So the ICC evidence is finally in - and apparently even Glen McGrath chucks...

[Son Of Coco]

If ICC can't test him in match conditions then that's ICC's problem. Poor guy Saeed Ajmal shouldn't be blamed for ICC's failure. And if it is best to rely of human eyes, then let field umpires make the final decision. Umpires who don't like Ajmal will call him, umpires who don't like Broad (just a random example) will call him - and ICC won't be able to take any action against the umpires in any case because, guess what, they won't have any basis to do that.

Yes, because there are so many bowlers in the history of the game that have been called simply because the umpire doesn't like them. The list is endless.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm consistent though; I trust the technology in both cases. Ajmal's new delivery looks highly dubious and needs to be tested; if it's tested and found within the limits I'll never say another word about it.

well.. it would be nice if everyone felt that way. To be completely honest, I want the DRS to be in just as much as the next guy. If anything, take out the predictive path if that is where the contention is, but at least use the pitch map and tracker to trace until impact...

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, because there are so many bowlers in the history of the game that have been called simply because the umpire doesn't like them. The list is endless.

Well.. Ross Emerson did.. </open can of worms>

 

[Cabinet96]

CBF to read the entire thread, but can someone point out what advantage chuckers have over the legit ones? Is it the pace or turn?

I know many people think it's impossible to bowl the dosera without chucking so that would be a significant advantage as well. And you can implant more turn and pace as well.

 

[Furball]

Umpires can't call bowlers for chucking any more can they?

The umpires from this match can report Ajmal if they have concerns over his action, but IIRC there's nothing the umpires can actually do while the game is going on.

 

[Furball]

well.. it would be nice if everyone felt that way. To be completely honest, I want the DRS to be in just as much as the next guy. If anything, take out the predictive path if that is where the contention is, but at least use the pitch map and tracker to trace until impact...

I'm not picking on you specifically because so many people have said this, but this is nonsense. LBWs are the one aspect of the game where the umpires need as much help as possible - because the whole LBW law is based around the umpire making an educated guess as to whether the ball might have hit the stumps.

The LBW law is the most complex, difficult law for the umpires - why on earth you'd deny them the chance to use technology that broadcasters would use anyway is completely beyond me.

 

[Daemon]

I'm not picking on you specifically because so many people have said this, but this is nonsense. LBWs are the one aspect of the game where the umpires need as much help as possible - because the whole LBW law is based around the umpire making an educated guess as to whether the ball might have hit the stumps.

The LBW law is the most complex, difficult law for the umpires - why on earth you'd deny them the chance to use technology that broadcasters would use anyway is completely beyond me.

I don't see why you'd oppose a compromised DRS system until the BCCI remove their heads from their arses.

Just remember, if you didn't have this compromised system, a certain scorecard may have read "K Pietersen c Dravid b Dhoni"

 

[Furball]

I don't see why you'd oppose a compromised DRS system until the BCCI remove their heads from their arses.

Just remember, if you didn't have this compromised system, a certain scorecard may have read "K Pietersen c Dravid b Dhoni"

I'm not arguing against DRS-lite - I'm saying that the "let's just forget ball tracking for now" argument is stupid. I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against using ball-tracking that isn't a variant of "I don't like it."

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not picking on you specifically because so many people have said this, but this is nonsense. LBWs are the one aspect of the game where the umpires need as much help as possible - because the whole LBW law is based around the umpire making an educated guess as to whether the ball might have hit the stumps.

The LBW law is the most complex, difficult law for the umpires - why on earth you'd deny them the chance to use technology that broadcasters would use anyway is completely beyond me.

put it this way, I trust technology to show exactly what happened more than the human eye.. But I would trust the human eye to be able to judge what is going to happen than technology..


At least when it comes to a cricket ball, where it pitched, where it hit the batsman and where it is going from there.........

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not arguing against DRS-lite - I'm saying that the "let's just forget ball tracking for now" argument is stupid. I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against using ball-tracking that isn't a variant of "I don't like it."

read my previous post.

 

[BoyBrumby]

"Ajmal is a chucker" says Rashid Latif.

First Post Sports.

I feel oddly reassured the world hasn't actually gone mad.

if you look closely at his action while bowling some deliveries it appears to me the match officials could report his action and I think the Pakistan team management and board should be prepared for this. I don’t want to discourage him or demean our team’s brilliant performance on the first day of the Test but it would be a good move on part of the team management and players to sit down and analyse some things themselves and be prepared for the worst.

 

[silentstriker]

Umpires can't call bowlers for chucking any more can they?

The umpires from this match can report Ajmal if they have concerns over his action, but IIRC there's nothing the umpires can actually do while the game is going on.

Really? I was sure that they still could but it's probably an ICC recommended course of action to just report them. Could be wrong though, not sure.

Which IMO at least, makes much more sense because not only do you avoid controversy, but more importantly, it's hard to judge in person. Yes, it does nothing for that specific innings if someone is indeed bowling illegally but I think overall it leads to a fairer outcome for everyone involved.

 

[silentstriker]

You are required to bowl with the same action - meaning the speeds, spin and your overall trajectory has to match up. And they are required to do it for long spells - and they compare the 2d action to make sure it looks the same on the whole. If you can keep spin bounce speed the same in a lab that you do in the field and do it with the same looking action it makes no sense if one would be a massive chuck while the other wouldnt be. Or at least you've passed the reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting development. In all the words of cricket I've read, that's the first I've heard of that. Measuring all of what happens after it leaves the hand, and it all matching up I'd think thats good enough to prove it's the same.

What gets allowed really doesn't look like bowling a lot of the time though.

Sure, and of course if a delivery is found to be say ~14.4 degrees, there is no guarantee that sometimes it won't be ~15.2, but overall given the constraints and the way they test, any significant variations are IMHO unlikely. I don't think 'he could just bowl differently in a match situation' is likely to account for a significant difference since they do test to make sure the delivery behaves the same. Obviously, 15.2 is breaking the law while 14.4 is not, but until/unless we can determine the bend in real time via cameras, I think it's a fair enough compromise. Meaning, I can't think of a better solution - I don't think allowing McGrath to chuck because his action can fool your eyes more was a fairer outcome.

 

[honestbharani]

First Post Sports.

I feel oddly reassured the world hasn't actually gone mad.

wasn't it Latif that took a two bounce ball and claimed it a catch?

 

[honestbharani]

Sure, and of course if a delivery is found to be say ~14.4 degrees, there is no guarantee that sometimes it won't be ~15.2, but overall given the constraints and the way they test, any significant variations are IMHO unlikely. I don't think 'he could just bowl differently in a match situation' is likely to account for a significant difference since they do test to make sure the delivery behaves the same. Obviously, 15.2 is breaking the law while 14.4 is not, but until/unless we can determine the bend in real time via cameras, I think it's a fair enough compromise. Meaning, I can't think of a better solution - I don't think allowing McGrath to chuck because his action can fool your eyes more was a fairer outcome.

but of course, people will just forget all this and say that you can bowl differently in those tests than you do in match situations and get away with it.. Classic case of imagination being more convenient to their point than facts.

 

[silentstriker]

FTR, if there is a new delivery that hasn't been tested (e.g teesra) or if people feel there's a change in the action, I've no problem with reporting it and I know many were only saying to test the teesra, which IMO is fair enough.

From my naked eyes, I don't see the action for the teesra as looking worse than the doosra (they both look 'bad' on TV) but as we keep mentioning, it's pretty impossible to judge from a 2 dimensional screen.

 

[BoyBrumby]

wasn't it Latif that took a two bounce ball and claimed it a catch?

It was more blatant than that; he literally picked it up off the floor.

My point was more that certain parties have suggested that the English are only having a bleat because Ajmal has been successful against them; a former captain of Pakistan isn't likely to share the same alleged biases.

 

[silentstriker]

Both can be true . I think generally it's better to bleat when you've belted him for 200 runs and won the Test.

Though to be fair, the English players, the team management or ECB have not done or said anything regarding Ajmal's action - from their public statements they seem focused on what they need to do, which reflects very well on them as far as I'm concerned.

 

[honestbharani]

Agree with what SS has posted in this page. If the action looks bad, test it. But lets not jump to conclusions before the results come out.


FTR, I have not seen this new delivery that Ajmal has been bowling. My points have all been in pretty general terms.

 

[honestbharani]

It was more blatant than that; he literally picked it up off the floor.

My point was more that certain parties have suggested that the English are only having a bleat because Ajmal has been successful against them; a former captain of Pakistan isn't likely to share the same alleged biases.

TBH, some ex-captains in India and Pakistan are more biased against their own teams' current players than many in the opposition camp would be.