whatever foster said sounds nithing but nonsense. if akhtar has a disability, howcome he is chucking only few deliveries? this is just an excuse. in that case, i would love to bend some child's arm so that he can be an akhtar for india in future
Mr Foster is fostering the chucking of the bowlers of Srilanka and Pakistan and frustrating the bowlers of the remaining countries.
If it's clearly visible to bare eyes what is the need of analyzing the bowling action using 3d technologies or whatever foolish thing it may be. The batsman in front of the bowler doesn't use these scanner while batting.
The argument of Mr Foster is totally biased. Noone can judge the action of a bowler better than a cricketer. These doctors and technicians are always there to prove wrong one into right and right one into wrong, whether it's cricket or life.
Murali's hypermobility lies in his wrist, and there is no cricketing law stating that you cannot rotate your wrist as much as you can. If he can rotate it 360 degrees, more power to him.
I agree that if hypermobility means you cannot control your elbow and it therefore straightens involuntarily - as in Shoaib's case - the unfair advantage imparted contravenes cricketing laws. But if it *has* been proven biomechanically - not just by the admittedly dubious Foster, but also by universities in Hong Kond and Melbourne - that Murali's elbow actually does remain at the same angle throughout the action, and if the only hypermobility lies in the wrist, surely he should not face any opposition?
If Murali's hypermobility is in his wrists (as you said) and he rotates it more than anyone else, then why are their doubts over his action ? Why was he 'called' for chucking ?? Its NOT because he can rotate more than others, but because he bends !! And NO I dont agree with you that if he (or Shoaib) bends the elbow even because of genuine problem should they be allowed to bowl. If you, for once, scroll down this list of messages and check my original posting you will get the reasons. Anyway, I'll re-iterate that there is no definition of 'how much genuine disability to be deemed ok' so you might get a case where a bowler would 'demand' to be allowed a baseball type throw of ball by some medically proven and genuine disability!! Then what ??..Better be prepared for that situation now. Make the rules which HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED IRRESPECTIVE OF REASONS. As simple! If you want to allow disability to be taken into account, make well defined rules and guidelines of what type of disabillity is allowed, and to what extent, what needs to be proven with medical certificates etc. Then sit back and enjoy! And then we also get the entertainment of different types of 'throw' !
The point that Mr Foster should consider is that at what point do we tell a new bowler that he cannot bowl with such action ? Is Mr Foster going to give a certificate that Shoaib and Murali's disability is not giving them undue advantage ? And what if a guy cannot rotate his arm at all ? Would he be allowed to do a baseball throw ? Ask Mr Foster ! What if a wicket-keeper has a disability and he cannot sit immobile for more than 5 seconds? Would he be allowed to move before the delivery ? What if an umpire has 'disease' of forgetfulness ? Would he be allowed to give 7, 5, 4, 9 ball overs ? Or would he be 'stopped' from earning a livelihood because of his disability ? What about stopping a blind man from earning his livelihood flying air-force one ?!! (although I wish such a person is allowed, with Bush on-board!) What if such a person can 'proove' his credentials by flying a modified sound guided plane ? (yes the 'rules' of flying would change, but so are that of cricket being changed!)
Muralitharan is a genuine chucker. thats why he comes from wide of the stump to hide it as much as possible. I dont think Lee chucks. Shoib also seems to be okay. But his round arm action looks like throwing
RE:murali is a genuine chucker
by asa on Dec 09, 2003 10:19 PM
Every one who says that Murali is a chucker, do not believe in science or havent learn science. I believe the science and technology is developed enough to identify real chuckers. Murali ball all the deliveries in the same way . His action never changes. But our own players like Chauhan, Harbujan does seems to chuck a little in some deliveries. Tghe problem is we cannot take Murali's greatness. Soon he will break all the records. We would like some of ours to do that. Or at least wish Murali is from India. Actually he decends from us. asa
I would tend to agree with Holding and Bishen Bedi on the Chucking issue rather than Foster. There are atleast 8 bowlers who genuinely chuck and there's no two ways about it. I just want to ask Mr. Foster only one question. If a person is born blind, which is a disability then would he be allowed to play cricket the normal way with others having to modify their game to suit his? THat will not happen. There is another game developed with different rules for them. As simple as that. Guys who have disability can play cricket but with similar guys who have similar disability.
Foester's views seem to be biased and confused to say the least. He is all support for Murli and Akhtar but says that the umpires did the right thing in calling Lawson. Actually the more number of bowlers get called, the better it is for Foster. Money talks, as they say. And he seems to be totally confused as to whether the physical condition of both Murli and Akhtar given them any advantage.
the last answer in the interview makes it amply clear that sans that bent joint Murali would not have been the bowler he is.. may be the entire issue needs a relook and separate annals/records should be maitained for such people..
