Johan Botha's action

[pup11]

What an expert observation!! A pity all the International jokers called umpires didn't notice it, Captain Obvious!!

You are back aren't you, and its pretty obvious nothing much has changed with you, ok as for your argument after Hair no-balled Murali during a game for suspect action, Ranatunga virtually decided to take his team off the field due to it, i mean after that sort of incident you are telling me an umpire would dare to openly admit he thinks a bowler is chucking, because if they do, these bowlers can easily clear the bio-mechanical tests and put these umpires in a tight spot, so if they find anyone with suspect action they report that bloke to the match referee and the ICC pulls that bloke over for a bio-mechanic test, which most of them clear quite easily.

 

[Precambrian]

The notion of the 15 degree rule is that once the flex is that great it is visible to the naked eye, now who are we kidding, Bird, Malinga, Tait, Akthar, Murali, Botha, Harbhajan might all look dodgy when they are bowling, but get them tested in a bio-mechanics lab and almost everyone of them would come out clear, so i mean what is the point of holding this whole charade, it think it was Warne who suggested that all bowlers should be made to wear a device during the game, that records of degree of their flexes, and tbh as unreal it may sound this is the only fool-proof way of overcoming this problem.

Dude, seriously, you need to check out the world a little more without those baggy-green tinted glasses.

Murali bowled all his variations wearing an unbendable arm band in front of Mark Nicholas for Channel 9 some years back.

 

[Goughy]

Ive not seen anything of this series.

Ill have to have a look. His action used to be filthy though.

 

[Precambrian]

You are back aren't you, and its pretty obvious nothing much has changed with you, ok as for your argument after Hair no-balled Murali during a game for suspect action, Ranatunga virtually decided to take his team off the field due to it, i mean after that sort of incident you are telling me an umpire would dare to openly admit he thinks a bowler is chucking, because if they do, these bowlers can easily clear the bio-mechanical tests and put these umpires in a tight spot, so if they find anyone with suspect action they report that bloke to the match referee and the ICC pulls that bloke over for a bio-mechanic test, which most of them clear quite easily.

Yeah am back. A bit wiser.

Bio-mechanical tests are not conducted by fools or scientists ignorant of cricket. They are conducted in circumstances simulating match conditions. They will notice whether the bowler is deliberately under-spinning or under-pacing the deliveries.

As to Hair, it is actually the job of the square leg umpire to call for suspect action. Hair was at the bowler's end, and yet he noticed it. How can the bowling end umpire look at the arm as well as the foot (for no ball) at the same time? And Ranatunga did not lead the team off in that match. He simply stopped Murali from bowling further in that match. Later he took up the case with the authorities and requested what was exactly wrong with him, so that it could be corrected. No reply was received. And later in an ODI, (after getting all clear about his action) the Australian umpire, Roy Emerson continued calling him no-ball. This upset Ranatunga, as Murali had been cleared by ICC, and yet this umpire was calling him. It later emerged that Emerson was not 100% mentally fit.

 

[pup11]

Dude, seriously, you need to check out the world a little more without those baggy-green tinted glasses.

Murali bowled all his variations wearing an unbendable arm band in front of Mark Nicholas for Channel 9 some years back.

Yeah am back. A bit wiser.

Bio-mechanical tests are not conducted by fools or scientists ignorant of cricket. They are conducted in circumstances simulating match conditions. They will notice whether the bowler is deliberately under-spinning or under-pacing the deliveries.

As to Hair, it is actually the job of the square leg umpire to call for suspect action. Hair was at the bowler's end, and yet he noticed it. How can the bowling end umpire look at the arm as well as the foot (for no ball) at the same time? And Ranatunga did not lead the team off in that match. He simply stopped Murali from bowling further in that match. Later he took up the case with the authorities and requested what was exactly wrong with him, so that it could be corrected. No reply was received. And later in an ODI, (after getting all clear about his action) the Australian umpire, Roy Emerson continued calling him no-ball. This upset Ranatunga, as Murali had been cleared by ICC, and yet this umpire was calling him. It later emerged that Emerson was not 100% mentally fit.

Look i would clearly like to believe that no bowler "delibertely" chucks during an international game or even a domestic game, but its is perfectly possible for someone to have a higher degree of flex than the legal 15 degree flex, and that might only happen when the bowler might try for that extra yard of pace or a spinner might be looking for a bit more of extra leverage, and these bowlers might not even realise they have bowled with a higher degree of flex, my point is, in such instances when these bowlers are reported they are not required to bowl with same intensity as they bowl with during a game, hence most of these bowlers come clear out of these tests, and obviously if your action is completely beyond any doubt then obviously there is no getting away with it.

As for what Hair did, i am not saying was right, what it did was it made umpires around the world really circumspect before reporting a bowler, because if the bowler comes clear out of the test, then the umpire really ends up looking like the villain out in all this.

 

[Precambrian]

Look i would clearly like to believe that no bowler "delibertely" chucks during an international game or even a domestic game, but its is perfectly possible for someone to have a higher degree of flex than the legal 15 degree flex, and that might only happen when the bowler might try for that extra yard of pace or a spinner might be looking for a bit more of extra leverage, and these bowlers might not even realise they have bowled with a higher degree of flex, my point is, in such instances when these bowlers are reported they are not required to bowl with same intensity as they bowl with during a game, hence most of these bowlers come clear out of these tests, and obviously if your action is completely beyond any doubt then obviously there is no getting away with it.

As for what Hair did, i am not saying was right, what it did was it made umpires around the world really circumspect before reporting a bowler, because if the bowler comes clear out of the test, then the umpire really ends up looking like the villain out in all this.

No, they are required to bowl with the same intensity.

Watch this video for proof. YouTube - Understanding Muttiah 'Murali' Muralitharan

Also refer to Wikipedia entry for murali.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think Botha has a bent arm, but he doesn't necessariliy extend the elbow. So he's probably OK.

Been through the Tait thing too many times to mention, but am pretty sure it's because of elbow rotation that the side-on view of Tait looks ordinary at times.

 

[Manee]

I think Botha has a bent arm, but he doesn't necessariliy extend the elbow. So he's probably OK.

Was about to say that myself, a very bent arm at delivery but minimal straightening from what I've seen.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It looks slightly better than it did when he first emerged, but to the naked eye it's still a shocker. I don't pretend to be an expert and my own eyes are so fallible that I have to wear glasses for my myopia, but I can see how questions would be asked.

Jono's point re Tait is well made tho. Without any suggestion Tait is a thrower himself, there's surely more danger from bowlers of his pace who might get a wee bit chucky on their effort balls than from offies who bowl 30+mph slower. At least with Botha the only danger a batsman is in is losing his wicket. With blokes who are genuinely rapid the danger is more literal.

 

[Matt79]

Botha never looks good, but some balls he definitely chucks IMO.

Tait has bowled some dodgy looking balls this season as well.

Guess maybe having previously been suspended for chucking, Botha's problems seem more likely to actually be chucking. Whereas we don't know if Tait has been reported, but obviously no charge has been laid and made to stick against him, although perhaps this may happen in time if he does have a problem.

 

[Uppercut]

Botha's action makes my toes curl every time. I don't think he's chucking, his arm's bent but it doesn't appear to straighten, it's just painful to watch.

Don't think there's anything wrong with Tait's action at all, and i quite enjoy watching him bowl if only for the power he generates.

 

[Precambrian]

Botha never looks good, but some balls he definitely chucks IMO.

How come You determine that?

 

[Matt79]

How come You determine that?

Key part being "IMO".

What leads me to that opinion, is the way in some deliveries his arm bends then unbends in a jerky "chucking" motion, in a manner that is clearly visible to the naked eye and moreso in television replays.

 

[Precambrian]

Key part being "IMO".

What leads me to that opinion, is the way in some deliveries his arm bends then unbends in a jerky "chucking" motion, in a manner that is clearly visible to the naked eye and moreso in television replays.

Well, by that logic, IMO Brett Lee chucks.

 

[Matt79]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

I think some of Lee's effort balls could be questioned, but I don't think they're as bad as Johan's. Plus, as I mentioned with Tait, Lee's never been found to have chucked the ball under the rules, whereas Botha has in the past.

 

[BoyBrumby]

With Matt on this one. Given Botha's been reported previously and actually banned for a period for chucking (source: BBC) I don't think it's a huge or unreasonable leap to suspect he may occasionally exceed the tolerance limit for elbow flexion.

Re his bent arm on delivery: is he unable to straighten his arm fully? It'd be peculiar that he chose to use such an action if not.

 

[Furball]

Lol, they have done the super slowmo replays on taits action so many times and there is no way he's chucking it.

Slinging =/= chucking.

That's funny, I don't recall saying Tait chucks.

What I did say, and it's undeniable, is that his action looks terrible.

 

[Uppercut]

With Matt on this one. Given Botha's been reported previously and actually banned for a period for chucking (source: BBC) I don't think it's a huge or unreasonable leap to suspect he may occasionally exceed the tolerance limit for elbow flexion.

Re his bent arm on delivery: is he unable to straighten his arm fully? It'd be peculiar that he chose to use such an action if not.

Particularly considering that in Botha's case chucking the ball gives no apparent advantage over bowling it. Strange indeed.

 

[Smudge]

Guys, it's probably best not to mention that any Australian bowler in any way, shape or form may have an action that doesn't look ideal in terms of legality. The shrieking and wagon-circling just really isn't worth it.

 

[thierry henry]

Does Kyle Mills chuck? I certainly don't think so but there are those who do

The problem tends to arise with bowlers who bowl with a permanently bent arm, like Botha and Mills. In Mills' case it's particularly unusual as he is a seamer, why he bowls like that I have no idea but there you go. Another who was like that was Andrew Hall, the way he bowled it seemed as though his arm was about 6 inches long, but I don't think he chucked it.

Tait definitely chucks some balls imo....difference with Tait is he bowls with a fully extended arm, but sometimes he bends the elbow more than others...