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

[uvelocity]

and it gets announced about 24-48 hrs after the end of the match.

testing process has to be done within 21 days

 

[Black_Warrior]

Given we apparently can't make any judgement with the naked eye it's hard to make any assumptions at all. He has to be tested to be cleared, and he has to be adjudged to be throwing (with the naked eye) to be sent for testing.

Well there is a third umpire and a match referee who are supposedly watching the same match as those who found his action problematic. If they find it problematic, I am sure they will take appropriate action.

 

[Son Of Coco]

This is true. I should add, my problem isn't with Ajmal or any other individual bowler. If they're tested and cleared that's fine (although I don't agree that you're 'cleared for life'). I do have some issues with the current system though and how we arrived at it (and they're not along the lines of rules being changed for individual bowlers and all that stuff).

 

[Furball]

As far as the Ajmal issue is concerned, he might have been cleared 2 years ago but I'm not convinced that he isn't throwing his doosra on occasion.

 

[Migara]

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.

But if people just asked them selves how good was the human eye at above things, would have been a nice starting point.

 

[BoyBrumby]

This is true. I should add, my problem isn't with Ajmal or any other individual bowler. If they're tested and cleared that's fine (although I don't agree that you're 'cleared for life'). I do have some issues with the current system though and how we arrived at it (and they're not along the lines of rules being changed for individual bowlers and all that stuff).

In theory bowlers aren't cleared for life. Shabbir Ahmed (who I think we can all safely say did throw) was tested, found over the tolerance limits, sent for remedial work, cleared, then again reported after the first test of our 05/06 tour to Pakistan, found to be over and subsequently banned for a year.

My concern is that umpires, in light of what happened to certain colleagues of theirs, might be a bit reluctant to go down the reporting route if they have long term career ambitions.

I'd love to see an anonymous survey conducted to canvass the views of the elite and international umpires to see what they think of the issue and the support (or lack thereof) they get.

 

[Son Of Coco]

But if people just asked them selves how good was the human eye at above things, would have been a nice starting point.

It doesn't make any difference...if you're using two methods that are both supposedly flawed then it doesn't matter which one you choose. What people are asking is if we can't rely on video evidence to give us the answers we need in real time, how did we get this information about all bowlers supposedly throwing, complete with apparent degrees of flexion, from video footage taken during the Champion's Trophy?

Why was it good enough then, but it's never been used since?

 

[honestbharani]

Lookin' forward to some silky smooth Ajmal action in the second test. If he and Botha could play for the same T20 franchise, it would be every purist's dream, surely? And no one would or should raise an eye brow. Their actions are as pure as Hadlee's, McGrath's and Kapil Dev's. No, really.

Buffoonery truly is good for a laugh or two.

so shots at the players are still allowed?

 

[Burgey]

so shots at the players are still allowed?

I don't follow what you're saying sorry.

 

[Migara]

It doesn't make any difference...if you're using two methods that are both supposedly flawed then it doesn't matter which one you choose. What people are asking is if we can't rely on video evidence to give us the answers we need in real time, how did we get this information about all bowlers supposedly throwing, complete with apparent degrees of flexion, from video footage taken during the Champion's Trophy?

Why was it good enough then, but it's never been used since?

Simple, because it is not a real time process and must be costing huge amounts of money.And it do make a difference, a less flawed system is ALWAYS preferred to a more flawed one. We know 3rd umpire decisions are not fool proof, but it's way superior to human eye when it comes to line decisions. Here also applies the same facts. Using human eye to decide on chucking is ridiculous because

1) It's not sensitive enough
2) it adds bias to the interpretation

Pappu's article given by uvelocity also has the inherent problem where "suspect" actions were compared against "clean" actions, where the division is arbitrary and observer based. He never takes in the account of "dishonest observer" scenario, which will upset the whole interpretation. It's as flawed as the 15 degree rule.

 

[uvelocity]

There will always be a line to be drawn somewhere Migara, ever since it was proven that even a pure looking action contains some bend. I think using the eye to figure a point where the line should be would be best, to keep the rules as consistent with the original intention as possible.

 

[honestbharani]

There will always be a line to be drawn somewhere Migara, ever since it was proven that even a pure looking action contains some bend. I think using the eye to figure a point where the line should be would be best, to keep the rules as consistent with the original intention as possible.

It is the worst as the human eye is very very easy to deceive..


And BTW, would love to hear your thoughts on the DRS..

 

[uvelocity]

It is the worst as the human eye is very very easy to deceive..


And BTW, would love to hear your thoughts on the DRS..

I didn't say it was the best to judge the legality, just the starting point for where the law is. I think it's too loose at the moment.

And BTW, not sure why that is but I've made comments about that in the DRS thread.

 

[Son Of Coco]

In theory bowlers aren't cleared for life. Shabbir Ahmed (who I think we can all safely say did throw) was tested, found over the tolerance limits, sent for remedial work, cleared, then again reported after the first test of our 05/06 tour to Pakistan, found to be over and subsequently banned for a year.

My concern is that umpires, in light of what happened to certain colleagues of theirs, might be a bit reluctant to go down the reporting route if they have long term career ambitions.

I'd love to see an anonymous survey conducted to canvass the views of the elite and international umpires to see what they think of the issue and the support (or lack thereof) they get.

That's true, but they are cleared until they're suspected of throwing again and sent back for reporting. If they were chucking it during the match, and found to be doing so, it means sweet **** all as far as the actual match situation goes. Personally, I think if a player in your team is found to have been chucking it in testing after the match then your team should be credited with a loss for every match he/she played in and bowled that particular delivery between when they started/were last tested and the match before they were tested again. If they don't chuck a particular delivery then it's assumed to be all of them.

I also share your concerns re: the match umpires, and I think this has been mentioned in a recent biography.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Simple, because it is not a real time process and must be costing huge amounts of money.And it do make a difference, a less flawed system is ALWAYS preferred to a more flawed one. We know 3rd umpire decisions are not fool proof, but it's way superior to human eye when it comes to line decisions. Here also applies the same facts. Using human eye to decide on chucking is ridiculous because

1) It's not sensitive enough
2) it adds bias to the interpretation

Pappu's article given by uvelocity also has the inherent problem where "suspect" actions were compared against "clean" actions, where the division is arbitrary and observer based. He never takes in the account of "dishonest observer" scenario, which will upset the whole interpretation. It's as flawed as the 15 degree rule.

So this is why the whole thing has to remain a bit of a mystery? And the system we have at the moment where one guy's career is more important than a whole team's is more effective? If a bloke is found to be chucking it post-match it does absolutely no good at all for the guys who were playing against him in any matches up to that point.

Personally I think we replaced one system which wasn't perfect with another that is equally poor. We've basically said "We're wrong sometimes with what we see in real-time, so we'll do nothing during a match and deal with it after X amount of games". That leaves us with blokes bowling with possibly suspect actions...and a number of new names for deliveries that are basically the same thing.

"He did throw his doosra, but we don't know if he throws his teesra, sneesra, or bejeesra yet".

 

[Migara]

There will always be a line to be drawn somewhere Migara, ever since it was proven that even a pure looking action contains some bend. I think using the eye to figure a point where the line should be would be best, to keep the rules as consistent with the original intention as possible.

The dilemma is that line drawn by technology is unacceptable to the purists, where as the line drawn using the error prone human eye is acceptable. Which is basically a ****ing ******** joke.

 

[Migara]

So this is why the whole thing has to remain a bit of a mystery? And the system we have at the moment where one guy's career is more important than a whole team's is more effective? If a bloke is found to be chucking it post-match it does absolutely no good at all for the guys who were playing against him in any matches up to that point.

Personally I think we replaced one system which wasn't perfect with another that is equally poor. We've basically said "We're wrong sometimes with what we see in real-time, so we'll do nothing during a match and deal with it after X amount of games". That leaves us with blokes bowling with possibly suspect actions...and a number of new names for deliveries that are basically the same thing.

"He did throw his doosra, but we don't know if he throws his teesra, sneesra, or bejeesra yet".

Hell no. The current system is much fool proof than a middle aged guy with a biased mind judging by naked eye and no balling people. At least at the moment chuckers will only play few matches. But it's better than a non-chucker being labelled as chucker and losing a whole career. The law should be to protect innocent and let that odd criminal get away than sending few innocent fellows to the gallows.

 

[uvelocity]

The dilemma is that line drawn by technology is unacceptable to the purists, where as the line drawn using the error prone human eye is acceptable. Which is basically a ****ing ******** joke.

Bull****. The line has been placed where chuckers end up on the wrong side of it. The "research" conducted through the CT04 which was of such high quality to have been never released pinned up to 12 degrees as the mark for where bowlers were getting to. So how did we get to 15.

And thats leaving aside the research which is published, which puts forward the view that simple elbow flexion is not the way to measure if someone is indeed throwing or not.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hell no. The current system is much fool proof than a middle aged guy with a biased mind judging by naked eye and no balling people. At least at the moment chuckers will only play few matches. But it's better than a non-chucker being labelled as chucker and losing a whole career. The law should be to protect innocent and let that odd criminal get away than sending few innocent fellows to the gallows.

You don't lose a whole career though...you go and get tested and then back you come. You're not protecting the innocent, they're the guys playing against the guy who is chucking it. I understand you're coming it from Murali's angle (no pun intended)...but Murali isn't the whole throwing issue, even though he was made out to be.

Even suggesting umpires were biased is in itself biased - this is the Murali defence. He may have been wrong in then end given Murali was tested. But he wasn't wrong to call him if he thought he was throwing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

The dilemma is that line drawn by technology is unacceptable to the purists, where as the line drawn using the error prone human eye is acceptable. Which is basically a ****ing ******** joke.

No, the ****ing ******** joke is the way it's applied.