Johan Botha's action

[GIMH]

Never known Hingeh to correct anyone's spelling before and he's hardly short of the odd typo himself, so yeah, must be an important topic to him!

 

[Richard]

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.

Like some others, it amazes me the bitterness that some people hold against Shabbir. He wasn't throwing grenades. The reason he bowled well that match is because he was a good bowler, not because of an illegal action. Anyone no-balling him that match would've been guessing the same way they are any other time.

 

[Richard]

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).

Yup, he did. (At least, on the second occasion, in 1998/99.) Patent attention-seeking from one of the biggest disgraces to the name of Umpire ever to stand in an international game of cricket.

 

[Richard]

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?

And surely even you can see that I've actually not said that?

Here's a better summarisation:
Being labelled a chucker is a permanent stain on a bowler's reputation but, at the same time, the longer term outcome is all that is relevant, not the short-term one.

 

[four_or_six]

Like some others, it amazes me the bitterness that some people hold against Shabbir. He wasn't throwing grenades. The reason he bowled well that match is because he was a good bowler, not because of an illegal action. Anyone no-balling him that match would've been guessing the same way they are any other time.

I don't feel bitter. It just looked to me so blatant, it was annoying.

 

[BoyBrumby]

And surely even you can see that I've actually not said that?

Here's a better summarisation:
Being labelled a chucker is a permanent stain on a bowler's reputation but, at the same time, the longer term outcome is all that is relevant, not the short-term one.

Which mean 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.

is bollocks then.

The "permanent stain" is the longer term outcome. You can't have it both ways and still be right.

 

[Richard]

I don't feel bitter. It just looked to me so blatant, it was annoying.

Murali's action looks pretty blatant to me as well. But it isn't.

Ditto hundreds of other bowlers.

There's no way we'll ever really know what Shabbir's bowling action in that game was like. It's perfectly possible only odd deliveries were actually illegal. And had he not bowled in that game England would almost certainly still have lost.

 

[Richard]

Which mean this:



is bollocks then.

The "permanent stain" is the longer term outcome. You can't have it both ways and still be right.

Right, I've had it with you here. How on Earth you've managed to interpret me as saying "the long-term isn't relevant" when I'm saying "the longer-term is all that's relevant" is beyond me and beyond belief. Please, go back to not responding to my posts (and ideally this time keep your keyboard shut about me completely rather than making some snide comment or other every other day).

 

[BoyBrumby]

Right, I've had it with you here. How on Earth you've managed to interpret me as saying "the long-term isn't relevant" when I'm saying "the longer-term is all that's relevant" is beyond me and beyond belief. Please, go back to not responding to my posts (and ideally this time keep your keyboard shut about me completely rather than making some snide comment or other every other day).

Richard, I'm prepared to accept you meant the longer term outcome is all that's relevant, but what is the longer term outcome if not being labelled a chucker and the consequent permanent stain?

The indignant is misplaced, I'm just asking for clarification of your seemingly conflicting stance.

 

[Burgey]

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.

Well the over had to finish eventually didn't it? Otherwise he'd stil be bowling it and Australia would be six for 14 million by now.....

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well the over had to finish eventually didn't it? Otherwise he'd stil be bowling it and Australia would be six for 14 million by now.....

 

[Son Of Coco]

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 .

I'm not sure it's a case of desperation, I think some bowlers have an action that degenerates when they get tired. Or possibly even when under pressure and they're going for that little bit more.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Murali's action looks pretty blatant to me as well. But it isn't.

Ditto hundreds of other bowlers.

There's no way we'll ever really know what Shabbir's bowling action in that game was like. It's perfectly possible only odd deliveries were actually illegal. And had he not bowled in that game England would almost certainly still have lost.

Really? There are hundreds of other bowlers who you think look like they throw it but don't?

I can only name a few...and I'm not convinced the latest bloke and Botha don't throw yet. The same goes for some of the other guys who have been cleared once or twice in testing. But, as you say, we'll never really know...at least until some form of in-game testing is possible.

I'll put my hand up to be the guy who sits watching the results and presses the no ball button when it happens though

 

[Migara]

Well the over had to finish eventually didn't it? Otherwise he'd stil be bowling it and Australia would be six for 14 million by now.....

Until captain withdraws him of course, or he could have boled his leg breaks.

 

[Richard]

Richard, I'm prepared to accept you meant the longer term outcome is all that's relevant, but what is the longer term outcome if not being labelled a chucker and the consequent permanent stain?

The indignant is misplaced, I'm just asking for clarification of your seemingly conflicting stance.

The long-term outcome is precisely that - being labelled a chucker and permanently stained with that. This is the matter which is the "only thing of importance" which I've been talking about all through this whole absurd thing. I've never once mentioned the short-term outcome of one piddling delivery; all I am concerned about with the Umpire-allowed-or-not-to-call-no-ball-for-throw matter is whether or not the bowler has an immoveable demerit placed against him because of a single moment on an Umpire's whim.

The way I see it, such an outcome - which was the outcome when Umpires could no-ball bowlers for throwing - was 100% inevitable, and I couldn't care less if 1 or 2 batsmen get indignant that there's a tiny chance of them being dismissed by an illegal delivery now it's been struck-off. I am concerned about the long-term effect on the bowler's career, not the short-term effect of that particular delivery on the match (which will almost certainly be negligable).

 

[Richard]

Really? There are hundreds of other bowlers who you think look like they throw it but don't?

I can only name a few...and I'm not convinced the latest bloke and Botha don't throw yet. The same goes for some of the other guys who have been cleared once or twice in testing. But, as you say, we'll never really know...at least until some form of in-game testing is possible.

I'll put my hand up to be the guy who sits watching the results and presses the no ball button when it happens though

Well, the "hundreds of others" is an exaggeration, "not a few others" would be a better example.

I can't remember who it was that said "it is possible to discover vaguaries in just about any bowler's action if you look close enough", but it was said in 1999, and he was bang-on the money, and we found-out why in 2004. Some look patent; some you look really closely and think "hmm..."

That is, judging by the old false absurd ideals that a bowling-action had to involve zero degrees of elbow straightening to be legal.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The long-term outcome is precisely that - being labelled a chucker and permanently stained with that. This is the matter which is the "only thing of importance" which I've been talking about all through this whole absurd thing. I've never once mentioned the short-term outcome of one piddling delivery; all I am concerned about with the Umpire-allowed-or-not-to-call-no-ball-for-throw matter is whether or not the bowler has an immoveable demerit placed against him because of a single moment on an Umpire's whim.

The way I see it, such an outcome - which was the outcome when Umpires could no-ball bowlers for throwing - was 100% inevitable, and I couldn't care less if 1 or 2 batsmen get indignant that there's a tiny chance of them being dismissed by an illegal delivery now it's been struck-off. I am concerned about the long-term effect on the bowler's career, not the short-term effect of that particular delivery on the match (which will almost certainly be negligable).

So the end result isn't irrelvant then?

Thank you. Glad we've got that sorted.

 

[oitoitoi]

Kamran Khan's (the 18yr old slinger who later admitted to warne that he's actually 20) been reported for chucking too. Bit harsh considering he just got pretty badly injured in his last match and won't be bowling any time soon any way.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well, the "hundreds of others" is an exaggeration, "not a few others" would be a better example.

I can't remember who it was that said "it is possible to discover vaguaries in just about any bowler's action if you look close enough", but it was said in 1999, and he was bang-on the money, and we found-out why in 2004. Some look patent; some you look really closely and think "hmm..."

That is, judging by the old false absurd ideals that a bowling-action had to involve zero degrees of elbow straightening to be legal.

I think the old ideals of zero degrees to the naked eye worked ok though. Obviously not for some people who had unusual actions like Murali. Most bowlers were ok under that system, and most will be ok under the new one. Zero degrees in the old system is the equivalent of what we'd consider the average flexion today given it was based on what we could see. An action that looked good was 'zero', and action that looked bad was 'greater than 5 or 10' depending on whether it was a spinner or fast-bowler. Now when we report people we assume their action is greater than 15 degrees to the naked eye if it looks bad, or less than 15 if it looks ok. It's essentially the same thing.

I've actually heard it said by a number of coaches that off-spin is the form of bowling in which it's easiest to have a poor action, which might explain why a great number of those reported are those who bowl it.

The old system was introduced at a time when the angles couldn't be scientifically measured, so it worked well with what was available. Obviously it's better to have a system where you can measure the degree of bend and decide whether a guy should play or not. But as I mentioned before, I doubt you'd find a big difference in who is reported and tested now and who was called under the old system...it's just that now they can come back and play again with evidence to back them up. Evidence that doesn't really offer definitive proof that when they were reported they weren't over the limits. But it's the best we can do.

This is interesting, although I don't agree with everything the guy says. Fascinating to note previously the '15 degree limit' was tested using an average of all deliveries and not ball-by-ball

Sport treating fans like idiots | The Australian

 

[Richard]

I think the old ideals of zero degrees to the naked eye worked ok though. Obviously not for some people who had unusual actions like Murali. Most bowlers were ok under that system, and most will be ok under the new one. Zero degrees in the old system is the equivalent of what we'd consider the average flexion today given it was based on what we could see. An action that looked good was 'zero', and action that looked bad was 'greater than 5 or 10' depending on whether it was a spinner or fast-bowler. Now when we report people we assume their action is greater than 15 degrees to the naked eye if it looks bad, or less than 15 if it looks ok. It's essentially the same thing.

I've actually heard it said by a number of coaches that off-spin is the form of bowling in which it's easiest to have a poor action, which might explain why a great number of those reported are those who bowl it.

The old system was introduced at a time when the angles couldn't be scientifically measured, so it worked well with what was available. Obviously it's better to have a system where you can measure the degree of bend and decide whether a guy should play or not.

The old system was, when people were blissfully ignorant, fine, purely because ignorance is bliss - but unfortunately now the ignorance has been discovered it seems rather, well, disappointing that we were in the dark for so long.

I'm not suggesting we should have had a different ruling at the time, because you can only run with the times, but I'm merely pointing-out the dark-ages-esque-ness of it. Same way it's horrific to look back at Victorian times and see attitudes to race, for example.

But as I mentioned before, I doubt you'd find a big difference in who is reported and tested now and who was called under the old system...it's just that now they can come back and play again with evidence to back them up. Evidence that doesn't really offer definitive proof that when they were reported they weren't over the limits. But it's the best we can do.

This is interesting, although I don't agree with everything the guy says. Fascinating to note previously the '15 degree limit' was tested using an average of all deliveries and not ball-by-ball

Sport treating fans like idiots | The Australian

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.