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

[Black_Warrior]

That's pure codswallop. It's based on the entirely false premise that no bowlers ever change their actions. Passing a test once in laboratory conditions is not a licence to chuck henceforth. An analogy would be being cleared of armed robbery and immediately walking down to Barclays with a sawn off. "I can't be robbing you, I've been tried and cleared."

If bowlers couldn't change their action those who exceed the limits in testing would be pissing in the wind with their "remedial work" before being tested again, wouldn't they?

FFS.

I understand what you are saying but then what is the point of clearing someone then? because you will always have the possibility of someone changing their action...what do you propose then? Test their action every year?

Going back to your analogy, regardless of whether someone has been cleared or not cleared, when someone accuses them of committing armed robbery, its only when someone is accused or charged will the investigation start. You cannot be randomly picked up for investigation. Similarly, until umpires report Ajmal, it should be assumed that his action has not changed.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I understand what you are saying but then what is the point of clearing someone then? because you will always have the possibility of someone changing their action...what do you propose then? Test their action every year?

Develop a way to test them in a match situation.

 

[Black_Warrior]

and that way is?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

We don't have one, hence my choice of the word "develop".

 

[Doctor]

Well, if there are technologies like hawkeye and cameras that can take upwards of 1000 frames per second, then I'm quite certain that some sort of technology can be developed without much hassle. Get crackin', ICC/broadcasters.

 

[Daemon]

That's pure codswallop. It's based on the entirely false premise that no bowlers ever change their actions. Passing a test once in laboratory conditions is not a licence to chuck henceforth. An analogy would be being cleared of armed robbery and immediately walking down to Barclays with a sawn off. "I can't be robbing you, I've been tried and cleared."

If bowlers couldn't change their action those who exceed the limits in testing would be pissing in the wind with their "remedial work" before being tested again, wouldn't they?

FFS.

SilentStriker posted something about this issue which cleared it up quite nicely earlier in the thread. I can't be bothered to look it up, but I suggest you do.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's pure codswallop. It's based on the entirely false premise that no bowlers ever change their actions. Passing a test once in laboratory conditions is not a licence to chuck henceforth. An analogy would be being cleared of armed robbery and immediately walking down to Barclays with a sawn off. "I can't be robbing you, I've been tried and cleared."

If bowlers couldn't change their action those who exceed the limits in testing would be pissing in the wind with their "remedial work" before being tested again, wouldn't they?

FFS.

Yeah I agree, you shouldn't be cleared for life...if your action suggests you need to be tested again then so be it. If you have to be tested 50 times a year then that's what should happen. This idea that you're cleared for life after testing is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It's a massive issue at lower levels, guys get away with chucking all the time because they're not going to be tested, but they aren't going to be pulled up because guys bowl with bent arms in international cricket.

Also, surely Murali didn't have hyperextension, the whole thing is that he can't have his arm fully straight?

Yeah, have had this argument at lower levels with umpires only to be told "he's been tested"...tested where? Who's going to the bother of testing a bloke playing second grade in the Tweed comp? And where can I access the results?

It's become something you can't accuse someone of, and if you do you find out they have had an 'injury' and can't straighten their arm...the rise in incidence of this is alarming. It's extremely frustrating.

 

[uvelocity]

Here's some heavy reading;

CoachesInfo.com - information and education for coaches - The Biomechanics of Illegal Bowling Actions in Cricket

At 15% elbow extension, only one from 69 bowlers tested, including 8 suspected chuckers, was technically chucking. The testing was done scientifically, and they propose that the current method does not actually determine a throw at all. What is important, and seperated the chuckers from the straight arm looking bowlers is the rate of elbow angle change. (elbow angle slope)

The data shows that it is possible to have an elbow extension angle from shoulder height to ball release less than 15º, and still generate a high positive elbow angle extension excursion slope. This fits the biomechanical criteria of a partial throw. Therefore, a law based only on elbow extension angle is not sufficient to prevent throwing in cricket.

 

[Migara]

I don't think he is supporting Murali.. All he is saying is..if you have allowed Murali take 800 wickets, there is no way in hell you can stop Ajmal..which is my take as well. I know there are some issues with Ajmal's action but if Murali was allowed to ball, you cannot ban Ajmal.

McGrath was also allowed to bowl under the 15 degrees rule. If it was 5 degrees, McGrath would have been doomed.

 

[Black_Warrior]

We don't have one, hence my choice of the word "develop".

Yes I was asking for suggestions since you mentioned it.

McGrath was also allowed to bowl under the 15 degrees rule. If it was 5 degrees, McGrath would have been doomed.

Well all the more reason you can't stop Ajmal now.

 

[a spambot]

mcgrath never, not once straightened his arm from a flexed position. any suggestion that he did is just sour grapes tbh

 

[Migara]

i maintain that any straightening of a flexed arm is chucking. straightening a hyperextended arm ala shoiab/lee is fine but straightening from a flexed position is chucking, always has been chucking and always will be in my mind.

Then McGrath is a chucker.

 

[a spambot]

except he never straightened his arm from a flexed position. any "straightening" is coming from hyperextension

 

[uvelocity]

here's something on a device from 3 years ago which was to be used in game situations within a year....

Radio Australia - Innovations - Device to Detect Cricket's Illegal Bowling Action
http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/ertiki/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=19822

 

[Cevno]

It's a massive issue at lower levels, guys get away with chucking all the time because they're not going to be tested, but they aren't going to be pulled up because guys bowl with bent arms in international cricket.

Also, surely Murali didn't have hyperextension, the whole thing is that he can't have his arm fully straight?

Do they? I thought it was the other way round tbh. Because they couldn't be tested, they would send everyone suspicious for action correction when they could do it.I.e at a early age.

So even who are suspicious but in the limits get stopped some times.

 

[Prince EWS]

Do they? I thought it was the other way round tbh. Because they couldn't be tested, they would send everyone suspicious for action correction when they could do it.I.e at a early age.

That used to be the case here. Attitude has changed completely in this era though.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah, even mentioning the word is a massive no-no, with the attitude basically being "Well, how can you prove it?".

 

[vic_orthdox]

The thing is, why would you coach it out of a kid if it turns out that he is actually bowling within the limits, and it turns out it's just because of his arm/elbow or something?

Also, a young talented kid probably wouldn't be sent for testing, he just wouldn't get picked in representative sides, or you just grin and bear it. Only if he were an outstanding junior, looking like he was going to be in the top 5/6 kids in the state, would they send him away for some testing to see if his action was illegal.

 

[uvelocity]

If you read the link I posted earlier about the biomechanics of illegal bowling actions, you could consider that the current test is doing it wrong.

imo you can't put 99% of all bowlers ever, in the same basket as the Ajmal variations. The study shows a theory why. You can bowl with a chucking action within the 15%.