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

[wellAlbidarned]

In short, to answer M0rphin3's suspicions - they do not clear players lightly. It is a robust, carefully executed process.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Please educate me on the mechanism in pre-Murali era for coming back. The exact point is that the TESTING was used for a bowler to come back from remedial work shows victory of objective measurement over subjective naked eye guess work. If you want to talk about the current game, I would say everybody should be tested, whatever the action looks like. That will unveil some interesting facts.

That was after the 15 degree rule I should mention. Now who would have picked Pollock and McGrath as chucks when they extended it 12 degrees and went over the prescribed limit of 7.5 degrees for fast medium bowlers? There are people as bad as "chuckers" bowling with seemingly clean actions. Test everybody, catch everybody.

:facepalm:

And again we get back to them coming up with 12 degree for McGrath and Pollock...astonishingly accurate measurements with the video footage we can't use anymore.

This is going nowhere mate. Good luck with it all though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

zaremba has won this thread, FTR

Quite so.

Testing in a lab is almost certainly flawed because of the Hawthorne Effect. Whereby subjects modify their behaviour simply by virtue of knowing they're being observed.

There it is. It's taken fifteen years, but I've finally found a practical application for something I studied for the Sociology half of my degree.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yes, but the testing process takes all of that into account, see? If the bowler changes how he bowls significantly he won't be able to reproduce the deliveries effectively or consistently enough to satisfy the test criteria, so won't be cleared.

 

[Fusion]

Yes, but the testing process takes all of that into account, see? If the bowler changes how he bowls significantly he won't be able to reproduce the deliveries effectively or consistently enough to satisfy the test criteria, so won't be cleared.

A point that's being missed over and over again.

 

[Furball]

Quite so.

Testing in a lab is almost certainly flawed because of the Hawthorne Effect. Whereby subjects modify their behaviour simply by virtue of knowing they're being observed.

There it is. It's taken fifteen years, but I've finally found a practical application for something I studied for the Sociology half of my degree.

Yes, but the testing process takes all of that into account, see? If the bowler changes how he bowls significantly he won't be able to reproduce the deliveries effectively or consistently enough to satisfy the test criteria, so won't be cleared.

Both arguments here have valid points.

 

[Son Of Coco]

A point that's being missed over and over again.

I don't think it's being missed at all to be honest.

 

[Burgey]

Yes, but the testing process takes all of that into account, see? If the bowler changes how he bowls significantly he won't be able to reproduce the deliveries effectively or consistently enough to satisfy the test criteria, so won't be cleared.

So if someone is bowling differently when they're tested to how they bowl in a match and they're within the 15 degrees upon testing; do they then assume that because he's changed his action he was chucking in the game? If they do that, what do they base it on? If its the video taken during the match, don't we have the same problem?

It's an interesting problem. The issue is complex.

 

[Daemon]

So if someone is bowling differently when they're tested to how they bowl in a match and they're within the 15 degrees upon testing; do they then assume that because he's changed his action he was chucking in the game? If they do that, what do they base it on? If its the video taken during the match, don't we have the same problem?

It's an interesting problem. The issue is complex.

Then they have to make that assumption and send him for remedial. It's an assumption where they likely won't use the video footage imo.

And yeah like I mentioned before, it's up to us to choose which theory to believe. It's going to vary from case to case and we're merely speculating at best. Personally find both views plausible (mine obviously more though )

 

[Jarquis]

zaremba has won this thread, FTR

There's a shock.

 

[Burgey]

Then they have to make that assumption and send him for remedial. It's an assumption where they likely won't use the video footage imo.

And yeah like I mentioned before, it's up to us to choose which theory to believe. It's going to vary from case to case and we're merely speculating at best. Personally find both views plausible (mine obviously more though )

Well I'm certainly happier if they use some system of testing to comfirm or refute suspicions over blind assumption. It's not an amateur past time any more, it's a professional endeavour.

 

[Burgey]

There's a shock.

That comment on Prior in your signature is accurate, btw.

 

[Jarquis]

That comment on Prior in your signature is accurate, btw.

Cool story bro.

Says a lot for the current standard of International cricket if Prior and Swann are the world's best in their respective disciplines and both are dire ****s.

 

[Burgey]

Cool story bro.

Says a lot for the current standard of International cricket if Prior and Swann are the world's best in their respective disciplines and both are dire ****s.

Yeah it does. Prior is a downhill skier with the bat mate.

 

[Jarquis]

As shown by the first Test of the current England series.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah. One test proves you're right.

His keeping seems to have come on very well though the past few years. Wasn't there talk when he first played that his glove work wasn't great?

 

[Daemon]

Well I'm certainly happier if they use some system of testing to comfirm or refute suspicions over blind assumption. It's not an amateur past time any more, it's a professional endeavour.

I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah. One test proves you're right.

His keeping seems to have come on very well though the past few years. Wasn't there talk when he first played that his glove work wasn't great?

Check the Eng v Pak series in 2010 then. Made quite a few decent scores from positions of strife IIRC.
His ton at Lord's against India, we were ahead in the game but they'd reduced us to 5/**** all. Was there to see it too

The only side he's struggled against is South Africa, so unless we're writing off every bowling attack as **** besides their's....

And yeah, he was dropped for his glovework. That's how bad it was.

 

[Burgey]

I don't get what you're trying to say.

I'm saying that applying some scientific rigour to deciding the issue is better than the old way, that's all.

 

[smash84]

It's not, though. The point is that if he can't bowl it with the same release, or at the same speed, or get the same amount of turn, bounce or drift, they'll ask him to bowl it again until he can get it to do what it gets it to do in the match. And if he needs to chuck it to get it to happen - well then they'll find out.

They have ways of measuring whether or not it's the same delivery.

pretty much subscribe to this

In short, to answer M0rphin3's suspicions - they do not clear players lightly. It is a robust, carefully executed process.

This

zaremba has won this thread, FTR

Migara owning most people

Yes, but the testing process takes all of that into account, see? If the bowler changes how he bowls significantly he won't be able to reproduce the deliveries effectively or consistently enough to satisfy the test criteria, so won't be cleared.

Very well put.

I'm saying that applying some scientific rigour to deciding the issue is better than the old way, that's all.

lol.....all along it seemed you were arguing the other way around

There is some merit to the other side's POV as well that the bowler might modify hi style because of lab conditions but if we are asking him to bowl the doosra in lab conditions and he can bowl it within limits inside the lab consistently then why would he chuck it in the match?