Ajmal claims special concession to 15 degree rule allowed by ICC

[L Trumper]

It's amazing isn't it, according to some people cameras invented for the purpose on all the time can't tell us if a balls hitting a wicket, but these cameras can actually tell us how many revs are on a ball in match situations, incredible stuff.

One is involved prediction other is not. That is such a basic point FFS.

 

[grecian]

One is involved prediction other is not. That is such a basic point FFS.

Sorry explain, I'm very basic

Involved prediction?

 

[L Trumper]

Sorry explain, I'm very basic

Involved prediction?

Ball hitting wickets, involves prediction. Revs verification thing does not.

Edit: I think 'include' is a better word to express. Sorry for mix up. So more like 'includes prediction element'.

 

[grecian]

Ball hitting wickets, involves prediction. Revs verification thing does not.

Really, how does that work then, from a camera many metres away, how can that be 100% accurate, when even the speed cameras vary, revs must be an astonishingly hard thing to work out.

 

[L Trumper]

Really, how does that work then, from a camera many metres away, how can that be 100% accurate, when even the speed cameras vary, revs must be an astonishingly hard thing to work out.

Yes. But with revs, it is to do with the correlation calculations based on the data that is available form regular playing conditions, and lab tests. Whether it is perfect or not I am not sure. But if there is a chance to get it right it is easier to get it right in the data mining rather than in the prediction element. I am also not confident about the calculating revs, but you can at least get the idea based on different data sets and comparing them. Think of it as hawk-eye in tennis but noting down the ball direction, position in every moment from release point to landing point.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Some blokes who do this **** as their job tested him. He had to bowl deliveries to the same amount of revs and the same pace in a match or he'd fail. He came in at well under the limit. He didn't just scrape through, he passed with flying colours. I'll try to find the article which said this.

That simply isn't true.

The last time Ajmal was tested their was no extant technology that allowed the revolutions of a ball to even be measured in a laboratory, never mind from 27 frame per second TV footage.

I'd also direct people to a previous post of mine, quoting Dave Richardson:

Speaking personally I've been banging the drum for Ajmal being a chucker ever since I've seen him.

Must be noted that no mention of his arm injury was made in the initial ICC report clearing him. From cricinfo.

Those who say his Doosra has been cleared and that those of us who reserve doubts should just get over it might also be interested to read what David Richardson (the then ICC General Manager) had to say,

"it is important to emphasise that no bowler is ever 'cleared' as it is impossible to predict how a player might deliver the ball in the future. All bowlers are subject to further reporting if the match officials are of the view that they have concerns about whether a delivery or deliveries conform to the Laws of Cricket when observed with the naked eye."

 

[Agent Nationaux]

That simply isn't true.

The last time Ajmal was tested their was no extant technology that allowed the revolutions of a ball to even be measured in a laboratory, never mind from 27 frame per second TV footage.

I'd also direct people to a previous post of mine, quoting Dave Richardson:

I don't think Ajmal would have a problem with being tested regularly as long as it doesn't affect his schedule.

 

[silentstriker]

No. They complained after they won the match. They then went on to win the series.

Wrong on both counts. It was India's tour of Pakistan in 2006. First two matches were draws and not a peep from the Indians. In the third and final match, India lost by 300+ runs and Chappell whined.

If you're going to moan about someone's action, do it after winning. Otherwise:

 

[Debris]

Wrong on both counts. It was India's tour of Pakistan in 2006. First two matches were draws and not a peep from the Indians. In the third and final match, India lost by 300+ runs and Chappell whined.

If you're going to moan about someone's action, do it after winning. Otherwise:

Assuming his action did not change for the third test, of course.

 

[Coronis]

Assuming his action did not change for the third test, of course.

Ah, of course.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

His action hasn't been pointed out in nearly a year because that's when he last played test cricket.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

Wrong on both counts. It was India's tour of Pakistan in 2006. First two matches were draws and not a peep from the Indians. In the third and final match, India lost by 300+ runs and Chappell whined.

If you're going to moan about someone's action, do it after winning. Otherwise:

Well I couldn't see much of the first test and as I have been saying all along some of his wickets were gems, its just that doosra and maybe even the top spin, he is just pushing the boundaries, so maybe it's a tactic to push more after the first test.

 

[ankitj]

Blimey, you don't follow cricket much if you only realised that from these posts rather than cricinfo, which was available for a good while before your incredibly perceptive post

Some things are just said for an effect.

 

[ankitj]

Wrong on both counts. It was India's tour of Pakistan in 2006. First two matches were draws and not a peep from the Indians. In the third and final match, India lost by 300+ runs and Chappell whined.

If you're going to moan about someone's action, do it after winning. Otherwise:

That'd be Chappell and not India. Apart from a few ordinary fans and such, I honestly don't remember any Indian associated with top level cricket (captain, player, manager, selector etc) complaining about Akhtar's action.

 

[Debris]

That'd be Chappell and not India. Apart from a few ordinary fans and such, I honestly don't remember any Indian associated with top level cricket (captain, player, manager, selector etc) complaining about Akhtar's action.

And to be fair, Chappell whines about everything so at least he is consistent.

 

[shankar]

Wrong on both counts. It was India's tour of Pakistan in 2006. First two matches were draws and not a peep from the Indians. In the third and final match, India lost by 300+ runs and Chappell whined.

If you're going to moan about someone's action, do it after winning. Otherwise:

Nope. If you were referring to the 2006 series, there were reports that India made a complaint after the second test in Faisalabad (Shoaib went for 1/100), which were later denied. Chappell's comments happened after India's first innings at Karachi had completed in which Shoaib picked 2/70. India did go on to lose that test but Shoaib had little role to play in it.

 

[GIMH]

I do think there is something to the whole people only care when he's taking lots of wickets angle. Kane Williamson and Marlon Samuels definitely have worse actions to the naked eye but they don't take enough wickets for people give a ****. I certainly don't think we'd have a 200 post thread about Ajmal if he averaged 37 with the ball.

Of course we wouldn't. Nobody gives a **** about any kind of cheat if ultimately their cheating is ineffective. ****ing ridiculous of people to cite it as some sort of sour grapes.

If some geezer who always middled in the TDF was a known doper who got away with it, would anyone be as bothered by that as Armstrong's antics? Of course not and nor should they be.

To say it should only be brought up when you've beaten the team containing the chucker is ludicrous, given his flouting of the rules significantly lessens your chance of victory.

 

[hendrix]

How far away is the technology to bowl in match conditions with the flexion tracker? The whole question of bend and hyper extension isn't going to go away at any level - heck, even at local league and county rep level it's a talking point; there's one boy in my current squad whose action looks dodgy to the eye but can straighten his arm to about 20 degrees beyond horizontal...

What doesn't do them any favours is that they seem to have technology that does all this marvellous stuff, yet isn't good enough to use on a regular basis - see the tech that they used to state 99% of bowlers throw...has never been seen in action again. Despite the fact there are new players on the scene, at least some of whom might be Sarwans and not (going on ICC tech) everyone else.

The main problem with the ICC and chucking is a lack of will to actually address the issue.

Yeah, basically this.

There's apparently no effort being made to have live, real time technology to confirm the legality of deliveries within a match.

I love watching Saeed Ajmal bowl, and I believe that he's certainly proved that he can bowl the doosra within the 15 degree limit.

But every bowler can bowl with their foot behind the bowling crease too.

 

[hendrix]

Coming around the wicket to a right hander and bowling a doosra seems to me like something that would be very, very difficult to do legally.

Not saying it's impossible, just that there are certain scenarios in which a bowler may be more likely to be less rigid with his action.

That's why there needs to be some goal towards live match technology.

 

[Coronis]

Of course we wouldn't. Nobody gives a **** about any kind of cheat if ultimately their cheating is ineffective. ****ing ridiculous of people to cite it as some sort of sour grapes.

If some geezer who always middled in the TDF was a known doper who got away with it, would anyone be as bothered by that as Armstrong's antics? Of course not and nor should they be.

To say it should only be brought up when you've beaten the team containing the chucker is ludicrous, given his flouting of the rules significantly lessens your chance of victory.

Yeah so, ultimately you don't give a **** about the actual cheating just the effectiveness of it. So, you don't care if a guy was literally pitching like a baseballer if he kept missing the stumps?