Johan Botha's action

[Migara]

If the naked eye is so good to decide a chuck, why need the third umpire. Let umpires decide runouts in old fashion.

 

[Richard]

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.

You're barking up the wrong tree. The end result is irrelevant; the point is that being called for overstepping is nothing much of note; being called for throwing is a permanent stain on a bowler's career.

My point about unintentional chucking is that said bowlers will be stained for something that they have not chosen to do - something which is not their fault.

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.

How many batsmen have you seen dismissed by blatant chucks? I've seen none and I'd bet there's never been a case of a bowler being no-balled for throwing and losing a wicket due to it in the history of Test cricket - if not First-Class (not that the latter would be possible to research).

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

The choice was between moving in advance of technology or remaining stuck in old ideals that had been proven false. It was a lesser-of-two-evils case.

 

[Richard]

Bowlers should just wear elbow braces that extend up to 15 degrees.

If you're going to do that you might as well enforce the old ideals which allow zero extension. Although there's precious little difference between 4 and 12 degrees worth of flexion (and absolutely none whatsoever between 1 and 3) - you've got to be unbelievably good to get anything out of doing that deliberately - you may as well make it absolutely the same for everyone.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You're barking up the wrong tree. The end result is irrelevant; the point is that being called for overstepping is nothing much of note; being called for throwing is a permanent stain on a bowler's career.

My point about unintentional chucking is that said bowlers will be stained for something that they have not chosen to do - something which is not their fault.

Do you ever actually think about what you type? "The end result is irrelevant"? It's a sport, for goodness sake. The end result is the bottom line.

Moreover, who says it's a permanent stain? Why this silly taboo? Players cheat all the time: fact. Why is chucking apparently the cricketing equivalent of being found masterbating in the schoolyard? &, if a player can't bowl legally, well I'm sorry, but that's his problem, isn't it? What are you suggesting? Saying "Never mind, old chap, at least you're trying not to break the rules"?

 

[Richard]

Do you ever actually think about what you type?

Yes, every time.

"The end result is irrelevant"? It's a sport, for goodness sake. The end result is the bottom line.

The end result is not what I was talking about in that post. Thus it's irrelevant. Stop replying to what you'd like me to have said rather than what I have.

Moreover, who says it's a permanent stain? Why this silly taboo? Players cheat all the time: fact. Why is chucking apparently the cricketing equivalent of being found masterbating in the schoolyard?

Because it is. If you think you or anyone else is going to change this, well, good luck.

&, if a player can't bowl legally, well I'm sorry, but that's his problem, isn't it? What are you suggesting? Saying "Never mind, old chap, at least you're trying not to break the rules"?

No, I'm suggesting that those who can't bowl legally without failing to do so deliberately don't deserve to be no-balled in the middle of a Test with half the cricket World watching. Erring bowlers should be helped to put the problem right, not victimised as if they were criminals - which is what no-balling for throwing did.

 

[Uppercut]

Well, let's take the rugby pass as it was one of your suggestions. Passes in both codes have to be backwards. There's an interesting video on YouTube that shows a lot of passes that appear backwards to the naked eye, in fact actually go forwards because of the momentum of the players running, but refs are still allowed to call on forward passes in game time and, in fact, the video (made to instruct trainee referees) advocates adopting a common-sense approach.

The source of endless arguments while watching matches, of course. If it's thrown backwards but the momentum takes it forwards, it's still a legitimate pass. It's incredible how many people watch a sport for years without ever bothering to read the rules. Distinctly remember Alan Shearer once stating on MOTD that "it's in the rules- if it hits your hand, it's a handball".

 

[BoyBrumby]

The end result is not what I was talking about in that post. Thus it's irrelevant. Stop replying to what you'd like me to have said rather than what I have.

Don't be tiresome, Richard. You stated baldly:

You're barking up the wrong tree. The end result is irrelevant; the point is that being called for overstepping is nothing much of note; being called for throwing is a permanent stain on a bowler's career.

Your words, that you used, not what I'd "like" you to use.

No, I'm suggesting that those who can't bowl legally without failing to do so deliberately don't deserve to be no-balled in the middle of a Test with half the cricket World watching. Erring bowlers should be helped to put the problem right, not victimised as if they were criminals - which is what no-balling for throwing did.

Ah, the poor diddums bowlers.

Murali doesn't seen to have let this "permanent stain" phase him too much tho, eh?

 

[Richard]

Don't be tiresome, Richard. You stated baldly:

Your words, that you used, not what I'd "like" you to use.

You are taking them out of context in order to try to manufacture what you'd like me to have said, rather than what I have. I am talking about the long-term effect on bowlers; you are trying to bring in the short-term effect on the match, which I have never once mentioned. Either reply to what I've said or don't reply at all.

Ah, the poor diddums bowlers.

Murali doesn't seen to have let this "permanent stain" phase him too much tho, eh?

Murali is strong of mind, and initially had an even stronger of mind captain to fight the battle for him. He's lucky. Some others are not so.

 

[Dan]

Hey, soon we'll have the technology to instantly analyze and send a message to the umpire regarding the angle of the elbow and legality of delivery.

 

[BoyBrumby]

You are taking them out of context in order to try to manufacture what you'd like me to have said, rather than what I have. I am talking about the long-term effect on bowlers; you are trying to bring in the short-term effect on the match, which I have never once mentioned. Either reply to what I've said or don't reply at all.

Ok, say what you mean then. It'd give those replying to you a sporting chance of deciphering meaning from your infantile drivel.

 

[Richard]

Hey, soon we'll have the technology to instantly analyze and send a message to the umpire regarding the angle of the elbow and legality of delivery.

I'm a little sceptical of that, given that so far no-one has even decided to put something into place to take the calling of (foot) no-balls out of the Umpire's hands.

And this would be eminently possible.

 

[Richard]

Ok, say what you mean then. It'd give those replying to you a sporting chance of deciphering meaning from your infantile drivel.

I actually do say what I mean - it's just you've sometimes got to look at that rather than trying to read other things into it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I actually do say what I mean - it's just you've sometimes got to look at that rather than trying to read other things into it.

Look, I reiterate. If you say this:

You're barking up the wrong tree. The end result is irrelevant; the point is that being called for overstepping is nothing much of note; being called for throwing is a permanent stain on a bowler's career.

How am I or anyone else supposed to know you didn't mean it and, by taking you at your word we're reading "other things into it"?

What have I read into it aside from your original (and laughable) contention? Seriously?

 

[Uppercut]

You're barking up the wrong tree. The end result is irrelevant; the point is that being called for overstepping is nothing much of note; being called for throwing is a permanent stain on a bowler's career.

My point about unintentional chucking is that said bowlers will be stained for something that they have not chosen to do - something which is not their fault.

How many batsmen have you seen dismissed by blatant chucks? I've seen none and I'd bet there's never been a case of a bowler being no-balled for throwing and losing a wicket due to it in the history of Test cricket - if not First-Class (not that the latter would be possible to research).

The choice was between moving in advance of technology or remaining stuck in old ideals that had been proven false. It was a lesser-of-two-evils case.

Do you ever actually think about what you type? "The end result is irrelevant"? It's a sport, for goodness sake. The end result is the bottom line.

Moreover, who says it's a permanent stain? Why this silly taboo? Players cheat all the time: fact. Why is chucking apparently the cricketing equivalent of being found masterbating in the schoolyard? &, if a player can't bowl legally, well I'm sorry, but that's his problem, isn't it? What are you suggesting? Saying "Never mind, old chap, at least you're trying not to break the rules"?

Yes, every time.

The end result is not what I was talking about in that post. Thus it's irrelevant. Stop replying to what you'd like me to have said rather than what I have.

Because it is. If you think you or anyone else is going to change this, well, good luck.

No, I'm suggesting that those who can't bowl legally without failing to do so deliberately don't deserve to be no-balled in the middle of a Test with half the cricket World watching. Erring bowlers should be helped to put the problem right, not victimised as if they were criminals - which is what no-balling for throwing did.

Don't be tiresome, Richard. You stated baldly:



Your words, that you used, not what I'd "like" you to use.



Ah, the poor diddums bowlers.

Murali doesn't seen to have let this "permanent stain" phase him too much tho, eh?

You are taking them out of context in order to try to manufacture what you'd like me to have said, rather than what I have. I am talking about the long-term effect on bowlers; you are trying to bring in the short-term effect on the match, which I have never once mentioned. Either reply to what I've said or don't reply at all.

Murali is strong of mind, and initially had an even stronger of mind captain to fight the battle for him. He's lucky. Some others are not so.

Ok, say what you mean then. It'd give those replying to you a sporting chance of deciphering meaning from your infantile drivel.

I actually do say what I mean - it's just you've sometimes got to look at that rather than trying to read other things into it.

Look, I reiterate. If you say this:



How am I or anyone else supposed to know you didn't mean it and, by taking you at your word we're reading "other things into it"?

What have I read into it aside from your original (and laughable) contention? Seriously?

 

[BoyBrumby]

More:

Feel like I'm the only one who sees he's naked (metaphorically speaking) sometimes.

It can't just be me, can it? Surely...?

 

[Top_Cat]

More:

Feel like I'm the only one who sees he's naked (metaphorically speaking) sometimes.

It can't just be me, can it? Surely...?

Awesome.

 

[Uppercut]

Feel like I'm the only one who sees he's naked (metaphorically speaking) sometimes.

It can't just be me, can it? Surely...?

Only the wise amongst us can see his proverbial clothes

 

[Son Of Coco]

If the naked eye is so good to decide a chuck, why need the third umpire. Let umpires decide runouts in old fashion.

Runouts?

If the naked eye can't give us an indication of whether an action at leasts looks dodgy why is anyone sent for testing?

 

[Son Of Coco]

You're barking up the wrong tree. The end result is irrelevant; the point is that being called for overstepping is nothing much of note; being called for throwing is a permanent stain on a bowler's career.

My point about unintentional chucking is that said bowlers will be stained for something that they have not chosen to do - something which is not their fault.

How many batsmen have you seen dismissed by blatant chucks? I've seen none and I'd bet there's never been a case of a bowler being no-balled for throwing and losing a wicket due to it in the history of Test cricket - if not First-Class (not that the latter would be possible to research).

The choice was between moving in advance of technology or remaining stuck in old ideals that had been proven false. It was a lesser-of-two-evils case.

It doesn't matter whether it's unintentional or intentional, it's not the batsman's fault either.

I doubt there would be too many bowlers who, if given the necessary intervention and training to re-model their techniques, couldn't bowl in a legal manner. One of the problems lies with bowlers being allowed to make it to international level with a poor action.

It seems we've solved the last part of the throwing problem...a player can now be tested in a lab to see if he's over the limit. The first part - what happens in the game - is no better than it was before. There are no obvious solutions to this now, so there's not much we can do. But testing a player in a lab really proves nothing except he didn't throw that day. We can take certain points from it (like with Murali and finding out it looked like he was throwing and he actually wasn't for the most part - doosra excepted until that was fixed) and send a player to get his action remodelled if needed.

I know there's nothing that can be done about it at the moment. But seeing people saying 'he's been cleared' after testing etc really annoys me. Surely no one is ever 'cleared' for life. Everyone should have the potential to be scrutinised and called in for testing every game of their whole career.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Do you ever actually think about what you type? "The end result is irrelevant"? It's a sport, for goodness sake. The end result is the bottom line.

Moreover, who says it's a permanent stain? Why this silly taboo? Players cheat all the time: fact. Why is chucking apparently the cricketing equivalent of being found masterbating in the schoolyard? &, if a player can't bowl legally, well I'm sorry, but that's his problem, isn't it? What are you suggesting? Saying "Never mind, old chap, at least you're trying not to break the rules"?

It's not exactly the same...you can bend your arm more than 15 degrees in the schoolyard.