Ajmal Action Reported

[Burgey]

You are saying that umpires can't determine if dodgy action bowlers are chucking or not, but umpires can determine that all seemingly clean action bowlers bowl ALL deliveries legally???

Well I don't think anyone can say every delivery is clean, no matter who it's delivered by. That would require real time testing of every ball bowled in every match.

But isn't the point this? The 15 degree thing was brought in because it was at or around this degree of flexion/ extension that the naked eye perceives there to be a problem. Once that problem is ID'ed by an umpire or umpires the bowler is then tested and if he's below the threshold he keeps bowling, but if he isn't then he sits it out and has remedial work done on his action before he can bowl again.

I mean, that's it isn't it? AFAIK they didn't just pluck the 15 degree figure out of thin air.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

You are saying that umpires can't determine if dodgy action bowlers are chucking or not, but umpires can determine that all seemingly clean action bowlers bowl ALL deliveries legally???

If you bowl with a straight arm then there's no physical way for you to chuck or appear to be chucking. Bowlers with bent arms create doubt due to the effect caused by a bent line rotating in a 3d environment which can create the illusion of chucking. There's no such thing as the inverse - a straight arm can't create the visual impression of chucking beacuse chucking is defined by the straightening of a bent arm. If an action looks clean, then it must be clean.

 

[smash84]

. If an action looks clean, then it must be clean.

This conclusion is problematic though. An action might look clean because it is at the border of that 15 degree. The naked eye won't detect it but then there is a very good chance that all the effort balls are going above limit and yet the bowler can go scot free.

 

[cnerd123]

The question isn't if then logic behind 15 degrees is sound; it is if 15 degrees is the right number.

We have different testing prodcedures and technology now than we did when the 15 degree rule was introduced. It would make sense to test some clean actions and see if the 15 degree limit still holds up.

They may have already done this, but the problem is we don't know.

The effort ball point is valid too; but we cant really check that till we have the tech for real time monitoring.

I thought we all agreed on this like 3 pages back. What happened?

 

[smash84]

Well I don't think anyone can say every delivery is clean, no matter who it's delivered by. That would require real time testing of every ball bowled in every match.

But isn't the point this? The 15 degree thing was brought in because it was at or around this degree of flexion/ extension that the naked eye perceives there to be a problem. Once that problem is ID'ed by an umpire or umpires the bowler is then tested and if he's below the threshold he keeps bowling, but if he isn't then he sits it out and has remedial work done on his action before he can bowl again.

I mean, that's it isn't it? AFAIK they didn't just pluck the 15 degree figure out of thin air.

Yes, but since this number is an arbitrary number and borderline cases will keep getting through (in summary what ***** is saying and my previous post).

 

[wellAlbidarned]

This conclusion is problematic though. An action might look clean because it is at the border of that 15 degree. The naked eye won't detect it but then there is a very good chance that all the effort balls are going above limit and yet the bowler can go scot free.

If an action looks clean, it's because the bowler isn't bending his arm. It's kinda hard to straighten your arm if you don't bend it, get me?

I'm not sure who this mythical bowler who somehow manages to chuck while maintaining a straight arm is. I'd love to learn his ways.

 

[cnerd123]

FTR I believe there is no problem in only reporting bowlers who 'look' like they are chucking.

The problem is to then requires those chuckers to statisfy a condition which some legal looking bowlers themselves may not be satisfying.

So I understand the call to re-evaluate the 15 degree limit; and to test a sample of clean bowlers to show that it works.

 

[Burgey]

Make it a 90 degree rule.

 

[smash84]

If an action looks clean, it's because the bowler isn't bending his arm. It's kinda hard to straighten your arm if you don't bend it, get me?

.

I don't think there would be any human bowler who bowls with an arm as stiff as a log. There has to be some bending (however little) in all bowlers.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea all bowlers bend and straighten their arm. It's natural. Question is what is the acceptable amount of straightening.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I don't think there would be any human bowler who bowls with an arm as stiff as a log. There has to be some bending (however little) in all bowlers.

Yes there is obviously some natural flex but that's not what the law is targetting. If it's not enough to be visually apparent then it's not going to be over the 15 degree mark.

I'm trying to separate bowlers who intentionally (or in rare cases due to physical impairment) bend their arms through the delivery swing from those who don't.

 

[cnerd123]

I feel like I'm on wellalbidarned's ignore list.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

What about the effort balls? Most of the fast bowlers bowling those are chucking.

 

[Burgey]

Indeed. And if they are picked up they should be tested. The same could be said for a spinner whose action appears fine but whose doosra or other ball looks dodgy. Unless you have real time testing in matches you aren't going to pick up every delivery. It can't be done. I don't have much doubt Lee's effort ball looked dodgy, so did Courtney Walsh's. One yorker he got Boon with on the 95 WI tour looked shabby as can be.

So how do you remedy it? Unless there's real time testing, you can't monitor every ball bowled. And I think we're a long way short of having real time testing available. Is the answer just to have open slather until we do? I don't think it is. The system we have now is not perfect, because it will miss some balls bowled by some bowlers. Just as there are front foot no balls which are missed atm, but if a wicket falls from a borderline delivery, the umpires for some reason seem to want them checked despite missing others in the same over which didn't result in a dismissal. There's a human element in the game, be it playing or officiating.

 

[smash84]

I feel like I'm on wellalbidarned's ignore list.

 

[smash84]

Indeed. And if they are picked up they should be tested. The same could be said for a spinner whose action appears fine but whose doosra or other ball looks dodgy. Unless you have real time testing in matches you aren't going to pick up every delivery. It can't be done. I don't have much doubt Lee's effort ball looked dodgy, so did Courtney Walsh's. One yorker he got Boon with on the 95 WI tour looked shabby as can be.

So how do you remedy it? Unless there's real time testing, you can't monitor every ball bowled. And I think we're a long way short of having real time testing available. Is the answer just to have open slather until we do? I don't think it is. The system we have now is not perfect, because it will miss some balls bowled by some bowlers. Just as there are front foot no balls which are missed atm, but if a wicket falls from a borderline delivery, the umpires for some reason seem to want them checked despite missing others in the same over which didn't result in a dismissal. There's a human element in the game, be it playing or officiating.

yeah, all fair points and they have all been mentioned. Which is why the thing most people want now is some sort of transparency to ensure that the new system works fine (the previous one wasn't that good since it had cleared ajmal once). Refer *****'s points now please

 

[smash84]

Yes there is obviously some natural flex but that's not what the law is targetting. If it's not enough to be visually apparent then it's not going to be over the 15 degree mark.

.

Effort balls for clean action bowlers please? Heck, I would even want Styen's effort ball checked. Doesn't look very pleasant at times.

 

[Burgey]

In what sense do you need transparency though? Do you want the methodology of the testing process laid out? What will that achieve? they'll have published a process which no one without a degree in biomechanics can understand.

You can't tell me that if they laid out the testing procedure step-by-step for all to see that there still wouldn't be unnamed people on this forum and elsewhere who will say the bloke on the grassy knoll did it.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Effort balls for clean action bowlers please? Heck, I would even want Styen's effort ball checked. Doesn't look very pleasant at times.

I'd like to see steyn tested too because he actually does look like he's chucking quite frequently.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I feel like I'm on wellalbidarned's ignore list.

You're not coming across as a person I vehemently disagree with then