Ajmal Action Reported

[Daemon]

Nah, everybody knows that when a bowler oversteps the front line by half an inch he's actually a cheating bastard and a terrible person who doesn't respect the game.

Bowling a no-ball isn't really against the rules though

 

[OverratedSanity]

Bowling a no-ball isn't really against the rules though

Wut

 

[outbreak]

Wut

it isn't really cheating because it's picked up and penalised. You could bowl no bowls over and over if you want and all you are doing is giving away runs.

 

[Daemon]

Wut

I see it like bowling a wide. You can bowl one intentionally to get a stumping and it's not against the rules. Part of the game. Kind of.

 

[outbreak]

I see it like bowling a wide. You can bowl one intentionally to get a stumping and it's not against the rules. Part of the game. Kind of.

Could also bowl that no ball deliberately because your book maker asked you to

 

[Daemon]

Could also bowl that no ball deliberately because your book maker asked you to

Or the opposition needs one run to win and the batsman is on 99* #never4get

 

[outbreak]

Or the opposition needs one run to win and the batsman is on 99* #never4get

well played

 

[Dan]

Bowling a no-ball isn't really against the rules though

I see it like bowling a wide. You can bowl one intentionally to get a stumping and it's not against the rules. Part of the game. Kind of.

The no ball rule is designed to prevent bowlers from running 20m down the pitch and throwing the ball at the stumps from a few centimetres away (in its most extreme manifestation). It's about preventing the bowler from gaining a perceived unfair advantage at taking wickets -- bowling from too close to the batsman. Overstepping by half an inch is against the rules, and in all reality gives you such a marginal advantage that it doesn't matter all that much, but is enforced because you have to put the line somewhere. Nobody in their right mind is going to suggest that is cheating.

Same with throwing -- it's designed to stop me from running up and pitching the ball at the stumps, gaining an unfair advantage by, y'know, not even bowling and getting extra pace etc etc. Ajmal's action is clearly a relatively marginal breaching of the rule -- I mean, as fluid as his elbow is, it's still a bowling action, not an out-and-out baseball pitch. More generally, if you straighten your elbow 15.5 degrees, realistically the advantage you gain is marginal at best compared to someone straightening 14.9 degrees. But it's against the rules and is enforced because, like the white line when it comes to no balls, the cut-off has to be somewhere. That doesn't make that bowler a cheat, it just means their action contravenes the rules and needs to be brought within the acceptable limit of straightening. Much as a fast bowler overstepping doesn't make them a cheat, it just means their delivery broke the rules and needs to be marginally altered to not break them again next time.


The wide rule isn't comparable at all IMO. Aimed at preventing a cynical ploy to restrict runs, not gaining an unfair advantage at taking wickets (which is also why stumped off a wide is a thing, and stumped off a no ball isn't).

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm so glad you made that post Dan because I really couldn't be bothered.

 

[Daemon]

The no ball rule is designed to prevent bowlers from running 20m down the pitch and throwing the ball at the stumps from a few centimetres away (in its most extreme manifestation). It's about preventing the bowler from gaining a perceived unfair advantage at taking wickets -- bowling from too close to the batsman. Overstepping by half an inch is against the rules, and in all reality gives you such a marginal advantage that it doesn't matter all that much, but is enforced because you have to put the line somewhere. Nobody in their right mind is going to suggest that is cheating.

Same with throwing -- it's designed to stop me from running up and pitching the ball at the stumps, gaining an unfair advantage by, y'know, not even bowling and getting extra pace etc etc. Ajmal's action is clearly a relatively marginal breaching of the rule -- I mean, as fluid as his elbow is, it's still a bowling action, not an out-and-out baseball pitch. More generally, if you straighten your elbow 15.5 degrees, realistically the advantage you gain is marginal at best compared to someone straightening 14.9 degrees. But it's against the rules and is enforced because, like the white line when it comes to no balls, the cut-off has to be somewhere. That doesn't make that bowler a cheat, it just means their action contravenes the rules and needs to be brought within the acceptable limit of straightening. Much as a fast bowler overstepping doesn't make them a cheat, it just means their delivery broke the rules and needs to be marginally altered to not break them again next time.


The wide rule isn't comparable at all IMO. Aimed at preventing a cynical ploy to restrict runs, not gaining an unfair advantage at taking wickets (which is also why stumped off a wide is a thing, and stumped off a no ball isn't).

Never said I agreed with chucking without intent being called cheating.

I compared the front foot no ball to a wide because they both carry similiar in game penalties, though imo the rules for them are in place to basically stop bowlers from gaining an unfair advantage. Whether it's for restricting runs or taking wickets isn't really that important.

 

[Dan]

Never said I agreed with chucking without intent being called cheating.

I compared the front foot no ball to a wide because they both carry similiar in game penalties, though imo the rules for them are in place to basically stop bowlers from gaining an unfair advantage. Whether it's for restricting runs or taking wickets isn't really that important.

More outlining why I made the comparison in the first place, alongside addressing the weird "no balls aren't against the rules" post. You've just admitted yourself that a no ball is against the rules

 

[Howsie]

Ajmal is a chucker? Wow, I'm in shock

Narine next please, he's probably the worst of the lot. Now he can't cheat the system no doubt he'll be caught this time too.

 

[Dan]

Accepting Kane's ban now then, Howsie?

 

[uvelocity]

One thing that I have never understood (possibly the answer is widely known or obvious, but I haven't read much about this sort of thing) is regarding those tests that were done at a Champions Trophy, I believe, that found that Sarwan and Giles (IIRC) were the only bowlers in international cricket with 0 degrees of flexion. From the way that any piece mentioning this reads, those tests were carried out in game. So why can't we test bowlers in game now? I presume the answer must be obvious/well known seeing as it hasn't been done but I am not sure why.

you cant find it because there were no real tests done and no real results were ever released and they can't/won't test in game because they never have and have never wanted enough to be able to.

att dan: do we know if ajmal was just overstepping or was he running half way down the pitch so to speak? certainly looked like it at times

 

[Athlai]

I'm so glad you made that post Dan because I really couldn't be bothered.

Cribb not making the effort. Thats a first.

#CPLITGC

 

[Migara]

This is pure speculation on my part, but my uneducated guess is that the dealy that measures the amount of revs a spinner puts on a ball in a match situation has made it more or less impossible to duke the lab tests as, one infers, may've been the case before.

Back in the day the only guide the testers had was speed, so it may be possible to send a ball down in a lab at similar velocity but with less work on. Now if Ajmal is sending a 55mph ball down at 2200 rpm in a match, the lab testers will be looking at like for like. If his 55mph ball has only 1500rpm on it they're going to know he's not bowling as he would in match conditions.

It's ironically a victory for both science and common sense, in that the former has vindicated those of us who've long been of the opinion that if a delivery looks like it has webbed feet, a bill, feathers and goes quack then it's probably a chuck.

Good explanation, but it has some massive holes to fill. Firstly, if a bowler can deliver two identically paced deliveries with massively different rpms, then those players don't want a doosra. What you need is aside spun and a over spun delivery of each version, and the difference in bounce and turn is good enough to confuse the batsman even if bowled in the same pace. Warne had the ability to control spin, and so was Murali, but that was purely by changing the axis of rotation, not rpm. We have seen Moeen Ali and Herath bowl, both didn't possess wide variations of spin once they warmed up. Hence speculation of performing differently at the lab test is bit difficult to believe.

 

[Migara]

But the more important issue is that our defeat away to Pakistan in 2012 should be annulled. It's irrelevant that we were turd anyway.

It should not be annulled because you guys crumbled even worse against Abdur Rehman.

 

[Migara]

That's the point. It didn't look fine and it got cleared. Now it still looks the same as before and doesn't get cleared.

And according to the prurists, looks are everything.

 

[Migara]

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that they are using technology that is used to compare the way they bowl in testing and the way they bowl in a game. Maybe that technology wasn't there before and he bowling with a cleaner action in previous tests.

Here lies the entire problem about the process. How are the deliveries selected? On which basis? Have it been tested against bowlers with clean actions using same selection protocol for selection of deliveries?

These are questions needed to be answered.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah look, the notion that somebody cannot break the rules unless they intentionally do so is bull.

One day, you might pick up somebody else's iPhone by mistake, and be relieved when the judge throws out the "stealing" case against you because intent to steal wasn't/cannot-be established. Ajmal may or may not have cheated. I don't know his intent.