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

[Burgey]

Haha I definitely do. I'm in the minority on the issue (as with a few other things ) but yea, people definitely raise sledging.

Throwing is fair too, and it's fair to question the teesra and have it (and any others) be tested. That's fine.

And it's also fair to disagree with the current rules, or the current implementation of the rules - I just wish some people would try to understand the issue a little bit besides coming up with the 'they changed the rules to legalize the doosra' which is just patently false.

I thought the rule was changed before anyone whose action was really questioned much even bowled it. Maybe I've recalled that incorrectly, I dunno.

 

[slowfinger]

**** me. Just because one ****ing team can't bat properly against a guy there needs to be a damn conspiracy theory over it, poncy ****ters. Please move this thread to the conspiracy theory thread.

 

[Burgey]

**** me. Just because one ****ing team can't bat properly against a guy there needs to be a damn conspiracy theory over it, poncy ****ters. Please move this thread to the conspiracy theory thread.

Terrible post.

 

[Daemon]

Is the degree of straightening is measured from the point where the ball is released right? Any further straightening after that isn't considered?

 

[M0rphin3]

And again, dunno if this has been discussed before.

Lets say a bowler who chucks em is asked to bowl under controlled conditions - and he doesn't chuck over there - so does that mean he'd be cleared if he comes clean in controlled conditions?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Is the degree of straightening is measured from the point where the ball is released right? Any further straightening after that isn't considered?

It's measured UNTIL the ball is released, don't you mean?

 

[Daemon]

It's measured UNTIL the ball is released, don't you mean?

Yeah

 

[wellAlbidarned]

And again, dunno if this has been discussed before.

Lets say a bowler who chucks em is asked to bowl under controlled conditions - and he doesn't chuck over there - so does that mean he'd be cleared if he comes clean in controlled conditions?

Agent explained this point nicely - for the test to be valid the bowler must reproduce various deliveries with the same pace and amount of revs on the ball as in a game.

 

[Daemon]

And again, dunno if this has been discussed before.

Lets say a bowler who chucks em is asked to bowl under controlled conditions - and he doesn't chuck over there - so does that mean he'd be cleared if he comes clean in controlled conditions?

Take the following into account -

I was looking through PakPassion and someone had posted this:

'Dr Paul Hurrion, the ICC’s chief biomechanics analyst and consultant, recently explained how these tests were conducted to remove doubts on whether the “conniving” spinner had in fact sneaked his way through the trials. “We use synchronised footage of the player bowling in a match to check that they are not just going through the motions or altering their style. They have to replicate the speed of a delivery from a match, the deviation and the revolutions of the ball. When being tested, the bowler is topless and has reflective markers all over his bowling arm, so the three-dimensional, high-speed cameras can film him from every angle.'

So Ajmal who has been cleared for his regular off-spin and doosra, can't possibly straighten more than 15 degrees in the match because the ICC uses the actual match footage. Therefore Ajmal has been bowling legally according to the ICC rules. However the only question is on the teesra, which has not been tested and is most likely a chuck (but Ajmal said he won't be using it since it didn't work for him - it was a mind game all along).

 

[M0rphin3]

Again, if they can't judge from the footage alone in first place, how can they use that footage to compare their actions? I mean if the video is the point of reference, then it's obvious that the bowler chucks, they're asking them to bowl in controlled conditions because they don't think the footage is reliable in first place amirite?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Again, if they can't judge from the footage alone in first place, how can they use that footage to compare their actions? I mean if the video is the point of reference, then it's obvious that the bowler chucks, they're asking them to bowl in controlled conditions because they don't think the footage is reliable in first place amirite?

The mere fact that the footage is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional occurrence makes it unreliable. I think that is obvious to all.

As to the first part of your post, they do not compare actions at all in the process. What they do is they compare the characteristics of the deliveries such as pace and ball revs to make sure the bowler is bowling the same as in a match.

 

[Prince EWS]

Unless you can find something to back that up. I find that to be baiting Australians. No data has been released, the only quotes I've read say McGrath, along with Pollock and every other bowler in history had some arm flexion, up to 12°. Allowing up to 15° makes nearly every action, including perhaps 75% of properly illegal actions, permissable. To keep saying "McGrath chucks" is just baiting.

His evidence to back that up with is the fact that hyper-extension doesn't count in any of those figures. It's removed.

 

[Burgey]

His evidence to back that up with is the fact that hyper-extension doesn't count in any of those figures. It's removed.

If people want to say McGrath's action is comparable to Botha or Blessing Maywaring (sp?) then let them. It's instructive in letting everyone else know which posters to ignore.

Not that SS was in the passage quoted, mind you.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The hyper-extension thing is interesting, actually. Quite a few have it; Philander's arm goes way past 180 degrees, for instance. However just having a hyper-extension doesn't necessarily mean an action looks a bit chucky.

Philander's action looks everything one could ask for in a right-arm med/fast seamer and, whilst offering no comments on his other virtues as a bowler, RP Singh has a action that is beyond reproach. However some who do have it do look a little ragged at times; Shoaib and Amjad Khan (two more bowlers at opposite ends of the great/gash continuum) the first I thought of.

My entirely unscientfic guess is that bowlers with hypers look progressively worse the faster they bowl. Philander and Singh are both high 70s/lows 80s mph men, but Amjad and especially Shoaib are rather brisker.

 

[Burgey]

The hyper-extension thing is interesting, actually. Quite a few have it; Philander's arm goes way past 180 degrees, for instance. However just having a hyper-extension doesn't necessarily mean an action looks a bit chucky.

Philander's action looks everything one could ask for in a right-arm med/fast seamer and, whilst offering no comments on his other virtues as a bowler, RP Singh has a action that is beyond reproach. However some who do have it do look a little ragged at times; Shoaib and Amjad Khan (two more bowlers at opposite ends of the great/gash continuum) the first I thought of.

My entirely unscientfic guess is that bowlers with hypers look progressively worse the faster they bowl. Philander and Singh are both high 70s/lows 80s mph men, but Amjad and especially Shoaib are rather brisker.

Tait was/ is another. Lee at times too.

I always thought Walsh chucked his faster one

 

[Burgey]

If people want to say McGrath's action is comparable to Botha or Blessing Maywaring (sp?) then let them. It's instructive in letting everyone else know which posters to ignore.

Not that SS was in the passage quoted, mind you.

should have started with McGrath.

Ha. Whaddya know.....

 

[Burgey]

I mean unfair in the sense of being almost unethical in the context of the game. Bowling wides to deny scoring opportunities is almost unethical, hence penalised.

Don't hurt yourself just because someone holds an unorthodox view

BTW who other than me finds Murali's action beautiful and mesmerising?

Nope.

 

[Burgey]

Bending ur elbow at point of delivery helps you hurl down the ball faster too.. That is not an unfair advantage?

I actually don't find the difference that great for seam bowlers tbh, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Just re McGrath/Pollock chucking under the old rules: it should be noted that the study which found everyone bar Sarwan was a filthy pinger wasn't based on assessment in a lab nor did it name any names. IIRC it was conducted at a Champions Trophy.

This raises a few points:

1) How accurate are the measurements?

2) If degrees of flexion can be measured in match situations why isn't this done more often?

3) If the measurements do have a high margin of error why was the study given so much credence?

Without wishing to don my tinfoil hat or cultivate vials of my own bodily fluids, it could look as if it suited some person's and/or governing body's agenda to let it be believed bowlers whose actions look as pure as the driven snow were really no better than your lowliest doosra thrower.

 

[Furball]

What advantage would Dale Steyn get from throwing it?