Johan Botha's action

[Smudge]

And it doesn't work so well on the cricket field if you change arms, but sit on it to numb it beforehand...

 

[Son Of Coco]

And it doesn't work so well on the cricket field if you change arms, but sit on it to numb it beforehand...

 

[Migara]

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?

Sendind for testing is OK, but if some one can perfectly judge a chuck by naked eye (As Hair and Emerson tried out), then there will be absolutely no need for TV umpire, because judging a RO wll be a piece of cake.

 

[silentstriker]

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?

That's why the threshold is set to 15 degrees, since that's the angle the human eye can reliably perceive it. But they can't be sure - hence the actual testing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's why the threshold is set to 15 degrees, since that's the angle the human eye can reliably perceive it. But they can't be sure - hence the actual testing.

That was my point

 

[Richard]

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?

As I say - you've read the laughable contention into it - probably deliberately, in order to find something to have a nice condescend at. This was my first post on the matter:

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.

I am not talking about the outcome of the particular delivery, but the outcome in terms of what happens, longer-term, to the bowler. So please, for the last time - stop trying to read it as if I am!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Richard]

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

But the batsman isn't the one being no-balled in the middle of a game of international cricket. He's merely the one who has an outside chance of being dismissed, maybe once, out of the hundreds of innings' he'll play in his career.

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.

I'm not disputing any of this. I agree completely that the faculty to test bowlers in labs isn't 100% ideal and doesn't solve all problems. And it frankly beggars belief that bowlers who look suspect aren't sent, by whichever coach is responsible, for testing before they get their international call-up.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I am not talking about the outcome of the particular delivery, but the outcome in terms of what happens, longer-term, to the bowler. So please, for the last time - stop trying to read it as if I am!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, the hilarity.

Right, so let's get this straight. Being labelled a chucker is a permanent stain on a bowler's reputation but, at the same time, the longer term outcome is irrelevant? Is that what you're saying?

Surely even you can see that those arguments are pretty much opposed?

 

[Son Of Coco]

But the batsman isn't the one being no-balled in the middle of a game of international cricket. He's merely the one who has an outside chance of being dismissed, maybe once, out of the hundreds of innings' he'll play in his career.

I'm not disputing any of this. I agree completely that the faculty to test bowlers in labs isn't 100% ideal and doesn't solve all problems. And it frankly beggars belief that bowlers who look suspect aren't sent, by whichever coach is responsible, for testing before they get their international call-up.

No he's not, but out of the two people involved which one is playing within the rules? Look, I guess there's nothing that can be done about it right now so it's probably not worth me talking about it. But I certainly don't think of the bowler whose action is questioned as being a victim. If it's been established that 15 degrees is the limit upon which a strange bend in the elbow can be detected then maybe it'd be better removing the stigma surrounding bowlers being called by making the whole process crystal clear to spectators. Remove the 20 day window to get tested and insist on the bowler being tested ASAP and before he plays again. It can't help that the bowler then gets to play the next couple of games before having his action studied.

 

[Burgey]

Sendind for testing is OK, but if some one can perfectly judge a chuck by naked eye (As Hair and Emerson tried out), then there will be absolutely no need for TV umpire, because judging a RO wll be a piece of cake.

You have to compare apples with apples here mate. IIRC, when Hair called Murali, the rules were very much applied on the basis an umpire could call a bowler, and I also think the 15 degrees thing hadn't been brought in yet.

Not so sure what the situation was by the time of the Emerson calling, though.

 

[Son Of Coco]

You have to compare apples with apples here mate. IIRC, when Hair called Murali, the rules were very much applied on the basis an umpire could call a bowler, and I also think the 15 degrees thing hadn't been brought in yet.

Not so sure what the situation was by the time of the Emerson calling, though.

Exactly and let's face it, even with the current rules in place Murali would still go for testing. And I very much doubt the reaction to his action would have changed much when he plays as there are always a few idiots in the crowd and his action looks very unusual.

It seems the umpires get hammered when they're eventually proven to be wrong under the old rules, but they're not given any credit really when they're right. As we see with this latest case, the uproar surrounds the guy being reported and not the fact that someone has a suspicious action.

I guess one benefit of the latest system is that the umpires are not pilloried like those who had to make the call on the field. If a player of a team someone supports gets called and they can't see the kink in the action...then maybe we need an increase in the limit to 50 degrees to allow for team bias.

I think Emerson called Murali under the same rules as Hair did. But I think it was after he'd been for testing (or something like that).

 

[four_or_six]

Presumably an umpire can still call a bowler if it's completely blatant? For example, if a player turns up and baseball pitches it in the first over of the test match, he can't do that for five days surely?

I actually think it's a reasonable system now, with the reporting rather than no-balling. It's only once actually annoyed me that the umpires can't no-ball it and that was Shabbir Ahmed in that Pakistan-England test in 2005.

 

[Migara]

You have to compare apples with apples here mate. IIRC, when Hair called Murali, the rules were very much applied on the basis an umpire could call a bowler, and I also think the 15 degrees thing hadn't been brought in yet.

Even then, he made a huge mistake. The 8 balls that he called were all off breaks (Murali did not have the straight on ball then). But I would bet up to my last penny that Hair could not pick the exact eight if they are shown in film (of course order randomized). The bottom line is those balls called by Hair looked exacly the same as the ones that were not called.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Even then, he made a huge mistake. The 8 balls that he called were all off breaks (Murali did not have the straight on ball then). But I would bet up to my last penny that Hair could not pick the exact eight if they are shown in film (of course order randomized). The bottom line is those balls called by Hair looked exacly the same as the ones that were not called.

Not really, under the rules he could call him and he thought it looked strange so he called him. Maybe he just didn't want to call him every ball as it would turn into a farce...which it eventually did anyway.

 

[duffer]

Presumably an umpire can still call a bowler if it's completely blatant? For example, if a player turns up and baseball pitches it in the first over of the test match, he can't do that for five days surely?

I honestly don't think he can. It would be ridiculously "against the spirit" of the game so I can't see anyone having the necessary cojones to even attempt it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Even then, he made a huge mistake. The 8 balls that he called were all off breaks (Murali did not have the straight on ball then). But I would bet up to my last penny that Hair could not pick the exact eight if they are shown in film (of course order randomized). The bottom line is those balls called by Hair looked exacly the same as the ones that were not called.

Hair clearly had an agenda, he thought every ball was a chuck and just called enough of them to make sure everyone knew why but then let others go so the over would end at least.

 

[four_or_six]

I honestly don't think he can. It would be ridiculously "against the spirit" of the game so I can't see anyone having the necessary cojones to even attempt it.

I dunno... if we can't get Hughes out this summer... might be a perfect time to try.

 

[funnygirl]

Presumably an umpire can still call a bowler if it's completely blatant? For example, if a player turns up and baseball pitches it in the first over of the test match, he can't do that for five days surely?

I actually think it's a reasonable system now, with the reporting rather than no-balling. It's only once actually annoyed me that the umpires can't no-ball it and that was Shabbir Ahmed in that Pakistan-England test in 2005.

Thats where this whole testing inside lab becomes a joke. Once cleared doesn't mean that cleared forever .As i already said chucking is like a bad habit which certain bowlers will resort to when they are desperate .One fast chucking delivery cleans up the batsman.What we can do ? What umpires can do? Every one is helpless .If some one complains then he will be called a cry baby .

People should know that we are not complaining about every other bowler who bowls well .

 

[Langeveldt]

Why is chucking apparently the cricketing equivalent of being found masterbating in the schoolyard?

Masturbating

 

[BoyBrumby]

Masturbating

As you're clearly something of the expert on the subject, I'm sure that's right.