Ajmal Action Reported

[hendrix]

There is no appareant problem doesn't mean there is no problem. It's till some one challeges the system asking for the methodologies and ensuring there are control subjects in the testing.
.

Yeah, I'm sure Professors of Science have never heard about controls...

 

[Burgey]

The Migara approach seems to be one whereby he wants the goal posts constantly moved so bowlers who are perceived as having legitimate actions get banned for chucking in order that he can say the abominations that are the current crop's actions aren't any different to a McGrath/ Steyn/ Anderson/ whoever bends over his own side.

It's pretty transparent. I don't understand why it's given any credence whatsoever.

 

[brockley]

How does Saqlain fix bowling Saeed at 40 degrees every ball,including the doosra seems impossible?

 

[smash84]

He said he is going to try. Let's see what comes out of it. Seems impossible though

 

[hendrix]

I'm just finding it so hard to believe that his action deteriorated from below 15 degrees to above 40.

The initial report from 2009 mentioned that he had additional shoulder abduction, is there anything about that in this report?

 

[Migara]

The Migara approach seems to be one whereby he wants the goal posts constantly moved so bowlers who are perceived as having legitimate actions get banned for chucking in order that he can say the abominations that are the current crop's actions aren't any different to a McGrath/ Steyn/ Anderson/ whoever bends over his own side.

It's pretty transparent. I don't understand why it's given any credence whatsoever.

I am with fair play. The "look" and feel of the action should not be a factor on deciding the legitimacy of a delivery. As matter of fact we don't know what is the natural range of extension for bowling, Whether its 5 +/- 2 or 20 +/- 10 degrees we just don't know. The definition of a fair delivery has to be radically redefined IMO, with strict set limits or % of balls in each zone of extension.

Sadly what is hapenning is the look of the action has become the filter for testing bowlers. It is a poor parameter IMO because I feel there are many bowlers with so called clean actions going over the tolerance lilit regularly with their effort balls. Other than for leggies and slingy bowlers like Malinga, Johnson or Edwards, all others have a fair chance of doing this.

The whole point of my argument is test clean actions according to the testing protocols. Not hypothetical bowlers or net bowlers, real time actions of bowlers. Take 100 deliveries sample and select 10 randomly and ask them to reproduce. Or go through all 100 and select the dodgiest 10 by a panel and then ask to produce those 10. Currently ICC is keeping these facts close to their chest, which has absolutely no commercial value, which adds a very bad flavor to the whole incident.

 

[Migara]

I'm just finding it so hard to believe that his action deteriorated from below 15 degrees to above 40.

The initial report from 2009 mentioned that he had additional shoulder abduction, is there anything about that in this report?

Unless there is a radical redefinition of extension, it is difficult to happen without a noticable change. However, I appriciate testing protocols may be different, and the joke is that the 15 degree limit derived from the UWA equipments being used as the cutoff point for new testing protocols at Cardiff and Brisbane. It is not clear whether ICC accredited labs have done their own studies in deciding how much of % of deliveries crosses the 15 degree limits and its association with the perceived dodginess of the delivery. Al least there's not evena a published pilot study.

 

[Migara]

Yeah, I'm sure Professors of Science have never heard about controls...

They must have, but unless they show they know, we won't know either.

 

[watson]

The fact that field Umpires have cited Ajmal et al, AND have been confirmed correct by scientific testing is positive PROOF that field Umpires can tell the difference a chucker and a non-chucker. The minute the field Umpires get it consistently wrong for a change is when the process has a real and serious problem. Not before.

 

[Migara]

The fact that field Umpires have cited Ajmal et al, AND have been confirmed correct by scientific testing is positive PROOF that field Umpires can tell the difference a chucker and a non-chucker. The minute the field Umpires get it wrong for a change is when the process has a real and serious problem. Not before.

Shows that you have very little idea of what is done in a gold standard vs screening test. There are four entities called sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Current method has good PPV, and that's it. No one has done any reseach to say the screening method (umpires reporting) has enough sensitivity.

Put it in simple, the current system detects a chuckr if he has a dodgy action only. Chuckers with so called clean actions are not caught by current method. Hence the cohort testing.

 

[watson]

Shows that you have very little idea of what is done in a gold standard vs screening test. There are four entities called sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Current method has good PPV, and that's it. No one has done any reseach to say the screening method (umpires reporting) has enough sensitivity.

Put it in simple, the current system detects a chuckr if he has a dodgy action only. Chuckers with so called clean actions are not caught by current method. Hence the cohort testing.

Just because the Police don't catch all criminals all of the time doesn't mean that they should stop catching some criminals some of the time.

In the same way, just because field Umpires don't catch 100% of chuckers 100% of the time doesn't mean that they should not cite some obvious chuckers.some of the time.

 

[hendrix]

The fact that field Umpires have cited Ajmal et al, AND have been confirmed correct by scientific testing is positive PROOF that field Umpires can tell the difference a chucker and a non-chucker. The minute the field Umpires get it consistently wrong for a change is when the process has a real and serious problem. Not before.

not really. Not at all, in fact. Just because Ajmal chucks doesn't mean that others don't chuck.

 

[watson]

not really. Not at all, in fact. Just because Ajmal chucks doesn't mean that others don't chuck.

While I agree with some aspects of Migara's argument the main problem is that it collapses under the sheer weight of its idealism. An idealism that is currently unrealistic, impractical, and unworkable.

The reality is, cricket is an unfair game by definition. We like to delude ourselves into thinking that a cricket game is devoid of error and miscalculation, but it isn’t. Batsman are given out LBW when they are not really LBW, caught-out when they didn’t touch the ball, and fielders touch the rope stopping a 4 that should have been a 4. Chuckers don't get cited when they should be, and non-chuckers get slandered - and so it goes on.

Cricket like life is unfair. Get used to it.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Shows that you have very little idea of what is done in a gold standard vs screening test. There are four entities called sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Current method has good PPV, and that's it. No one has done any reseach to say the screening method (umpires reporting) has enough sensitivity.

Put it in simple, the current system detects a chuckr if he has a dodgy action only. Chuckers with so called clean actions are not caught by current method. Hence the cohort testing.

I look forward to reading your breakthrough published work on how a straight line isn't straight

 

[hendrix]

While I agree with some aspects Migara's argument the main problem is that it collapses under the sheer weight of its idealism. An idealism that is currently unrealistic, impractical, and unworkable.

The reality is, cricket is an unfair game by definition. We like to delude ourselves into thinking that a cricket game is devoid of error and miscalculation, but it isn’t. Batsman are given out LBW when they are not really LBW, caught-out when they didn’t touch the ball, and fielders touch the rope stopping a 4 that should have been given a 4. Chuckers don't get cited when they should be, non-chuckers get picked-on when they should not - and so it goes on.

Cricket like life is unfair. Get used to it.

I just can't force myself to give this line of reasoning any credibility. Umpiring and administration aren't sport. The goal is always to get things right. Obviously financial constraints must be taken into account but things like random testing and controls aren't out of the realms of these constraints.

I do believe, however, that television footage (i.e. not naked eye) is probably enough to determine whether a player needs further testing. No need to call up Dale Steyn if ultra-slow-mo doesn't reveal any major kink in his action.

 

[watson]

The goal is always to get things right

That's correct. The ideal should always be the 'goal', but unfortunately reality dictates that we will always fall short of the ideal. Such is the nature of all man-made systems.

 

[Esperance]

In cricket we should use the word "wicket" instead of "goal". Thoughts?

 

[hendrix]

That's correct. The ideal should always be the 'goal', but unfortunately reality dictates that we will always fall short of the ideal. Such is the nature of all man-made systems.

well yes, but that doesn't mean that you change the goal. Let reality take care of reality.

 

[brockley]

Smalishah i am blind as a bat,so i didn't pick up his chucking as much as i did Muralli anyway.
But from 40 to 45 degrees to under 15,seems impossible.
Apparently on Yahoo Sports they reported he got called for chucking at a domestic level,and it got covered up by some officals,techinally i am not saying who as i don't want the website to get sued.

 

[smash84]

Smalishah i am blind as a bat,so i didn't pick up his chucking as much as i did Muralli anyway.
But from 40 to 45 degrees to under 15,seems impossible.
Apparently on Yahoo Sports they reported he got called for chucking at a domestic level,and it got covered up by some officals,techinally i am not saying who as i don't want the website to get sued.

how can the website get sued if you report a cover up?

But, I agree. I find it very unlikely that he can cut it down to 15 degrees.