Ajmal claims special concession to 15 degree rule allowed by ICC

[Migara]

As I've said before I'm not happy with the ICC's decision to legitimise slow bowling chuckers by having a one-size fits all 15 degree mark. Which is in my opinion simply too much tolerance for slow bowlers. People are going to disagree over whether it should 15 degrees, 10 degrees, x degrees for one, y degrees for another and I don't see the point in arguing with that as it's mostly just a personal opinion. For me it has turned the art of slow bowling into something that is simply not cricket. Throwing is not a part of bowling.

I am not happy too with an arbitrary limit of 15 degrees, but I maintain that cut off should be equal to every bowler, not depending on how fast they bowl. Better would be to find out the natural extension of large number of bowlers and get a cut off. But deciding whether a player is a chucker using age old eye sight is a non-starter on this issue.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Throwing is not a part of bowling.

I'm not sure how many times it has to be explained: HE'S NOT ****ING THROWING.

 

[silentstriker]

The devil is in the detail, before people get too excited.

...


It also doesn't tell us anything about when he's tiring, when he's bowled his teesra or if he decides in a game to really 'rip' one early on in a batsman's innings as Warne used to and bends his arm a lot more to achieve it.

Devil IS in the details:

"Any umpire with any concern over Ajmal's action - or that of any other previously tested bowler - has the facility to freeze-frame any delivery from any international match and compare it to images taken during the test procedure at the University of Western Australia. It is understood that there has been no significant change in Ajmal's action since the tests in 2009."

 

[uvelocity]

I'm not sure how many times it has to be explained: HE'S NOT ****ING THROWING.

as per the current rules. I think people are entitled to have different views about the quality or effect of the rules, as opposed to whether or not whether Ajmal operates within them.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

as per the current rules. I think people are entitled to have different views about the quality or effect of the rules, as opposed to whether or not whether Ajmal operates within them.

The rules are the same for everyone, if you've got a better way without any massive problems apparent then let's hear it.

 

[uvelocity]

The rules are the same for everyone, if you've got a better way without any massive problems apparent then let's hear it.

well you don't need to know the solution to spot a problem, but having said that in the other chucking thread I posted some info I found which was from a NZ university group who has done a lot of work in this area. I found it interesting and complicated.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

well you don't need to know the solution to spot a problem, but having said that in the other chucking thread I posted some info I found which was from a NZ university group who has done a lot of work in this area. I found it interesting and complicated.

Link us up then

The thing is, there is no clear problem as far as I'm concerned. He's not just bowling within the limits, he's bowling WELL within them.

 

[uvelocity]

CoachesInfo.com - information and education for coaches - The Biomechanics of Illegal Bowling Actions in Cricket

Pappus' plane - cricket stats: What is a chuck?

 

[dhillon28]

Yes, because everybody was so complementary about his action before this series weren't they?

It just seems odd that this hasn't been broadcast as a reason why he's cleared to bowl when there's been so much speculation about it over the last few years - when Murali was cleared because of his defect, that was mentioned there and then.

The only thing odd is English medias and fans reluctance to accept their beating like real men. There is a certain grace to lose with.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

CoachesInfo.com - information and education for coaches - The Biomechanics of Illegal Bowling Actions in Cricket

Pappus' plane - cricket stats: What is a chuck?

I honestly see nothing in either to support your point.
EDIT: Heh, bit of editing madness there by me

 

[silentstriker]

I don't have a problem using angular velocity as a rule. As long as it's consistent, and it's scientifically verifiable, it's fine with me.

 

[silentstriker]

I would test many more bowlers though, because as the article said, many bowlers do look like they are bowling fine while having a very high angular velocity (as much as or more than those with suspect actions).

Because if you look at current rule, very few people whose bowling looks 'natural' end up straightening by over 15 degrees. So you are unlikely to be cheating if your action looks good (under the 15 degree rule) - which is part of the reason 15 degrees was chosen. If you switch to a rule that's going to be more consistent with what you see in terms of identifying cheaters, but will also let a lot more people get away with cheating, I think you have a bigger problem in many respects. Unless of course you test every bowler.

 

[uvelocity]

Look lots of things in cricket have changed over the years. Probably there were sticks in the mud who protested against covering up pitches overnight too. But in my ideal world the rule would somehow enforce the spirit of one of the defining parts of the game - the natural bowling action, round arm and perceptibly straight.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think the "spirit" of the law would say you should get to do something that others can't if you happen to look good doing it.

 

[honestbharani]

as per the current rules. I think people are entitled to have different views about the quality or effect of the rules, as opposed to whether or not whether Ajmal operates within them.

he is not "throwing" by the laws of cricket. If you wanna apply something else, it just shows how baseless your argument is.



And weren't you the one posting links to the MCC website to show that bowling with a bent arm = throwing?

 

[honestbharani]

Look lots of things in cricket have changed over the years. Probably there were sticks in the mud who protested against covering up pitches overnight too. But in my ideal world the rule would somehow enforce the spirit of one of the defining parts of the game - the natural bowling action, round arm and perceptibly straight.

you are just finding it hard to believe that bowling with a bent arm is, was and always has been legal in cricket..

 

[uvelocity]

And weren't you the one posting links to the MCC website to show that bowling with a bent arm = throwing?

really getting sick of your trolling attitude tbh, but from memory someone (may have been you) mentioned what was written in the law, which was incorrect, and I posted the link to show. cbf looking it all up.

 

[Jacknife]

The only thing odd is English medias and fans reluctance to accept their beating like real men. There is a certain grace to lose with.

And how haven't the England fans been gracious in defeat, or as you put it accept there beating like real men. All the regular English posters on here haven't been anything but imo and readily point to the teams inept batting performance as the reason we lost.
As far as the media, who gives a **** what they think, they don't represent me in any way shape or form, you should know this living in the UK.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Agree with Jacknife. The English fans have been great. Please don't confuse the media with the fans.

 

[four_or_six]

Haven't really noticed the media saying much either... maybe somewhere low visibility, but pretty much all the sports news is football right now. Apparently there's some kind of controversy going on.