Who’s reading “Speed could face no-confidence motion” on CricInfo?

From the BCCI:

“We are not that satisfied,” Shah told the newspaper. “It is becoming more and more bureaucratic. My board is of the belief that cricket is a simple, enjoyable game, but that is not how it appears at present.

I think I nearly choked. Cast the first stone why don’t you.

Fair call, Rusty. I sat down to write a piece entirely in praise of Australian cricket and somehow the odd snide remark crept in. I probably need therapy.

No, they can’t ‘just let it go’ Ian - and they are quite right not to, bearing in mind the authorities have totally washed their hands in such a cowardly manner.

I was amazed to find, during the Sri Lanka/New Zealand semi just how easy it was to pick Murali’s doosra… because the arm is SO bent at the point of delivery swhen he ‘bowls’ it that it’s impossible to miss it.

In my book, that’s a throw. It’s a scandal that he’s been able to get away with it.

There’s a world of difference between the ‘bend’ in Shaun Taits arm (or Freddies arm) and the bend in Murali’s arm when he bowls his doosra.

The ICC granted a ‘degree of difficulty’ of 15% - but take a look at some photos of Murali bowling and you can see an angle of nearer 45 degrees.

Yes, he’s a wonderful character and human being - friends of mine at Lancashire say he was fantastic when he played there a few years ago… but he’s still a cheat.

Yes, but Murali’s arm patently doesn’t ’stay’ at 15 degrees throughout delivery.

When he bowls the doosra it starts at around 50 degrees, and ends up pretty straight.

That’s a throw.

I repeat, it doesn’t have to “stay” at 15 degrees. In the laws as they stand, the arm can straighten by up to 15 degrees and it is not a throw.

So to labour the point, if the arm is bent at 35 degrees to start with, and at no point is straighter than 20 degrees, then that would be a valid delivery.

If photo evidence is so conclusive, why has it not been collated and presented in one place before now?
Photos, like TV pictures foreshorten the image so are not necessarily conclusive anyway (look up foreshortening on wikipedia), but the biomechanical tests undertaken at the University of Western Australia are more accurate.

Also in Murali’s defence is the footage shot of him bowling wearing a brace on his elbow which physically prevented the elbow from moving more than allowed.

The law is an ass in that having a degree of tolerance in the straightening means that its not clear cut what is a throw, however, all bowlers straighten their arm to some degree (reference: http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article320493.ece) so its a necessary evil.

However, some people are so one-eyed that they choose to simply dismiss the available scientific evidence and claim things that have been shown to be untrue