeewani95
Updated:
Today at 7:43 PM
NURSING , CAREGIVER , HOTEL & BEAUTY COURSES
IVA Para Medical Campus
Updated:
Yesterday at 9:24 AM
Handmade Character Soft Toys Peppa Pig Family
anil1961
Updated:
Wednesday at 9:58 PM
Ad icon
Video Content Creator
pramukag
Updated:
Sunday at 6:10 AM
Ad icon
QA Engineer Intern
pramukag
Updated:
Sunday at 6:07 AM
Electronics
Vehicles
Property
Search
Reply to thread
Forums
General
Sports
Muralitharan's action not clean - Gilchrist
Get the App
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="3748755" data-source="post: 3312378" data-attributes="member: 99744"><p>Adam Gilchrist has said he believes Muttiah Muralitharan, the Sri Lankan offspinner, has a suspect action, but blamed the ICC for allowing him bowl in international cricket. </p><p></p><p> Gilchrist wrote in his autobiography that there was no doubt in his mind that as per the laws of the game, Murali and many others have been guilty of chucking. </p><p> "I don't think he's personally to blame: he bowled the way he bowled, and it was not up to him to do any more than he was asked," Gilchrist wrote in his newly published book <em>True Colours</em>. He said though the argument that Murali's suspect action was an optical illusion was legally correct, it was a "direct attack to the spirit of the game". </p><p></p><p> "As much as I like Murali, my sympathies lay more with those batsmen, from every other nation, whose careers suffered because of a bowler who was in technical breach of the rules and seemed to enjoy a kind of political protection." </p><p> Murali was first no-balled for his action during his first tour of Australia in 1995-96 and though he was cleared after a biomechanical analysis, the controversy didn't die out. He was called again on the 1998-99 tour to Australia and sent for further tests in Perth and England only to be cleared again. </p><p></p><p> In 2004 the ICC <a href="http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/140848.html" target="_blank">stopped Murali</a> from bowling the doosra, because his arm bent by an average of 10 degrees when bowling the delivery, which was double the permitted level for spinners. But next year, the ICC tweaked the the bowling laws to allow all bowlers "to straighten their bowling arm up to <a href="http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/145735.html" target="_blank">15 degrees</a>, which was established as the point at which any straightening will become visible to the naked eye".</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/376899.html" target="_blank">Read more</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="3748755, post: 3312378, member: 99744"] Adam Gilchrist has said he believes Muttiah Muralitharan, the Sri Lankan offspinner, has a suspect action, but blamed the ICC for allowing him bowl in international cricket. Gilchrist wrote in his autobiography that there was no doubt in his mind that as per the laws of the game, Murali and many others have been guilty of chucking. "I don't think he's personally to blame: he bowled the way he bowled, and it was not up to him to do any more than he was asked," Gilchrist wrote in his newly published book [I]True Colours[/I]. He said though the argument that Murali's suspect action was an optical illusion was legally correct, it was a "direct attack to the spirit of the game". "As much as I like Murali, my sympathies lay more with those batsmen, from every other nation, whose careers suffered because of a bowler who was in technical breach of the rules and seemed to enjoy a kind of political protection." Murali was first no-balled for his action during his first tour of Australia in 1995-96 and though he was cleared after a biomechanical analysis, the controversy didn't die out. He was called again on the 1998-99 tour to Australia and sent for further tests in Perth and England only to be cleared again. In 2004 the ICC [URL="http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/story/140848.html"]stopped Murali[/URL] from bowling the doosra, because his arm bent by an average of 10 degrees when bowling the delivery, which was double the permitted level for spinners. But next year, the ICC tweaked the the bowling laws to allow all bowlers "to straighten their bowling arm up to [URL="http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/145735.html"]15 degrees[/URL], which was established as the point at which any straightening will become visible to the naked eye". [URL="http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/376899.html"]Read more[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Awruddata maasa keeyada?
Post reply
Top
Bottom