Johan Botha's action

[Burgey]

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.

But the decision not to contract him is the IPL's not the ICC's. And the ICC, if he sued them, would only have to say they were applying the rules, which he has agreed to play under, in referring him.

 

[four_or_six]

I don't think Botha could sue anyone. Apart from not actually being banned, he himself said something along the lines of 'all I need to do is make some minor tweaks to my action and I'll be okay'. Which is basically admitting the ICC was right to call him.

 

[Richard]

Well they did because if their appointed umpires did not call him

This really rather irritates me. Why is it that people persist in using the phrase "Umpires calling bowlers" for throwing? This doesn't happen any more (well, it can if there's a ridiculously blatant throw, but that's only ever going to happen if someone's larking around), these days suspect actions are reported and dealt with behind-the-scenes.

Fortunately, bowlers being humiliated on the field is essentially a thing of the past.

 

[Goughy]

Fortunately, bowlers being humiliated on the field is essentially a thing of the past.

Humiliated? Dont chuck the ****er in the first place. Hardly see how being called for breaking the rules is humiliating. Its a tragedy that the umpires are no longer being asked to apply the laws of the game.

 

[Richard]

It isn't though. Umpires can't apply the laws - because you can't always tell with the naked-eye whether an action is fair or not. It's essential that there is no longer a provision for some idiot like Ross Emerson to decide that he wants a bit of attention and go no-balling bowlers who've been specifically cleared.

And you surely realise that not all bowlers throw intentionally? In fact I'd say only a small minority do. Precious few ever even admit their transgression post-retirement. It's totally unfair to be being no-balled in the middle of a Test match for something that's completely accidental.

 

[silentstriker]

Humiliated? Dont chuck the ****er in the first place.

Well, assuming you did chuck it.

Hardly see how being called for breaking the rules is humiliating. Its a tragedy that the umpires are no longer being asked to apply the laws of the game.

Umpires are no longer to apply an unfair law, yea. Far from a tragedy.

 

[funnygirl]

what about a qualified bio mechanic in the match (very difficult process) observing and arriving at a conclusion .This whole chucking issue has been a headache and a joke .Umpires can't call it or umbires will be biased .So much drama.

 

[silentstriker]

It's not possible to judge with a naked eye, even for a biomechanist.

 

[BoyBrumby]

And you surely realise that not all bowlers throw intentionally? In fact I'd say only a small minority do. Precious few ever even admit their transgression post-retirement. It's totally unfair to be being no-balled in the middle of a Test match for something that's completely accidental.

Don't see the relevance. Bowlers don't deliberately bowl front-foot no-balls either, but they're still called for them. It's the end result that's pertinent, not the intent.

Umpires are no longer to apply an unfair law, yea. Far from a tragedy.

Trouble is it's been replaced with a rule that is at least as unfair (it's only ever bowlers whose actions look dodgy who get reported) that can't be applied comtemporaneously.

 

[Richard]

Don't see the relevance. Bowlers don't deliberately bowl front-foot no-balls either, but they're still called for them. It's the end result that's pertinent, not the intent.

How on Earth is it possible to not see the difference between being called for throwing and called for overstepping? Being called for throwing is a permanent stain on any bowler's career; overstepping is something most bowlers - wrongly, but so nonetheless - do, some with a great deal too much regularity.

Trouble is it's been replaced with a rule that is at least as unfair (it's only ever bowlers whose actions look dodgy who get reported) that can't be applied comtemporaneously.

The old rule was unfair (though ignorance was bliss for most) and policeable; the new one is fair and unpoliceable. I've said this any number of times. The only way to be completely solvent of the problem is for every bowler to bowl every delivery of a cricket match with a brace on his arm. And this seems unacceptable to the masses. So thus a good solution is impossible.

 

[BoyBrumby]

How on Earth is it possible to not see the difference between being called for throwing and called for overstepping? Being called for throwing is a permanent stain on any bowler's career; overstepping is something most bowlers - wrongly, but so nonetheless - do, some with a great deal too much regularity.

What's that got to do with players unintentionally chucking?

If you chuck a delivery it's a chuck; if you overstep it's a no-ball. My point was to illustrate that intent is irrelevant to the end result. Chose your own analogy: one could say an edge for four may be unintentional but it's still four to your total or a full-toss caught on the boundary is still a wicket.

The old rule was unfair (though ignorance was bliss for most) and policeable; the new one is fair and unpoliceable. I've said this any number of times. The only way to be completely solvent of the problem is for every bowler to bowl every delivery of a cricket match with a brace on his arm. And this seems unacceptable to the masses. So thus a good solution is impossible.

I don't think the new rule is fair at all, myself. How is it fair on a batsman who has been dismissed with a blatant chuck that will just be reported after the fact? His dismissal stands.

The law has moved in advance of technology, which is madness and, as you say, has made it unpoliceable.

 

[silentstriker]

Trouble is it's been replaced with a rule that is at least as unfair (it's only ever bowlers whose actions look dodgy who get reported) that can't be applied comtemporaneously.

I don't see how you can make it fairer without having the technology to judge the bent angle on the spot.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't see how you can make it fairer without having the technology to judge the bent angle on the spot.

Quite.

So the powers that be have decided to be "fair" to bowlers and not call them in games, no matter how ragged an action looks, which I'd suggest isn't fair to batsmen.

In every other situation the rule of thumb is benefit of doubt to the batsman. Why (and I'm being rhetorical here before someone answers) is that not the case with chucking?

Answers on a postcard to the ICC, Dubai. In the event of a tie the winner will be decided by answering this question in 15 words or less:

"I think Arjuna Ranatunga is a fat **** because..."

 

[silentstriker]

So the powers that be have decided to be "fair" to bowlers and not call them in games, no matter how ragged an action looks, which I'd suggest isn't fair to batsmen.

I'd suggest that calling them while being physically unable to actually tell if its a chuck is even more unfair and discriminatory as some people's actions have been proven to 'look' worse than others despite having the same degree of bent.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'd suggest that calling them while being physically unable to actually tell if its a chuck is even more unfair and discriminatory as some people's actions have been proven to 'look' worse than others despite having the same degree of bent.

& you'd be right about the appearance being (apparantly) deceptive.

However, which are the bowlers who get reported? Yup, the ones with the dodgy looking actions. So there's an inbuilt discrimination in the law.

I think we need to move past this silly stigma about chucking. Why, of all the ways to gain unfair advantage in cricket, is it so beyond the pale that the merest hint of it being unfairly applied is worse than a rule which, effectively, can't be enforced?

 

[silentstriker]

I think we need to move past this silly stigma about chucking. Why, of all the ways to gain unfair advantage in cricket, is it so beyond the pale that the merest hint of it being unfairly applied is worse than a rule which, effectively, can't be enforced?

Well, if this rule can't effectively be applied during the game, the other rule simply couldn't be applied at all because by its very definition virtually everyone was breaking it. So do you make every bowler bowl with a brace, or do you face legal consequences of unfair application? Which you'd get if the bowlers could prove it in court, and they easily could, why they were being singled out despite others breaking the law.

Or do you drop the pretense and simply make the rule as a subjective call from the umpire - which might differ markedly from umpire to umpire? That'd go over well in the middle of a Test series......

However, which are the bowlers who get reported? Yup, the ones with the dodgy looking actions. So there's an inbuilt discrimination in the law.

But that's why the 15 degrees was chosen, as that was what the biomechanists at University of Western Australia said was the minimum amount to discern with the naked eye with any sort of consistency, but it still wouldn't be proof. So if their eyes tell them that there is a kink, you get tested to verify it. The bowlers who have the opposite effect, meaning their action looks cleaner than it is, if any exist, would not have been called during the old rules, and won't be called now, so their cheating continues unabated. Not until there is a way to tell during a live match.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well, if this rule can't effectively be applied during the game, the other rule simply couldn't be applied at all because by its very definition virtually everyone was breaking it. So do you make every bowler bowl with a brace, or do you face legal consequences of unfair application? Which you'd get if the bowlers could prove it in court, and they easily could, why they were being singled out despite others breaking the law.

Or do you drop the pretense and simply make the rule as a subjective call from the umpire - which might differ markedly from umpire to umpire? That'd go over well in the middle of a Test series......

It's true that by the strict letter of the law more or less every bowler was breaking the old rule, but I don't think bowlers like McGrath or Pollock who have pretty much text-book actions could ever be accused of breaking the spirit of it.

People who play and watch cricket know what a chuck looks like and know what a proper bowling action looks like in the same way as they know what a plumb LBW looks like and what one that might be drifting down leg looks like. We don't have any problems in umpires judging the latter, so why the BS around the former? Yes, one umpire might see one action differently in the same way as he might see an LBW differently too, but we accept the latter largely without questioning the equity of the adjudicator.

But that's why the 15 degrees was chosen, as that was what the biomechanists at University of Western Australia said was the minimum amount to discern with the naked eye with any sort of consistency, but it still wouldn't be proof. So if their eyes tell them that there is a kink, you get tested to verify it. The bowlers who have the opposite effect, meaning their action looks cleaner than it is, if any exist, would not have been called during the old rules, and won't be called now, so their cheating continues unabated. Not until there is a way to tell during a live match.

It wasn't originally tho, was it? There were different tolerance limits for slow, medium and quick bowlers. Which did make some kind of sense as the quicker a bowler bowls the more involuntary movement the elbow is likely to make.

 

[silentstriker]

It's true that by the strict letter of the law more or less every bowler was breaking the old rule, but I don't think bowlers like McGrath or Pollock who have pretty much text-book actions could ever be accused of breaking the spirit of it.

Why? Because their chuck is disguised well enough to fool the umpires? That's sort of the point is, isn't it - to focus on what's actually happening and giving the right decision vs. a subjective and demonstrably unreliable method of judging?

We don't have any problems in umpires judging the latter, so why the BS around the former?

Actually, I do have a problem with it, but obviously that's another discussion.

It wasn't originally tho, was it? There were different tolerance limits for slow, medium and quick bowlers. Which did make some kind of sense as the quicker a bowler bowls the more involuntary movement the elbow is likely to make.

Yea, but it was simply an arbitrary number that someone made and which had no chance of A) being implemented by an umpire since it'd be impossible to tell the difference, and B) all the players were in violation of it anyway.

 

[Top_Cat]

People who play and watch cricket know what a chuck looks like and know what a proper bowling action looks like in the same way as they know what a plumb LBW looks like and what one that might be drifting down leg looks like. We don't have any problems in umpires judging the latter, so why the BS around the former? Yes, one umpire might see one action differently in the same way as he might see an LBW differently too, but we accept the latter largely without questioning the equity of the adjudicator.

Using LBW's to prove your point? haha, only does the opposite mate. Just have to watch a game in any pub or with any other human to know that most people don't know what a plumb LBW looks like.

And as for not having an issue with umpires judging LBW's, well if that was the case, there'd be no talk of Hawkeye, HotSpot or any other piece of technology which will eventually take the decision away from the umpire. Chucking just has an added emotional element, especially if someone is doing it deliberately. They're both incredibly difficult to police with the naked eye, technology has absolutely rocked what people thought were established perspectives on them and now, rightly in my view, the decisions regarding them are gradually being taken away from the on-field umpires.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Why? Because their chuck is disguised well enough to fool the umpires? That's sort of the point is, isn't it - to focus on what's actually happening and giving the right decision vs. a subjective and demonstrably unreliable method of judging?



Actually, I do have a problem with it, but obviously that's another discussion.


Yea, but it was simply an arbitrary number that someone made and which had no chance of A) being implemented by an umpire since it'd be impossible to tell the difference, and B) all the players were in violation of it anyway.

I think the point is that a 'chuck' never has, and never will be regarded as something that appears like the epitomy of a normal action by a lot of people. Whether that appearance is correct or not is another thing. Saying that McGrath etc chucked it under the old rules and therefore can be compared to Botha et al is adding a little bit of irrationality to the subject in my opinion.

I've always thought it's a bit of a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A large majority of bowler's actions over the years haven't been called into question, and usually those that have look quite unusual to the naked eye. Now we have the technology to judge whether they actually are breaking the rules I don't see the problem. Saying bowlers like McGrath and Pollock 'disguise their chucks' is silly really. You'd think technology would help things, but it seems to muddy the waters on certain occasions.