Ajmal Action Reported

[wellAlbidarned]

I think to a naked eye Slower bowlers with unconventional actions look more suspect always, but would like Some Fast bowlers reported as well.

ICC needs to find a round that inherent bias in the system almost. Random testing maybe ?

I honestly want to see Steyn tested. He's got a very pronounced wrist flick but I wonder if there's a bit more in it.

 

[Bahnz]

Steve Finn's action looks a bit sus to my eye. And how Kyle Mills has gotten through a 13 year career without ever being reported as beyond me.

 

[Bahnz]

Being scientists and stuff I somewhat suspect they know how to conduct a trial to include all possibilities. They're not gonna pick one random delivery and be like "yep, here's our one". They'll definitely take into account the extremes.

I remember listening to an interview with Simon Hughes on the BBC a month or two ago. He said that bowling the doosra legally entails a dramatic loss of pace, and that in most cases the fizzing, wicket-taking doosra involves a lot more bending and straightening in order to making up for this. It would be interesting to know to what extent current tests take account of factors such as bowling speed and revolutions on the ball, and whether there has been any change in procedure in the last few years.

 

[Migara]

There is no optical illusion. If it looks like a chuck, it is a CHUCK!

If it looks like Malaria, it should be malaria, what ever the blood tests say? Meh!

 

[watson]

If it looks like Malaria, it should be malaria, what ever the blood tests say? Meh!

It has been proven scientifically that the human eye CAN detect a 15 degree straightening - that's one of the reasons why 15 degrees was chosen back in 2004 as the cut-off. So yes, an Umpire can fairly and reasonably call a chuck without the help of a biomechanical scientist. And should.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I honestly want to see Steyn tested. He's got a very pronounced wrist flick but I wonder if there's a bit more in it.

I've seen a lot of people say this. Looks like just the wrist to me.

 

[simonlee48]

It has been proven scientifically that the human eye CAN detect a 15 degree straightening - that's one of the reasons why 15 degrees was chosen back in 2004 as the cut-off. So yes, an Umpire can fairly and reasonably call a chuck without the help of a biomechanical scientist. And should.

Link appreciated. I can spot if some one is blatantly chucking but I am not sure about this 15 degree cut off.

 

[hendrix]

I've posted a million times on the quirk in Ajmal's action to do with shoulder abduction.

He may well chuck in terms of elbow straightening too but given that he passed the test the first time around the focus on this will be proving that the tested action is identical to the match action, which is where the new testers appeared to really hammer Senanayake

 

[OverratedSanity]

Don't understand why same could happen with an effort ball of any bowler even with clean actions

True. Lots of bowlers probably do it. I just think it makes sense to start with someone whose action does look very dodgy. For all we know, Steyn might be chucking merrily away when he bowls his faster deliveries. Ideally, everyone should be tested.

 

[indiaholic]

True. Lots of bowlers probably do it. I just think it makes sense to start with someone whose action does look very dodgy. For all we know, Steyn might be chucking merrily away when he bowls his faster deliveries. Ideally, everyone should be tested.

Steyn's case is peculiar. Doesn't look like a chuck most of the time.. Especially when he is bowling a fuller length. But at times when he bowls that effort ball, there is definitely some elbow action.

 

[watson]

Link appreciated. I can spot if some one is blatantly chucking but I am not sure about this 15 degree cut off.

The article is from November 2004;

The tolerance levels had been set at five degrees for spinners, seven-and-a-half for medium-pacers, and ten for quick bowlers, a situation that invited much criticism from past greats such as Ian Chappell. But the study, conducted by three prominent biomechanics experts, suggests that the human eye can only detect a kink in the action if the straightening is more than 15 degrees.

.....The biomechanics men - Dr Marc Portus, Professor Bruce Elliott and Dr Paul Hurrion - used cameras shooting at 250 frames per second (ten times the speed of a TV camera) to illustrate phenomena such as adduction and hyper-extension, which can convince an observer watching with the naked eye that the bowler is chucking.

Research was also undertaken during the ICC Champions Trophy in England, where it was found that 13 of the 23 bowlers filmed straightened their arms more than the current permissible levels. Ramnaresh Sarwan, he of the fairly innocuous legspin, was the only man observed who didn't straighten his arm at all.

Based on these findings, the ICC is to extend the tolerance limit to 15 degrees for all bowlers, regardless of whether they bowl at Shane Warne's pace or Shoaib Akhtar's. Match officials will still be expected to note down suspicious actions, and pass on the information to the ICC.


ICC study reveals that 99% of bowlers throw | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[OverratedSanity]

*sigh* Watson, not this again? I'll make it as simple as possibl.

Yes, apparently the human eye can only detect 15 degrees of straightening, true. That doesn't mean that if the human eye detects some straightening, it's necessarily 15 degrees or more. If the arm has a pre-existing bend, it will seem to the naked eye to be an illegal straightening of the arm.

The scientific fact that only 15 degrees and above is detectable assumes that the arm is perfectly straight before delivery. But that's not the case for several bowlers, hence the illusion.

 

[watson]

*sigh* Watson, not this again? I'll make it as simple as possibl.

Yes, apparently the human eye can only detect 15 degrees of straightening, true. That doesn't mean that if the human eye detects some straightening, it's necessarily 15 degrees or more. If the arm has a pre-existing bend, it will seem to the naked eye to be an illegal straightening of the arm.

The scientific fact that only 15 degrees and above is detectable assumes that the arm is perfectly straight before delivery. But that's not the case for several bowlers, hence the illusion.

Which is why Ajmal is still playing cricket and not banned till he has done the biomechanical tests.

But you can't have a situation where the Umpires simply do nothing just because there may or may not be an 'illusion'. If that were the case then no bowler would ever be cited by the Umpires unless his dodgy action fell into the category of the bleeding obvious (ie. "shot-putting").

And that's face it, most bowlers are not born with a congenital birth defect of their bowling arm. The vast majority of bowlers are anatomically typical and so the '15 degree naked-eye rule' (or whatever you want to call it) holds for the vast majority of bowlers.

 

[Riggins]

Yes, apparently the human eye can only detect 15 degrees of straightening, true. That doesn't mean that if the human eye detects some straightening, it's necessarily 15 degrees or more.

I feel like it does mean that.

 

[hendrix]

Some revision of the wording in that article


"detect" : as a word in isolation might be said to read as: "make a discrete, live action evaluation conclusively judging whether the arm was more or less than 15 degrees. If you detect a "kink", it's more than 15 degrees. If not, it's less." I very much doubt that is true. We detect "kinks" in bowling actions that have been conclusively proven to be below 15 degrees.

You cannot look at a 14 degree straightening and make a discrete judgement that it was more legal than a 16 degree straightening in real time. It just seems very, very unlikely.

The confounding factors seem to be adduction and hyper-extension...but I'd wager that there are many more (viewing angle seems an obvious one).

"detect" is very poor wording in that quote. This is why Watson is so confused.

 

[watson]

Some revision of the wording in that article


"detect" : as a word in isolation might be said to read as: "make a discrete, live action evaluation conclusively judging whether the arm was more or less than 15 degrees. If you detect a "kink", it's more than 15 degrees. If not, it's less." I very much doubt that is true. We detect "kinks" in bowling actions that have been conclusively proven to be below 15 degrees.

You cannot look at a 14 degree straightening and make a discrete judgement that it was more legal than a 16 degree straightening in real time. It just seems very, very unlikely.

The confounding factors seem to be adduction and hyper-extension...but I'd wager that there are many more (viewing angle seems an obvious one).

"detect" is very poor wording in that quote. This is why Watson is so confused.

There is no need for obfuscation Hendrix - put simply, the Umpire believes that the bowler has straightened his arm more than the 15 degrees so he fills in the necessary paperwork recommending that he be biomechanically tested. Nothing wrong with that is there?

Of course the ICC could recommend that the cut-off be extended to 22 degrees but people like youself would still be complaining that the Umpires can't tell the difference between 21, 22, or 23 degrees, so it would be a case of back to square one all over again.

Long story short - the Umpires should be left alone to do their job as they are paid to do. That is, cite a bowler if they honestly believe him to be chucking.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There is no need for obfuscation Hendrix - put simply, the Umpire believes that the bowler has straightened his arm more than the 15 degrees so he fills in the necessary paperwork recommending that he be biomechanically tested. Nothing wrong with that is there?

Of course the ICC could recommend that the cut-off be extended to 22 degrees but people like youself would still be complaining that the Umpires can't tell the difference between 21, 22, or 23 degrees, so it would be a case of back to square one all over again.

Long story short - the Umpires should be left alone to do their job as they are paid to do. That is, cite a bowler if they honestly believe him to be chucking.

I don't think anyone is saying that umpires shouldn't report bowlers whom they think are chucking. Report them, test them and accept whatever decision comes out after the tests. The umpires on-the-spot judgement shouldn't be the final word.

 

[watson]

I don't think anyone is saying that umpires shouldn't report bowlers whom they think are chucking. Report them, test them and accept whatever decision comes out after the tests. The umpires on-the-spot judgement shouldn't be the final word.

That's obvious isn't it? What do you think I was trying to say?

The impression I got from other posters was that Umpires shouldn't make any kind of decision during or after the game because they are completely incapable of making a proper judgement about the action of a bowler. It is that viewpoint which I thought was unfair.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's obvious isn't it?

However, the impression I got from other posters was that Umpires shouldn't make any kind of decision during or after the game because they are incapable of making a proper judgement about the action of a bowler. It is that viewpoint which I thought was unfair.

Don't think anyone sensible would think that tbh.

I only made the point because you repeatedly keep saying that if it looks like chucking, it is. Which effectively means you believe in giving all power to the umpire and not bother with the lab tests.

 

[watson]

Don't think anyone sensible would think that tbh.

I only made the point because you repeatedly keep saying that if it looks like chucking, it is. Which effectively means you believe in giving all power to the umpire and not bother with the lab tests.

'If it looks like a bowler is chucking to the Umpire then the bowler should be assumed to be chucking and THEREFORE cited (reported).' - that's the crux of what I've been stating for quite some time now. Honest.

I think that you have misunderstood me, and vice versa.