Ajmal Action Reported

[Migara]

What makes an action look dodgy is a bending of the arm, whether it turns out if they're actually chucking or not is a different matter and can only be determined through testing. If you don't bend your arm then your action will look clean and there's literally no possible way for you to be chucking because your arm is visibly straight throughout it.

I beg to differ. There is absolute no evidence to say that every 15 or more degree straightening is visible to eye. It has a higher possibility to dodgy than a 10 degree extension. Unless a study confirms that ALL non dodgy actions are clean testing them always has merit at least as a quality assurance technique.

 

[Migara]

Why not clarify it and simply state that the arm cannot be bent during the delivery of the ball and that any straightening of a bent arm will be considered an illegal delivery...

Oh, that's right, because then we have to invalidate 800 test wickets from the worlds leading wicket taker.

and a certain bike call McGrath s record as well.

 

[Debris]

Pretty unfair on bowlers who are entirely incapable of straightening their arms completely due to a defect at birth or after an accident as in Ajmal's case

Where did you get this weird idea that sport was meant to be fair to everyone? It clearly is not,

 

[Migara]

Exactly. Let's be unfair an test all bowlers.

 

[andmark]

Exactly. Let's be unfair an test all bowlers.

Can you imagine the costs to test all of the bowlers in international cricket. There maybe hundreds of bowlers in international cricket, to test them all would have enormous financial costs. Just take the Windies at the moment. They may end up being bankrupt next year. They can't send all of their bowler to testing (in foreign countries as far as I'm aware) on the off chance someone with an apparently clean action isn't so clean. It would be ridiculous. Not to mention the time it would take. There are only a few places in the world which have the right facilities, and even then, the testing for each individual bowler seems to take a matter of weeks. Then to do that with all bowlers would take forever. It'd be nice if there was a quick, cheap way of testing all bowlers just to be sure of everything, but there isn't.

 

[TNT]

Exactly. Let's be unfair an test all bowlers.

They do test all bowlers, every bowler who bowls in international cricket is observed by the umpires to assess if their action is legal, those that fail this test then go to have further testing.

 

[Migara]

Can you imagine the costs to test all of the bowlers in international cricket. There maybe hundreds of bowlers in international cricket, to test them all would have enormous financial costs. Just take the Windies at the moment. They may end up being bankrupt next year. They can't send all of their bowler to testing (in foreign countries as far as I'm aware) on the off chance someone with an apparently clean action isn't so clean. It would be ridiculous. Not to mention the time it would take. There are only a few places in the world which have the right facilities, and even then, the testing for each individual bowler seems to take a matter of weeks. Then to do that with all bowlers would take forever. It'd be nice if there was a quick, cheap way of testing all bowlers just to be sure of everything, but there isn't.

good. Then do random testing. Testing 5 - 10 random bowlers per year is not going to make ICC bankrupt.

 

[Migara]

They do test all bowlers, every bowler who bowls in international cricket is observed by the umpires to assess if their action is legal, those that fail this test then go to have further testing.

umpire assessment of actions = subjective crap

 

[wellAlbidarned]

testing complete sir. A straight line is straight however you look at it.

 

[andmark]

good. Then do random testing. Testing 5 - 10 random bowlers per year is not going to make ICC bankrupt.

I can see the merit in doing that, but only for one year, because what would be the point in repeating the process after similar tests had been done before other than when testing procedures had changed?

 

[cnerd123]

Yea I don't think constant random testing of clean looking bowlers is needed. Just a one off sampling, say maybe of the top 15 wicket-takers of the year or something, to assure the fans and players that the new systems and procedures in place are working. Maybe sends the same group of bowlers to be tested at each of the testing facilities and compare their results.

If they have already done such tests, it would be nice if they revealed the results.

 

[Migara]

testing complete sir. A straight line is straight however you look at it.

sir with greatest respect I would say straight line is a sector of a circle with infinite radius.

Coming back to straight line, such actions only exist in utopia or only in your wet dreams. Secondly if human eye is that good get rid of 3rd umpire and stop whinging about resistance of bcci on drs. Because human eye cannot be wrong according to you.

 

[Migara]

I can see the merit in doing that, but only for one year, because what would be the point in repeating the process after similar tests had been done before other than when testing procedures had changed?

if then release the results on them and methodology for critical appraisal.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

sir with greatest respect I would say straight line is a sector of a circle with infinite radius.

Coming back to straight line, such actions only exist in utopia or only in your wet dreams. Secondly if human eye is that good get rid of 3rd umpire and stop whinging about resistance of bcci on drs. Because human eye cannot be wrong according to you.

For your sake I hope having your opinion repeatedly proven wrong is your wet dream, seeing as it happens so frequently.

 

[Migara]

For your sake I hope having your opinion repeatedly proven wrong is your wet dream, seeing as it happens so

Another wet dream it looks like.

 

[TNT]

umpire assessment of actions = subjective crap

That only shows ignorance on your part, the umpires have been proven right so far.

 

[Migara]

That only shows ignorance on your part, the umpires have been proven right so far.

No they aren't. Firstly Al Amin was clear despite visually ugly. Secondly negative controls never had been tested using same methodology to say if umpire sees it clean it's 100% clean. At least data on the latter is missing and the new testing process is a scientific joke.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Just wondering with the new testing methods Murali would have been cleared? No disrespect to the champion bloke he is

 

[Migara]

Just wondering with the new testing methods Murali would have been cleared? No disrespect to the champion bloke he is

Just wondering with the new testing methods McGrath would have been cleared? No disrespect to the champion bloke he is

 

[Senile Sentry]

Just wondering with the new testing methods McGrath would have been cleared? No disrespect to the champion bloke he is

But then McGrath was never noballed for chucking was he?