Johan Botha's action

[Langeveldt]

Totally agree

The whole chucking thing leaves me totally cold

It's a case of "move on, nothing to see here anymore because no-one really gives a toss"

I think it's pretty obvious they do give a toss.. Many of the bowlers who have risen to prominence with suspect actions happen to be, on their day, very very good.. So I think it does matter, especially when there are thousands of test wickets as well as the careers of batsmen on the line

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah that's what i am coming at, once a bowler has been cleared by the ICC bio-mechanic testing team, then that should pretty much be the end of the matter, and the bloke should be free to play.

If some on-field umpire finds his action to be dubious again, he should be reported and should get his action tested again, but still if doubts over a bowler's action remains after these tests, then what's the whole point of having them there?

I don't think anyone should be labelled as a chucker until and unless proven so, a bowler's action might"look" terrible, but that doesn't necessarily means he chucks.

That's the crucial point. Shabbir Ahmed was cleared once, but on being reported again was found to have relapsed and was duly banned for 12 months. It's not quite as easy as "he's cleared, so he doesn't chuck". Some deliveries are worse than others and often a bowler's action (as is the case with Shabbir) looks to get worse as the game goes on and fatigue or whatever sets in.

 

[pup11]

That's the crucial point. Shabbir Ahmed was cleared once, but on being reported again was found to have relapsed and was duly banned for 12 months. It's not quite as easy as "he's cleared, so he doesn't chuck". Some deliveries are worse than others and often a bowler's action (as is the case with Shabbir) looks to get worse as the game goes on and fatigue or whatever sets in.

Of course if a guy has cleared the test once, he ought to have done something right, and if he gets the clearance from the ICC, then the matter should be put to rest.

When an on-field umpire finds that same guy's action to be dubious again, he should be reported and made to go through the test again, but if he clears the test the second time too, then obviously it would mean two things, either the umpires are making the mistake or the tests aren't good enough.

Though my point is, if a bowler's action is considered bad, he shouldn't just be labelled as a chucker straightaway, until it can be proven, because its never great for a bowler to have question raised against the legality of his bowling action, and that too when there is no evidence to back that claim.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Of course if a guy has cleared the test once, he ought to have done something right, and if he gets the clearance from the ICC, then the matter should be put to rest.

When an on-field umpire finds that same guy's action to be dubious again, he should be reported and made to go through the test again, but if he clears the test the second time too, then obviously it would mean two things, either the umpires are making the mistake or the tests aren't good enough.

Though my point is, if a bowler's action is considered bad, he shouldn't be labelled as a chucker, until it can be proven, because its never great for a bowler to have question raised against the legality of his bowling action, and that to when there is no evidence to back that claim.

That highlights the arse of a system we have to deal with chucking now. Because the ICC have decreed that bowlers with suspect looking actions should be reported, they are still going to be followed by whispers until they are tested and (usually) cleared. But becuase appearances are (apparently) deceptive, the, ah, unorthodox looking actions are still going to attract the most attention.

One the one hand we rely on the umpires' (flawed, apparently) judgement but on the other we then have testers to counter-intuitively clear (usually) the bowler and the process goes on and on.

It's insanity.

 

[Uppercut]

That's the crucial point. Shabbir Ahmed was cleared once, but on being reported again was found to have relapsed and was duly banned for 12 months. It's not quite as easy as "he's cleared, so he doesn't chuck". Some deliveries are worse than others and often a bowler's action (as is the case with Shabbir) looks to get worse as the game goes on and fatigue or whatever sets in.

I think the 12 month ban kinda victimised him unnecessarily. He was told his action was fine, only to be told that it's not fine. Which is okay- he can go and remodel it and possibly come back with a decent action- but a ban in a situation like that isn't really necessary. You can't tell someone something is fine then ban them for doing it.

 

[chaminda_00]

I think the 12 month ban kinda victimised him unnecessarily. He was told his action was fine, only to be told that it's not fine. Which is okay- he can go and remodel it and possibly come back with a decent action- but a ban in a situation like that isn't really necessary. You can't tell someone something is fine then ban them for doing it.

It depends what happens when they get cleared the first time. Usually they get told not to bowl a certain why or a certain ball. If they came back and started bowling that bqll or with that action, then a 12 month ban is fine. I am pretty sure this was the case with Shabbir Ahmed as he was told not to bowl with a certain action. As majority of his balls were fine. He bowled with that action, later to be found caused by fatigue. But still they had no choice if didn't stop bowling with that action, even if it wasn't on purpose.

 

[Uppercut]

Possibly, I guess it's hard to know the ins and outs of any case.

 

[kingkallis]

I honestly don't reckon it's dodgy at all.

But really, every fast/medium bowler chucks it.

Most you don't notice because it's not much, but the like of Akhtar, Tait, Lee, etc, they look like they chuck it more.

Yeah, put Oram, Mills, Jerome Taylor, Razzaq in that category!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Sarwan was the only one of 23 bowlers analysed not to straighten his arm. The fact that there may be one or two others who happened not to be analysed and who also don't straighten there arm is, in my opinion, neither here nor there.

Whether such tests were or were not accurate is a more relevant point and I don't pretend to know the answer.

Well, for a start, the tests were done a few years back so the findings aren't relevant to anyone who has come along since that time. However, as to the accuracy of the tests, it does seem funny that something they used then hasn't been used since...but I'm not 100% sure why that was either.

 

[chaminda_00]

Well, for a start, the tests were done a few years back so the findings aren't relevant to anyone who has come along since that time. However, as to the accuracy of the tests, it does seem funny that something they used then hasn't been used since...but I'm not 100% sure why that was either.

Maybe cus there hasn't been a need for mass study again. It was only used as it was the best option to study a large range of players at once, to find a mean. You were never going to get 100 players to all go down to labs to get tested.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's the crucial point. Shabbir Ahmed was cleared once, but on being reported again was found to have relapsed and was duly banned for 12 months. It's not quite as easy as "he's cleared, so he doesn't chuck". Some deliveries are worse than others and often a bowler's action (as is the case with Shabbir) looks to get worse as the game goes on and fatigue or whatever sets in.

Exactly...the idea you can be cleared for life is as stupid as the people who made the rules in the first place. I could run in a chuck my first three deliveries tomorrow and I'd expect to be called for it, but it wouldn't happen, and that's a pity. Unless I came up with a baseball action.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Maybe cus there hasn't been a need for mass study again. It was only used as it was the best option to study a large range of players at once, to find a mean. You were never going to get 100 players to all go down to labs to get tested.

So the best option now wouldn't be for players to be able to be tested in real time so we didn't have the fiasco with testing etc we have now? I realise someone else said it wasn't accurate enough to rely on but does anyone know if something like this is being worked on if possible!?) or have the ICC just hung their hats on the report/pass....play/get reported/test/pass system they have now?

I'm sure you could get 100 players to the labs to be tested...just tell them they've all been reported for throwing by the ICC

 

[chaminda_00]

So the best option now wouldn't be for players to be able to be tested in real time so we didn't have the fiasco with testing etc we have now? I realise someone else said it wasn't accurate enough to rely on but does anyone know if something like this is being worked on if possible!?) or have the ICC just hung their hats on the report/pass....play/get reported/test/pass system they have now?

I'm sure you could get 100 players to the labs to be tested...just tell them they've all been reported for throwing by the ICC

It is possible, but most likely you will get the same results as in lab testing. Where bowlers may hold off you ensure they pass. Also it would have a massive impact on that bowler's performance in that game.

You have to wire someone up to test the with 100% accuracy. Testing some through TV replays is only good for mean testing, not indiviual testing. The whole testing system during the CT was purely for mean testing. It wouldn't work for indiviual bowlers. It was always recogonised it was only useful for one purpose.

 

[social]

It's a ridiculous rule when a guy like Shabbir can bowl his side to victory using an illegal action

A bowler CAN'T bowl too many bouncers, negatively, with his foot over the line or when it's too dark but he CAN chuck and not get sanctioned on the field

That is definitely

 

[chaminda_00]

It's a ridiculous rule when a guy like Shabbir can bowl his side to victory using an illegal action

Poor example as when he goes chuck he is knacked as the oppo got 500 on the board. He not going to win too many matches from that position.

 

[social]

Poor example as when he goes chuck he is knacked as the oppo got 500 on the board. He not going to win too many matches from that position.

Bowled Pak to victory in a test vs Eng

The "excuse" was that he was making his return to the side and wasnt match fit so your theory may have something to it

 

[funnygirl]

It's a ridiculous rule when a guy like Shabbir can bowl his side to victory using an illegal action

A bowler CAN'T bowl too many bouncers, negatively, with his foot over the line or when it's too dark but he CAN chuck and not get sanctioned on the fieldThat is definitely

Thats the most worrying part in the scenario .If the opposition team complains they will be called as sore losers or whiners .

But a habitual chucker will chuck in desperate situations.

 

[andruid]

This thread smells of with hunt all over it

 

[Manee]

So what should the rule state? Bearing in mind that every international bowler bar Ramnaresh Sarwan bent their arm more than the original rules said.

That is not true, not true whatsoever. It is a commonly held misconception in fact. A large amount of bowlers broke the old rules (Imran and Mcgrath to name two) but by no means all but one. Sarwan is the only bowler who was seen to have a perfectly straight arm but the old rules did not state you had to have a perfectly straight arm.

 

[Uppercut]

That is not true, not true whatsoever. It is a commonly held misconception in fact. A large amount of bowlers broke the old rules (Imran and Mcgrath to name two) but by no means all but one. Sarwan is the only bowler who was seen to have a perfectly straight arm but the old rules did not state you had to have a perfectly straight arm.

Yeah, it was an exaggeration. But more than half of those tested broke the rules.

I think Michael Holding has it spot on. Having been one of Murali's biggest critics, and part of the panel who conducted the study into chucking, he had this to say:

"The scientific evidence is overwhelming. When bowlers who to the naked eye look to have pure actions are thoroughly analysed with the sophisticated technology now in place, they are likely to be shown as straightening their arm by 11 and in some cases 12 degrees. Under a strict interpretation of the law, these players are breaking the rules. The game needs to deal with this reality and make its judgment as to how it accommodates this fact."