Chuckers

[Manee]

Well what you've got there is a about half "it's a big secret and we don't know" and half "depends on your point of view" so I don't see an end to it that easily.

The rules are the rules, we can accept that, but all we need is a better way to enforce them.

My question is that if it has been shown that a bowler can consistently perform the deliveries he would in a match while hooked up to machines that judge whether he is chucking or not, what more has to be proven? The only thing left would be an argument that somehow fatigue after long spells causes a bowler to alter his action although this is seldom the case with other aspects of the action.

 

[TheJediBrah]

My question is that if it has been shown that a bowler can consistently perform the deliveries he would in a match while hooked up to machines that judge whether he is chucking or not, what more has to be proven? The only thing left would be an argument that somehow fatigue after long spells causes a bowler to alter his action although this is seldom the case with other aspects of the action.

That's just not going to happen. How can you tell he's bowling the same as in a match? Consciously or subconsciously his action is likely to be different, and in a match is where he's going to be pushing the envelope to get more spin or whatever. IMO, they need to observe in-game deliveries (after the match), and if the player is exceeding the limit, automatic ban. Like Cameron Gannon. I know it can be hard to measure but it's just absolutely pointless taking them inside to a lab in a non-game situation and expecting them to bowl the same as if they were in a match. Even if they tried to they probably wouldn't.

 

[Manee]

That's just not going to happen. How can you tell he's bowling the same as in a match? Consciously or subconsciously his action is likely to be different, and in a match is where he's going to be pushing the envelope to get more spin or whatever.

They test all of the deliveries of a bowler. Hence someone like Botha was banned from bowling his doosra. I think it is unlikely that a bowler who throws the ball in a match will be able to reproduce everything, with accuracy and spin, with a legal action in the lab. If Muralitharan can bowl a doosra accurately at his regular speed with a legal action, what reason would he have to throw the ball during a match? This is the crux of my confusion. I'm not attacking you, I just want to know where you're coming from.

IMO, they need to observe in-game deliveries (after the match), and if the player is exceeding the limit, automatic ban. Like Cameron Gannon. I know it can be hard to measure but it's just absolutely pointless taking them inside to a lab in a non-game situation and expecting them to bowl the same as if they were in a match. Even if they tried to they probably wouldn't.

Wasn't Gannon an example of the system working correctly. He could not bowl legally under testing and so was banned until he could? I'm pretty sure "the lab" can be taken outdoors to the pitch practice too. A bowler would bowl normally but have certain sensors on them at the time. I think "inside to a lab" is a misunderstanding of the nature of proceedings. Happy to be proven wrong here though.

 

[Top_Cat]

tbh, the biggest problem with the work done to validate measures of chucking was that I doubt they ever released the results publicly. The exact measurements and their methodology would be very interesting and it sucks we'll never get to see them. One thing is for certain, we'll never, ever see angles measured next to a bowler's name.

One gets the feeling there's no interest by the ICC in this. The last peer-reviewed cricket-related pub by Elliott's group was a review article in 2007 and it was really only to point out that, in terms of getting good measurements, lab testing is still more accurate than using match footage and getting elbow angles from that* which is a shock to absolutely noone. This is why we'll never see names + angles because the original press was on measurements taken using match footage. Gut feeling tells me the ICC reckon they have this chucking thing pegged.

*Elliott, B. & Alderson, J. (2007). Laboratory vs Field Testing in Cricket Bowling: A Review of Current and Past Practice in Modelling Techniques. Sports Biomechanics, 6(1): 99-108.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They test all of the deliveries of a bowler. Hence someone like Botha was banned from bowling his doosra. I think it is unlikely that a bowler who throws the ball in a match will be able to reproduce everything, with accuracy and spin, with a legal action in the lab. If Muralitharan can bowl a doosra accurately at his regular speed with a legal action, what reason would he have to throw the ball during a match? This is the crux of my confusion. I'm not attacking you, I just want to know where you're coming from.

Wasn't Gannon an example of the system working correctly. He could not bowl legally under testing and so was banned until he could? I'm pretty sure "the lab" can be taken outdoors to the pitch practice too. A bowler would bowl normally but have certain sensors on them at the time. I think "inside to a lab" is a misunderstanding of the nature of proceedings. Happy to be proven wrong here though.

I don't really know how to answer that without just repeating what I said last post. It's not just about the deliveries they bowl.

I agree that Gannon was perfect use of the system. That's how it should be. The thing is, if a bowler knows they are being tested and that's why they are bowling then it will have a conscious and subconscious influence on their bowling.

 

[Manee]

tbh, the biggest problem with the work done to validate measures of chucking was that I doubt they ever released the results publicly. The exact measurements and their methodology would be very interesting and it sucks we'll never get to see them. One thing is for certain, we'll never, ever see angles measured next to a bowler's name.

One gets the feeling there's no interest by the ICC in this. The last peer-reviewed cricket-related pub by Elliott's group was a review article in 2007 and it was really only to point out that, in terms of getting good measurements, lab testing is still more accurate than using match footage and getting elbow angles from that* which is a shock to absolutely noone. This is why we'll never see names + angles because the original press was on measurements taken using match footage. Gut feeling tells me the ICC reckon they have this chucking thing pegged.

*Elliott, B. & Alderson, J. (2007). Laboratory vs Field Testing in Cricket Bowling: A Review of Current and Past Practice in Modelling Techniques. Sports Biomechanics, 6(1): 99-108.

Thanks for this post. Very informative.

I do recall seeing angles next to bowlers names on a website and your post has made me think I've imagined it...which is perfectly possible. Maybe it was just an unofficial job done by someone guessing but I remember taking it as the definitive view on the subject. Does anyone else remember seeing this or am I crazy?

 

[Top_Cat]

Would counter that by saying psychologists bump into that every study, shockingly called 'testing effects'. You can allow for it with enough measurements and a robust enough model but yeah, it's obviously never going to be perfect.

 

[Top_Cat]

Thanks for this post. Very informative.

I do recall seeing angles next to bowlers names on a website and your post has made me think I've imagined it...which is perfectly possible. Maybe it was just an unofficial job done by someone guessing but I remember taking it as the definitive view on the subject. Does anyone else remember seeing this or am I crazy?

I don't think you are, remember seeing something along those lines, but I wonder how official the source was. Certainly can't find anything now. To release any data like that, you'd have to have the permission of the subjects and, if you were them, would you want that data released?

 

[hendrix]

IMO, they need to observe in-game deliveries (after the match), .

I was under the impression that they do in fact do this.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Would counter that by saying psychologists bump into that every study, shockingly called 'testing effects'. You can allow for it with enough measurements and a robust enough model but yeah, it's obviously never going to be perfect.

Exactly. That's why I'm calling for development of in-game testing as the primary tool.

I was under the impression that they do in fact do this.

You may be right, but IIRC correctly it was Botha that sparked this discussion and they are certainly taking him to the "lab".

 

[hendrix]

You may be right, but IIRC correctly it was Botha that sparked this discussion and they are certainly taking him to the "lab".

True.

But if they picked up Botha, surely they're also looking at others?

 

[TheJediBrah]

True.

But if they picked up Botha, surely they're also looking at others?

Yes but they are not making any actual decisions based on match bowling, just making referrals.

I think that's a mistake.

 

[Maximas]

Thanks for this post. Very informative.

I do recall seeing angles next to bowlers names on a website and your post has made me think I've imagined it...which is perfectly possible. Maybe it was just an unofficial job done by someone guessing but I remember taking it as the definitive view on the subject. Does anyone else remember seeing this or am I crazy?

The results of Murali's doosra were officially released - and he himself stated his results at one point on TV, and of course we all heard about Gannon's 24 degrees, so there is some transparency it seems. I didn't see this website though

 

[Maximas]

Yes but they are not making any actual decisions based on match bowling, just making referrals.

I think that's a mistake.

Yes but it really takes proper lab testing to know for sure what the correct angles are you would think

 

[Top_Cat]

Exactly. That's why I'm calling for development of in-game testing as the primary tool.

Yeah but I think you're underestimating both the robustness of measures taken to allow for testing effects and the difficulty of doing it in-game in a scientifically meaningful, accurate, valid, etc. way. Like I said, psychologists bump into this with literally every experiment. It makes experiments harder to design but the statistical tools to allow for it have taken a quantum leap in the past decade too.

The research group of the guy who did the original testing hasn't published on the topic in over a decade (other than said review article) and, especially in these somewhat uncertain times for researchers, they're hardly going to put their group's time and effort into something which will take years of development and testing unless the ICC is ponying up some $ and committment to go with it.

Again, I'm guessing but I'd suggest that the ICC just isn't interested in measuring this at a minute scale because the current system probably, from their perspective, tells them all they really need to know. If there was a cheap, quick and accurate way of zapping a bloke from the crease the minute he chucks one, they'd be all over it but otherwise, this is the system we have for the forseeable. It's not perfect but it's light years ahead of what was in place because, for example, Shoaib would have been chucked out of the game had he been playing in the 60's despite the bend in his elbow being due to hyper-extension rather than flexion.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes but it really takes proper lab testing to know for sure what the correct angles are you would think

Obviously that's the other side of things, especially when bowlers are wearing long, baggy sleeves. But it's my belief that it's still the best option and the error from match bowling vs lab bowling is more significant than measurement error from in-game testing. Especially with all the cameras they have these days at big grounds it shouldn't be too hard to get accurate measurements. And that way the umpire can mark down the delivery he thought was suspect and they'll review it later. Or they could even just review the doosras if the umpire thinks that's suspect.

 

[Top_Cat]

Obviously that's the other side of things, especially when bowlers are wearing long, baggy sleeves. But it's my belief that it's still the best option and the error from match bowling vs lab bowling is more significant than measurement error from in-game testing. Especially with all the cameras they have these days at big grounds it shouldn't be too hard to get accurate measurements. And that way the umpire can mark down the delivery he thought was suspect and they'll review it later. Or they could even just review the doosras if the umpire thinks that's suspect.

Nope. Seriously, read Elliot's paper. The accuracy of measurements from video just isn't up to scratch.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nope. Seriously, read Elliot's paper. The accuracy of measurements from video just isn't up to scratch.

How many years ago was it? Like I said, I support the development of better in-game testing, not using the exact same materials they had in early 2000s. They've got a lot more cameras now anyway don't they? And higher quality etc.

 

[Top_Cat]

2007, posted it above. The paper makes it clear that video resolution isn't the major limitation anyway.

It's only one perspective but noone else is putting forth another one so, until they do....

 

[TheJediBrah]

2007, posted it above. The paper makes it clear that video resolution isn't the major limitation anyway.

It's only one perspective but noone else is putting forth another one so, until they do....

That's exactly the point, thank you