BBC Home

Explore the BBC

439 comments

user rating: 2 star

Hair Is BACK! YEEEEESSS!!

International Tests England
comment on the article

Thank goodness he's back! The standard of umpiring has been horrific lately! Particularly against England! And Hair won't let the Aussies or the Indians act the way they have recently either!

THE ENFORCER IS BACK! YES!!

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own

posted Mar 26, 2008

I think Hair's action is diabolical - accusing the ICC of being racist one day; crying to be a part of the ICC the next.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Dave L (U3238270)

posted Mar 26, 2008

I agree that “diabolical” was the wrong word to use, cricidmuslibale. “Unfair” should have sufficed.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 26, 2008

I AM BEING DELETED AGAIN. Not everyone who 'doubts' Murali's action is prejudiced. The majority of people I know thin there are serious 'doubts' over his action whatever the IIC say. We all also think Murali is a great bloke!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 26, 2008

Circi your comments are spot on!

Swamy your points are spot on as well. The fact the ICC do not trust Hair to umpire for every country speaks volumes!

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Dave L (U3238270)

posted Mar 26, 2008

Who is circi?

Whoever he is, he must draw great comfort from such intellectual support.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 26, 2008

Circi is possibly me, if that's the case, thank you armchair.

DL, you are correct in that "unfair" would be a much more reasonable word to use than "diabolical" were it not for the fact that Murali has proved through several extensive bowling action tests under the supervision of leading biomechanical experts such as Daryl Foster in Perth that he bowls with an entirely fair action for a wrist-spinning offspin bowler.

Bishen Bedi is perhaps simply not gracious enough to apologise to Murali as he rightly should. He is possibly also more than a little jealous of Murali's innate natural talent and success. Murali has a strong enough team of lawyers to deal with him in any case.

It is simply not a legitimate view that Murali has a "diabolical action" or even that he throws in the light of so much overwhelming evidence that any flex in his action is purely accidental and that he is much a genuine wrist spin bowler (albeit with his stock ball spinning in the opposite direction) as e.g. Shane Warne and Stuart McGill are.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 26, 2008

crici

The evidence to which you refer is a joke.

All it does is test his action in a laboratory, not when he is playing in a game. All it shows is that he CAN bowl, in a laboratory, within the rules. It does nothing to prove that he bowls within the rules during an actual game.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Dave L (U3238270)

posted Mar 26, 2008

There’s not much more I could add to what breakandana says, cricidmuslibale, other than perhaps to say that the “tests” were paid for by an organisation that may have had a vested interest in the outcome.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 26, 2008

"The evidence to which you refer is a joke."

"All it does is test his action in a laboratory, not when he is playing in a game. All it shows is that he CAN bowl, in a laboratory, within the rules. It does nothing to prove that he bowls within the rules during an actual game."

The evidence to which I refer is very far from a joke indeed!

When any bowling action is laboratory tested it is directly compared with the action used on the field of play using extensive video footage taken from a recent match involving the bowler concerned.

Thus no bowler can get away with using a different action from his normal playing action in a lab test. Harbhajan Singh did once attempt to do this and he was pulled up very quickly indeed and ordered to repeat the tests on his bowling action whilst using exactly the same action as he would on the field of play.

Daryl Foster, for one, will confirm to any doubters that Murali will have had to use the same bowling action in his lab tests that he uses on the cricket field during matches.

I can see no reasons whatsoever to doubt the fairness or outcome of any bowling action tests carried out on any bowler independently by experienced impartial biomechanical experts such as Daryl Foster and his fellow sports scientists at The University of Western Australia in Perth. Murali has been fairly examined by Foster & Co and he has been rightly vindicated!

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Dave L (U3238270)

posted Mar 26, 2008

“I can see no reasons whatsoever to doubt the fairness or outcome of any bowling action tests carried out on any bowler independently by experienced impartial biomechanical experts…”

Perhaps you say that simply because it fits your own preconceptions before the “tests” were carried out, cricidmuslibale.

I would take issue with the word “independently”, by the way. Did the people carrying out the “tests” fund them themselves, or did they receive payment for them?

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 24.44%
    11 votes
  • 4 2.22%
    1 votes
  • 3 6.67%
    3 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 66.67%
    30 votes

average rating:
2.18 from 45 votes