Jonbrooks chucking Megathread

[TNT]

The UWA are the former testers, they believe the current testing is incorrect. This is extremely relevant. It's a scientific process and they are experts in that field.

We don't even know who is actually doing the current tests nor how they do so. Why hide this?

Wait a minute here, first you say that UWA don't know the protocols for the testing, OK then how did they come to the conclusion that the current testing is incorrect?.

 

[Athlai]

And its up to the ICC who if they decide to have a peer review, the UWA have no call in this at all. UWA is just jaded because they have been excluded from the process.

UWA results have been dodgy from the start so it would be pointless to have them peer review any work.

Peer review doesn't necessarily mean it has to be UWA. Open it up to everyone.

It'll become relevant when some player decides to take it up legally with the ICC after being pushed out on dubious grounds.

 

[Athlai]

They compared their previous test with Ajmal with the result that ICC came out with. Citing the likelihood of error in the test if they took it a frame or two out either way.

They're also questioning the credentials of the testers themselves and have cited the errors that can take place in the process if done incorrectly.

It may have be done perfectly, if so there is no issue at all. The issue here isn't that they aren't using the UWA, it is that they're doing this all behind closed doors.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

And its up to the ICC who if they decide to have a peer review, the UWA have no call in this at all. UWA is just jaded because they have been excluded from the process.

UWA results have been dodgy from the start so it would be pointless to have them peer review any work.

The point of peer review is that you're not meant to choose who criticises your work. If someone comes up with a legitimate concern backed up with evidence or logic you should listen to them. I wouldn't jump to conclusions about UWA's motives considering ICC is far from spotless.

Point is we don't ****ing know if UWA were wrong or the current bunch are wrong because there's no transparency and no peer review.

 

[TNT]

They compared their previous test with Ajmal with the result that ICC came out with. Citing the likelihood of error in the test if they took it a frame or two out either way.

They're also questioning the credentials of the testers themselves and have cited the errors that can take place in the process if done incorrectly.

It may have be done perfectly, if so there is no issue at all. The issue here isn't that they aren't using the UWA, it is that they're doing this all behind closed doors.

No you are wrong, the players being tested and their boards are involved in the process and know everything that is happening. None of the players or their boards are unhappy with the system in place. The only ones upset is the UWA who have no interest in this process. Why must the ICC even listen to the UWA never mind bow to any of its requests.

 

[Athlai]

The point of peer review is that you're not meant to choose who criticises your work. If someone comes up with a legitimate concern backed up with evidence or logic you should listen to them. I wouldn't jump to conclusions about UWA's motives considering ICC is far from spotless.

Point is we don't ****ing know if UWA were wrong or the current bunch are wrong because there's no transparency and no peer review.

To my knowledge UWA were always fairly open in regards to their testing procedures so presumably it was open to peer review previously.

I mostly only know UWA's testing from all of the Murali ones and they're all open to review.

 

[Athlai]

I wasn't aware any players or even boards were experts in biomechanics. My mistake, they should certainly know what errors may occur from their own expertise in the field.

 

[TNT]

Taken from an article on cricinfo: Pakistan Cricket News: Saeed Ajmal rehabilitation on track - Saqlain Mushtaq | ESPN Cricinfo

"With fresh medial reports we can put our heads together to look at what we can do further. I think ICC should also consider his medical history since no one wants to break the law intentionally. Even Ajmal, when he saw his videos, admitted his action was not fair. So he understands exactly what he needs to do. He is a quick learner and a fighter and is working so hard to achieve his targets."

 

[Athlai]

I'm not defending Ajmal, I'm arguing for a more open process. Ajmal probably is a chucker but 45 degrees surprised everyone.

 

[TNT]

I wasn't aware any players or even boards were experts in biomechanics. My mistake, they should certainly know what errors may occur from their own expertise in the field.

UWA are just upset that they have lost the contract to test players, they are not the only people that have knowledge in this field and boards have access to other centres that can test players, for instance the PCB will be sending Ajmal to London for independent testing.

 

[TNT]

I'm not defending Ajmal, I'm arguing for a more open process. Ajmal probably is a chucker but 45 degrees surprised everyone.

It is a open process, the UWA didn't go publishing its protocols when testing, furthermore they will change from time to time and depending on which player and what type of delivery and so forth and how the system develops. The important people that need to know are currently in the loop, the only ones crying is UWA and guess what they are also the ones who lost the contract to test players.

 

[Riggins]

anyone who faced him with the brace said it was like facing the same bowler

got any sources for this, out of interest?

 

[Dan]

I hope Sunil Narine comes out of his testing with a 17-degree measurement of elbow straightening, gets banned (sorry WindieWeathers), goes to the UWA of his own volition and is found to straighten at 12 degrees, then sues the pants off the ICC to (hopefully) get some transparency into the process.


The UWA may very well be crying because they don't get to do the tests any more, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the ICC is undertaking tests which can ruin a cricketer's career, yet the tests aren't opened up to scrutiny or peer review. So far everyone who has been tested is so far over that specific numbers are basically irrelevant, but if we get marginal cases and nobody knows exactly how the process works, then we'd have some serious problems.

None of the boards having complained about the process (so far) doesn't necessarily make the process good science.

A valid scientific point is a valid scientific point, irrespective of the motivations of the UWA.

 

[Dan]

Oh, and TNT's obvs a Curtin grad. "**** you UWA, you elitist G8 bastards."

 

[smash84]

No you are wrong, the players being tested and their boards are involved in the process and know everything that is happening. None of the players or their boards are unhappy with the system in place. The only ones upset is the UWA who have no interest in this process. Why must the ICC even listen to the UWA never mind bow to any of its requests.

Do you have any clue how full of numpties the PCB is? There is certainly no expert of biomechanics in PCB. Hell, there probably might not be one in all of Pakistan.

I can't believe you are arguing against peer review. It is downright silly.

 

[TNT]

Do you have any clue how full of numpties the PCB is? There is certainly no expert of biomechanics in PCB. Hell, there probably might not be one in all of Pakistan.

I can't believe you are arguing against peer review. It is downright silly.

Sorry didn't realise I needed to spell everything out for you.

I have no problem with a peer review, why would I.

Does UWA have the right to demand that the ICC reveal its protocols and let them review their system, no they don't why should they have the right to make demands on the ICC.

Can the cricket boards ask the ICC to publish their protocols, yes but they haven't, why because they accept what is happening.

Last week UWA claimed that the ICC (Bris Uni) was using UWA's testing protocols, this week they claim that the ICC (Bris Uni) have got it wrong, no evidence mind you just a shot in the dark in the hope they can cause a stir.

 

[TNT]

A valid scientific point is a valid scientific point, irrespective of the motivations of the UWA.

What valid point have UWA made other than the fact that they are trying to force the ICC to reveal its protocols, if they don't know the protocols what valid points have they made other than the ICC is keeping UWA in the dark.

 

[Athlai]

Sorry didn't realise I needed to spell everything out for you.

I have no problem with a peer review, why would I.

Does UWA have the right to demand that the ICC reveal its protocols and let them review their system, no they don't why should they have the right to make demands on the ICC.

Can the cricket boards ask the ICC to publish their protocols, yes but they haven't, why because they accept what is happening.

Last week UWA claimed that the ICC (Bris Uni) was using UWA's testing protocols, this week they claim that the ICC (Bris Uni) have got it wrong, no evidence mind you just a shot in the dark in the hope they can cause a stir.

No demand has been made only a criticism. I also think you are failing to understand what a peer review entails.

 

[smash84]

What valid point have UWA made other than the fact that they are trying to force the ICC to reveal its protocols, if they don't know the protocols what valid points have they made other than the ICC is keeping UWA in the dark.

Your point is that the boards haven't said anything hence the protocol is fine.

No, the testing protocol isn't fine unless it stands up to robust testing. What robust testing have the Bangladesh and Pakistan cricket boards done to say that the testing is robust?

 

[TNT]

Your point is that the boards haven't said anything hence the protocol is fine.

No, the testing protocol isn't fine unless it stands up to robust testing. What robust testing have the Bangladesh and Pakistan cricket boards done to say that the testing is robust?

They are just measuring the flex in someones elbow, this is not ground breaking technology or rewriting biomechanics, this type of research has been carried out for decades in many sports, its not a big scientific breakthrough.