Johan Botha's action

[Don Bradman]

McGrath's and Pollocks effort balls, they extended it to 12º. Under the old law, they too have chucked

Do you have valid source for those claims? Seems a bit too high...

 

[Richard]

Haha, this account has been banned like 3 seconds before this post. I take it is believed to be Precambrian Mk 7 then?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nope. 15 degrees is measured from the furthest point of flexion to the furthest point of extension (i.e. straight arm). Anything beyond straight has been cleared because it's involuntary.



The incident you describe sounds like the way it's always been in my experience. At lower to mid levels, you have to be extraordinarily blatant to be no-balled. Whether someone should or does get no-balled is a matter of opinion/measurement. Point is, it's policed using the same methods at lower levels. The only thing that's changed in the laws of the game is the formal definition of what a throw is (i.e. above the level of the shoulder, a throw is a flexing of the arm followed by an extension).

Ah, good. I thought including hyperextension would be madness.

I've just noticed the excuses change for guys bowling with a bent arm in levels of cricket that aren't 1st class. The immediate answer now is 'he's been tested and cleared' (which is patently ridiculous), or 'he has an arm deformity' (which I've heard a cuple of times too). It's pretty much impossible to argue either so he continues on. It's annoying, but there's not much you can do.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, ask how he has been tested.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well, ask how he has been tested.

I did, you're just wasting your breath though in those situations really. I brought it up with the umpire when I was at the non-striker's end and he said 'They told me he's been tested, there's nothing I can do...At club level there's not much else you can do, even if everyone acknowledges the same thing to be obvious.


Because obviously being tested once clears you for life. (If you are indeed tested in the first place.)

 

[BoyBrumby]

Because obviously being tested once clears you for life. (If you are indeed tested in the first place.)

Ha, quite. It's like passing a breathaliser test giving you a licence to have a bottle of Scotch before you get behind the wheel.

"No, ossifer, I'm ok to drive; I've been cleared"

 

[Richard]

you're just wasting you're breath

You know, the constant proliferation of comments along the lines of "your not very good"; "I won't if your not"; "if your going, get me a ticket" has long since driven me insane... but I don't think I've ever seen the error made in reverse.

 

[Son Of Coco]

You know, the constant proliferation of comments along the lines of "your not very good"; "I won't if your not"; "if your going, get me a ticket" has long since driven me insane... but I don't think I've ever seen the error made in reverse.

I did so well on the "you're or your" test on Facebook too Richard. I'm glad the truce on spelling and grammar mistakes has been lifted though, this means war you know!

 

[Son Of Coco]

You know, the constant proliferation of comments along the lines of "your not very good"; "I won't if your not"; "if your going, get me a ticket" has long since driven me insane... but I don't think I've ever seen the error made in reverse.

Actually, the one that makes me twitch is his instead of he's.

 

[andyc]

Actually, the one that makes me twitch is his instead of he's.

Agree with this so, so much.

 

[Richard]

Yeah and I mean, you get that on CW FFS! Loads! You expect it on facebook et al but not on a high-ranking establishment like this forum.

 

[TT Boy]

Being called for chucking has cost Botha an IPL deal (with Warney's Royals). Wonder if he could sue the ICC for loss of earnings once he is cleared?

 

[silentstriker]

Being called for chucking has cost Botha an IPL deal (with Warney's Royals). Wonder if he could sue the ICC for loss of earnings once he is cleared?

He was called within the rules, so he'd have to prove that the laws unfairly targetted him. It would be a hard prove, since the two other spinners (Harbhajan, Murali) have also been reported in the past, and had to take the same tests he has to now.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Being called for chucking has cost Botha an IPL deal (with Warney's Royals). Wonder if he could sue the ICC for loss of earnings once he is cleared?

I hope not, it'd reduce things to a greater farce than they already are.

Unless they can prove he didn't chuck the deliveries that were originally questioned then you'd think not. Unless, or course, we're back to assuming that if you're cleared then you've never bent the rules prior to the deliveries tested...and never will after as you've been 'cleared for life'.

That's just silly.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't know the details of the nature of association between IPL and ICC so I'm interested to know how the ICC can ban Botha from playing in a non-ICC, privately-run competition. Anyone got any insight?

 

[Burgey]

It may more be a case of the IPL not wanting someone whose action has been found illegal to play in their competition.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't know the details of the nature of association between IPL and ICC so I'm interested to know how the ICC can ban Botha from playing in a non-ICC, privately-run competition. Anyone got any insight?

They didn't. The teams just didn't want to deal with it I guess. Even if ICC could ban Botha from IPL, that hasn't happened since Botha can play pending his appeal. So either way, ICC didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[Top_Cat]

They didn't. The teams just didn't want to deal with it I guess. Even if ICC could ban Botha from IPL, that hasn't happened since Botha can play pending his appeal. So either way, ICC didn't have anything to do with it.

That's what I figured. Sucks to be Botha.

 

[TT Boy]

They didn't. The teams just didn't want to deal with it I guess. Even if ICC could ban Botha from IPL, that hasn't happened since Botha can play pending his appeal. So either way, ICC didn't have anything to do with it.

Well they did because if their appointed umpires did not call him, he would have an IPL deal given that the Royals have said that if he wasn't under suspicion of having a suspect action, he would have a contract.

I’m not sure about the legality and whether the ICC could be liable but their decision has of course cost Botha (huge amounts of) money.

 

[silentstriker]

Well they did because if their appointed umpires did not call him, he would have an IPL deal given that the Royals have said that if he wasn't under suspicion of having a suspect action, he would have a contract.

I’m not sure about the legality and whether the ICC could be liable but their decision has of course cost Botha (huge amounts of) money.

Yes, they have certainly cost him a lot of money. But as I said before, if he goes to court, he'd have to prove unfair treatment. Meaning, he has to show that he was called unfairly compared to why people have been called in the past, or that the standard for him to pass is higher than it was for the previous offenders. If the ICC used one test for past bowlers, but used another for him, he'd have a very good case. Or a more outside shot would be that he could of course challenge the legality of the rule itself, saying the bending of arm rule is unfair and go for some sort of restraint of trade ruling, but Murali with his documented disability would have a bigger chance of that. Barring that, I don't see how else he could succeed. What would be his argument: "they followed the written rules of cricket which I agreed to when playing, but this other organization didn't like it and cost me money?"