Ajmal Action Reported

[harsh.ag]

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

Exactly how I felt when I read his post

 

[Athlai]

#CPLITGC

CPL Is The Greater Controversy

 

[Flem274*]

I'd like them to test and ban Jeets next, just to crush Athlai, Hendrix and Maximas.

 

[harsh.ag]

I think they should retroactively test Dennis Lillee, declare his action illegal, and bring crashing down the entire Aussie cricket pantheon overnight. Nothing will be left.

 

[Migara]

McGrath too

 

[Maximas]

I'd like them to test and ban Jeets next, just to crush Athlai, Hendrix and Maximas.

Nah not a Jeets fan boi over here

 

[Jono]

I think they should retroactively test Dennis Lillee, declare his action illegal, and bring crashing down the entire Aussie cricket pantheon overnight. Nothing will be left.

McGrath too

da ****?

 

[harsh.ag]

Just nonsense.

 

[sledger]

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.

Only Ajmal has not been accused of stealing anything, so this analogy is awful. There are loads of crimes which can be committed with intent being substituted for recklessness of negligence; arbitrarily settling on theft and making an analogy out of it because its convenient for the point of view you wish to push is stupid.

 

[GGG]

Well if he fudged his previous tests then yes he did have intent, but only the testers know the answer.

 

[harsh.ag]

Only Ajmal has not been accused of stealing anything, so this analogy is awful. There are loads of crimes which can be committed with intent being substituted for recklessness of negligence; arbitrarily settling on theft and making an analogy out of it because its convenient for the point of view you wish to push is stupid.

True. I was being selective. But it's not an awful analogy. And it's definitely not stupid

 

[Cevno]

The whole reporting and testing mechanism for the ICC in this regard seems a complete shambles to me tbh.

 

[sledger]

True. I was being selective. But it's not an awful analogy. And it's definitely not stupid

It is an awful analogy. You liken Ajmal's chucking to theft, for no reason other than it conveniently fits your point of view. You may as well say somebody couldn't be guilty or murder if they hadn't stolen something. It's just intellectually dishonest, which in itself, is stupid.

 

[harsh.ag]

It is an awful analogy. You liken Ajmal's chucking to theft, for no reason other than it cinveniently fits your point of view. You may as well say somebody couldn't be guilty or murder if they hadn't stolen something. It's just intellectually dishonest, which in itself, is stupid.

First of, I don't really have a POV on this. Secondly, I thought "cheating" and "stealing" were close enough to make a comparison. Still do. That's all.

 

[watson]

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.

'Intent' is central to way people view culpability, so nice paragraph harsh.

 

[sledger]

'Intent' is central to way people view culpability.

It certainly is when it's convenient for the point of view you wish to endorse, anyway.

 

[watson]

A reasonable piece I thought;

Workload took toll on Ajmal's action
With biomechanics at the crux of the ICC's testing process, it is important to find out how much of an advantage a kinked action gives to bowling

......One version of the conclusions from his recent testing say his action has changed significantly since the last time he was tested; in particular his bowling arm was more bent, or flexed, at the elbow joint with the arm in a horizontal position as he prepares to bring it over his shoulder than in 2009.

Naturally then, when it then straightens upon release, it does so to a greater angle than before and vitally, a greater angle than the 15 degrees permitted. The bottom line is that the action is significantly different and so too the results of the testing process.

Are the testing procedures much different to what they were last time? Especially now as the ICC and the laboratory in Perth that used to be the main testing centre - and where Ajmal was tested in 2009 - no longer have a working relationship?

There are little differences according to the ICC but not, they insist, to a degree that would be the difference in this case between his action being cleared or not. Ajmal has not marginally gone over the accepted limits; in all his different types of deliveries, he has transgressed significantly enough for minimal differences in testing procedures to not matter.

It is important to look at this as dryly as possible, without emotion. There is a law, and science has apparently proved that Ajmal's action breaches that law. It does not say Ajmal is a cheat or a villain. He is someone simply bowling with his body and muscle memory wired the way it is.

The ICC is not ostensibly carrying out the kind of moral crusade it was years ago, or its umpires have in the recent past. Or if it is, it is at least couching it within science and legalities. This is a law that has not been enforced well recently and now it is being enforced better. It is a bureaucratic clampdown: break the law, be sanctioned. It is not so specifically an ideological purge: cheat, be banished forever like a leper.

Workload took toll on Ajmal's action | Cricket News | Pakistan | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[GIMH]

you don't even need to intend to kill to be guilty of murder ffs

 

[Daemon]

you don't even need to intend to kill to be guilty of murder ffs

Isn't it manslaughter or second degree murder or summat when there isn't any intent

 

[sledger]

you don't even need to intend to kill to be guilty of murder ffs

Tbf it is. But it's not required for plenty of other serious offences.