• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
slowfinger said:
**** 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.
Click to expand...
Yes, because not a single person had mentioned Ajmal's action as looking **** before this week had they?
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
honestbharani said:
The very point here is that those limits and rules were arbitrary and unfair in the first place.
Click to expand...
I think it depends heavily on what those limits were intended to achieve. If it was to keep everyone below the limits they set (which may have been too low) then yes. Personally I think the limits were set to basically say "This is the point at which we think a throw is visible to the human eye." Turns out they were maybe out a bit, but I think we're still basically looking at the same thing, just with different limits applied. A bloke who looks like he as chucking under the old law will still look like he's chucking under the new one. Until he's tested we won't know one way or another.

I don't think the old rules were arbitrary and unfair, it's just simply that they didn't have the ability to put a more accurate number on what was normal. It would be nice if the ICC released the complete results of their testing during the Champions Trophy a few years back though. As others have said, it is interesting they have managed to use camera footage to say everyone chucks, but we haven't been able to use cameras to get an accurate gauge since.
 
M0rphin3

M0rphin3

International Debutant
wellAlbidarned said:
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.
Click to expand...
All true, but again, if the bowler is not able to replicate the exact delivery, how would they figure out? I mean they could bowl the same delivery with less bend - which would be the same delivery, but with less turn/pace or whatever.

I still don't get it tbh.
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
BoyBrumby said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not sure if srs.
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
M0rphin3 said:
All true, but again, if the bowler is not able to replicate the exact delivery, how would they figure out? I mean they could bowl the same delivery with less bend - which would be the same delivery, but with less turn/pace or whatever.
Click to expand...
If he isn't able to replicate the deliveries (and I'm pretty sure they have a large number of trials for each) then obviously the bloke's got something to hide. In Ajmal's case he was must've been reproducing the deliveries consistently and thus was cleared and no official has found any reason to report him since (though they might now with the teesra).

He isn't chucking under the rules of the game, if people are against the rule itself then thats completely fine and a seperate issue altogether, but that doesn't change the fact that Ajmal is bowling legal deliveries. Comments calling him out for being a thrower and a filthy chucker are pretty damn stupid and annoying imo. He's bowling within the rules he was given, and doing a fantastic job under them atm.
 
uvelocity

uvelocity

International Coach
honestbharani said:
I have not seen Ajmal's teesra. I have seen him bowl before you know.. And fair dinkum, the law refers to allowable flex of 15 degrees, either straightening or bending. I am pretty sure of that, even though it is not mentioned in the site.. You just can't hurl a cricket ball down 22 yards without bending a straight elbow or straightening a bent elbow.. I thought that was basic. Oh well.

I am pretty sure sledging does not go with the spirit of the game either. Yet no one raises a stink on that.
Click to expand...
It is basic. But you said you thought the rules didn't even mention arm bend. I just showed you up again, that's all.
 
uvelocity

uvelocity

International Coach
Daemon said:
He isn't chucking under the rules of the game, if people are against the rule itself then thats completely fine and a seperate issue altogether, but that doesn't change the fact that Ajmal is bowling legal deliveries. Comments calling him out for being a thrower and a filthy chucker are pretty damn stupid and annoying imo. He's bowling within the rules he was given, and doing a fantastic job under them atm.
Click to expand...
I'm going that angle, and agree with most of what Burgey and BoyBrumby posted earlier (esp related to the tests during CT 04)
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Daemon said:
He isn't chucking under the rules of the game, if people are against the rule itself then thats completely fine and a seperate issue altogether, but that doesn't change the fact that Ajmal is bowling legal deliveries. Comments calling him out for being a thrower and a filthy chucker are pretty damn stupid and annoying imo. He's bowling within the rules he was given, and doing a fantastic job under them atm.
Click to expand...
The problem I have with it is that you can be 'cleared' and then, if you so desire, go out the next day and chuck one. I'm not suggesting that many bowlers do this by the way, but that's the way it stands at the moment. When you clear someone in a lab and then send them out to play without anyone being able to make a judgement on a ball-by-ball basis that's what you set yourself up for.

The idea that you can be cleared for life is simply ridiculous in my opinion. It should be an ongoing process of monitoring for everyone who plays the game. Regardless of whether you've been caught before or not.
 
uvelocity

uvelocity

International Coach
Son Of Coco said:
The idea that you can be cleared for life is simply ridiculous in my opinion. It should be an ongoing process of monitoring for everyone who plays the game. Regardless of whether you've been caught before or not.
Click to expand...
They can get reported again cocobana, but we all know how much our umpires like to rock the boat. And who could blame them anyway, after they get hung out to dry by ICC all the time?
 
Agent Nationaux

Agent Nationaux

International Coach
If it makes everyone happier, Ajmal should allow the ICC to test him yearly. He has nothing to hide and is bowling within the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top