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

[Son Of Coco]

Migara owning most people

I reckon it's time we ordered some team shirts

 

[smash84]

look who's getting their knickers in a twist

 

[Son Of Coco]

look who's getting their knickers in a twist

My knickers have been tested in lab conditions and its been proven they don't twist more than the allowable amount.

 

[smash84]

No way. You wear 2D knickers and you can't test them in 3D. Fact

 

[Son Of Coco]

They tested the amount of revolutions I get and the effort I put in during 'match conditions' and compared that to what I did in the lab. I'm not saying they were exactly the same, but by time I'd finished in the lab 8 rats had drowned and the secretary was pregnant.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Migara owning most people

Yeah, he's really not, you know.

Take this nugget:

Care to explain how a "clean action" guy is not going to throw that odd ball when it comes to effort ball or a special ball?

Absolute classic strawman argument. There's not a scintilla of proof anyone with a quote-unquote "clean action" throws or, indeed, has ever thrown, so why would anyone even attempt to answer this? He's attempting to refute an argument with a superficially similar one that, in reality, has no relation to the original.

Thought no-one had bothered because it was so obviously horse poo. It seems not. Happy to clear that up for you tho.

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?

Why any sportsman breaks any rule ever: to gain an advantage. If there were no benefits to using a bit of elbow why would anyone throw?

 

[uvelocity]

Absolute classic strawman argument. There's not a scintilla of proof anyone with a quote-unquote "clean action" throws or, indeed, has ever thrown, so why would anyone even attempt to answer this? He's attempting to refute an argument with a superficially similar one that, in reality, has no relation to the original.

I'm on this team

 

[Daemon]

Why any sportsman breaks any rule ever: to gain an advantage. If there were no benefits to using a bit of elbow why would anyone throw?

You're ignoring the last page or so where this question was answered.

 

[smash84]

You're ignoring the last page or so where this question was answered.

haha....exactly

 

[BoyBrumby]

You're ignoring the last page or so where this question was answered.

No, I'm not. Being able to bowl without flexing the elbow more than 15 degrees doesn't mean any bowler will always do it. Using the elbow means more pace and spin.

Players do things in every sport to gain an advantage despite knowing what they're doing is illegal. Why else would anyone claim a catch that'd bounced?

 

[Prince EWS]

No, I'm not. Being able to bowl without flexing the elbow more than 15 degrees doesn't mean any bowler will always do it. Using the elbow means more pace and spin.

Players do things in every sport to gain an advantage despite knowing what they're doing is illegal. Why else would anyone claim a catch that'd bounced?

The point that was made was that, when they're tested in the lab, they have to replicated the pace and/or revolutions on the ball that they've been recorded at in the match. If they can't then they're asked to keep bowling until they can.

If you can bowl at the same pace or get the same amount of revs on the bowl without throwing, then why would would you throw? And before you say "to bowl faster or get more turn", I implore you to read the "if" part of my question again. If you still want to give that answer I ask you to keep reading it over and over until you don't.

If you want to make an argument that a bowler could throw for accuracy or durability reasons despite not getting any more pace or turn than when they bowl without throwing then I won't argue, but you're not making that argument; you're just conveniently ignoring how the lab process works.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The point that was made was that, when they're tested in the lab, they have to replicated the pace and/or revolutions on the ball that they've been recorded at in the match. If they can't then they're asked to keep bowling until they can.

If you can bowl at the same pace or get the same amount of revs on the bowl without throwing, then why would would you throw? And before you say "to bowl faster or get more turn", I implore you to read the "if" part of my question again. If you still want to give that answer I ask you to keep reading it over and over until you don't.

If you want to make an argument that a bowler could throw for accuracy or durability reasons despite not getting any more pace or turn than when they bowl without throwing then I won't argue, but you're not making that argument; you're just conveniently ignoring how the lab process works.

No, I'm not.

& I can't believe I having this argument.

Bowlers don't bowl the same ball every delivery do they? I think that's a pretty unproblematic assertion. So bowling a Doosra at 65mph isn't going to produce the same result every time, is it? Again, unarguably true.

Now, as the tool that counts a ball's revolutions has only just appeared on TV coverage, it's also fair to say that the chaps in the labs have previously had no way of measuring how many times a ball spun in flight in a match situation until this season. That being so "measuring the revolutions" in the lab is meaningless because it was impossible to say how many were put on in a match.

Ditto Hawkeye or Eagle eye; even now not even international match has it and without it the amount of deviation for a spun ball cannot be accurately measured.

So lab mesurements are just that.

 

[smash84]

^scathing

 

[Daemon]

Must've been the 50th time that was explained in this thread already.

 

[Daemon]

No, I'm not.

& I can't believe I having this argument.

Bowlers don't bowl the same ball every delivery do they? I think that's a pretty unproblematic assertion. So bowling a Doosra at 65mph isn't going to produce the same result every time, is it? Again, unarguably true.

Now, as the tool that counts a ball's revolutions has only just appeared on TV coverage, it's also fair to say that the chaps in the labs have previously had no way of measuring how many times a ball spun in flight in a match situation until this season. That being so "measuring the revolutions" in the lab is meaningless because it was impossible to say how many were put on in a match.

Ditto Hawkeye or Eagle eye; even now not even international match has it and without it the amount of deviation for a spun ball cannot be accurately measured.

So lab mesurements are just that.

So your argument is that the ICC biomechanics expert is lying? You also forget a little thing used in analyses known as 'sample size' which answers your first point.

 

[smash84]

 

[BoyBrumby]

So your argument is that the ICC biomechanics expert is lying? You also forget a little thing used in analyses known as 'sample size' which answers your first point.

It can't be just me, can it?

Just for the purposes of clarity then: no, I'm not saying the UWA biomechanics expert is telling whoppers.

What I am saying is that there's no way of accurately measuring that a ball sent down in a lab is the same as would be sent down in a match because the technology to measure deliveries in a game is in its infancy.

 

[Daemon]

It can't be just me, can it?

Just for the purposed of clarity then: no, I'm not saying the UWA biomechanics expert is telling whoppers.

What I am saying is that there's no way of accurately measuring that a ball sent down in a lab is the same as would be sent down in a match because the tecnology to measure deliveries in a game is in its infancy.

mmmm. Burger King...

Anyways, I'll be honest here, I know barely anything about the technology used by these guys to compare the deliveries, and certainly not enough to judge whether its in its infancy or not. I just took the experts word for it, imo that's better than

**** i have to crap brbr

 

[Daemon]

cbf finishing that.


Just saw this on Cricinfo - UAE news: Vikrant Shetty's bowling action cleared | Other Countries Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

Vikrant Shetty, the UAE offspinning allrounder, has been cleared to bowl at the international level, after undergoing remedial work on his bowling action. Shetty worked on his action at the ICC Global Cricket Academy (GCA), under the supervision of head coaches Dayle Hadlee and Mudassar Nazar. Following the remedial action, he was assessed and cleared by his home board, the Emirates Cricket Board.

Shetty had been reported for a suspected illegal action during UAE's Intercontinental Cup clash against Afghanistan in October. Shetty, 27, had made his first-class debut in that match. He was reported at the end of the match by on-field umpires Ahsan Raza and Buddhi Pradhan, and third umpire Iftikhar Ali.

Under this process, as with all bowlers, Shetty's action will continue to be scrutinised by match officials to ensure it remains legal.

These guys are definitely reading CW

 

[Furball]

Well that's a bit flawed because all the match officials can report is that they suspect someone is throwing.