Ajmal Action Reported

[wellAlbidarned]

On the subject of effort balls - I think the priority for now is bowlers that chuck 100% of the time not ones that do it rarely. It's something we'll be able to sort out once we get real-time monitoring implemented but for now is just baseless accusations. Always tackle the easy problems first.

 

[cnerd123]

Well for one thing the ICC's current methodology hasn't been peer-reviewed.

For another thing, they haven't told us if they have used this new method on a control group of clean actions to see if it works or not, and what the results are.

Shillingford and Ajmal were in excess of 30 degrees in this new method while they both passed in the past under the old one. Sure their actions could have deteriorated (most likely scenario), but what if the method is flawed and their old actions would have scored in a similar range if tested now? What if a clean looking action clocks above 15 degrees under these methods when it would have been below 15 in the old one?

Also, Al Amin passed but his action is as filthy as those who failed. Are testing procedures different for fast bowlers? Can we use the same methods for fast bowlers and spinners, given the difference in biomechanics of each action?

It's fair enough to have these doubts and to want them cleared IMO. Especially if you are a bowler with a dodgy looking action.

 

[smash84]

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.
.

By transparency I mean how come bowlers like Gazi and Amin who look filthy get called for testing. In the results one gets away despite looking filthy and the other doesn't?

Also, how come Ajmal got cleared in 2009/10 when he has looked filthy all along? Now in 2014 he gets banned for chucking where it seems he bowls as he always did (looked a chucker).

Explain that.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

because there's different shades of filth? A guy bowling with a bent arm might not extend it all that much which creates the impression of a chuck while remaining legal. A filthy action doesn't guarantee a chucker, otherwise there'd be no need for the process.

Also I don't buy this "ajmal's action is the same as when he got cleared" argument. I've watched the footage now and then and it's deteriorated massively.

 

[cnerd123]

Ajmal did look like he deteriorated, but from <15 to >40?

Shillingford didn't look like a lot of deterioration since he last passed too IMO.

 

[smash84]

because there's different shades of filth? A guy bowling with a bent arm might not extend it all that much which creates the impression of a chuck while remaining legal. A filthy action doesn't guarantee a chucker, otherwise there'd be no need for the process.

Also I don't buy this "ajmal's action is the same as when he got cleared" argument. I've watched the footage now and then and it's deteriorated massively.

Exactly. So if there is different shades of filth and if one shade seems as bad to the naked eye as the other one and yet one gets cleared and not the other. Then? (i.e. amin gazi case)

Really? Look at this action from Ajmal. Looks pretty filthy to me back from 2010.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

It's impossible to say with a naked eye the exact margins of straightening if the bowler is using a bent-arm techinque because the it shrouds the elbow extension.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Exactly. So if there is different shades of filth and if one shade seems as bad to the naked eye as the other one and yet one gets cleared and not the other. Then? (i.e. amin gazi case)

Really? Look at this action from Ajmal. Looks pretty filthy to me back from 2010.

Then one of the bowlers was chucking and one of them wasn't? Seems a very simple conclusion if you ask me.

Ajmal's action looks positively benign in 2009.

 

[smash84]

sorry, had forgotten to post the video earlier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsei30eArec

 

[cnerd123]

I've said this before, but I really like the BCCI's method of dealing with this.

They basically ban domestic bowlers who look like they are chucking from bowling, until they fix up their action. All this is based simply on how the bowler looks like when bowling; not messing around with degrees and detailed testing. The bowler is free to go wherever he wants to get his action tested and fixed, but if he still looks like he is chucking, he gets banned again.


Much easier. Several bent arm bowlers still get through because they do look fairly clean despite the kink (Hafeez's action early in his career is a good example, Saqlain Mushtaq another).

 

[smash84]

Much easier. Several bent arm bowlers still get through because they do look fairly clean despite the kink (Hafeez's action early in his career is a good example, Saqlain Mushtaq another).

Saqlain had a pretty good classical action. Never looked dodgy iirc

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Ajmal was tested in 2009 before the 2020 world cup. Your video is of him after testing so he could bowl pretty much however he wanted then.

 

[smash84]

Ajmal was tested in 2009 before the 2020 world cup. Your video is of him after testing so he could bowl pretty much however he wanted then.

fair enough

 

[vic_orthdox]

Foxtel currently showing Eng vs Pakistan in T20 WC during SL vs Eng rain break, when England won it. Ajmal's action looks poetry in motion compared to what it ended up.

 

[grecian]

Have to say I'm fascinated that we now need in-depth look at scientific methodology. I seem to remember some of us asked for this type of thing when certain people failed. We were told that we were wrong and you have to trust the scientists. Now we shouldn't trust the scientists, it's very odd.

 

[cnerd123]

The reason it's popping up now is because the University that used to do the tests - UWA - have deemed the ICC's methods as unreliable. The ICC has shared their new procedures nor have gotten them peer-reviewed by a board of scientists.

Experts at the University of Western Australia (UWA), whom the ICC relied upon for the last 20 years to develop models and protocols to test illegal bowling actions, have criticised what they call the "ridiculous" secrecy surrounding the new procedures and say they have raised doubts over the reliability of the recent tests that have seen several bowlers suspended from various levels of the game.

As new ICC testing centres are rolled out in Brisbane, Cardiff and Chennai, UWA biomechanists have branded the ICC's approach as "extraordinary" and have expressed concerns that the testing could be carried out by relatively inexperienced staff with limited training.

The result, they fear, is that the recent tests may be based on unreliable evidence. Jacqueline Alderson, an associate professor in biomechanics at UWA, suggests that her team is "astounded" by the limited opportunities for peer-to-peer reviews of the model used to measure elbow extensions, and by a general lack of information provided to the home boards or the testing centres carrying out the work.

Chucking controversy : ICC falls out with long-serving bowlers' testing centre | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

So basically; the scientists we were trusting all those years back are now telling us to not support the current system. We've not suddenly changed our opinions of the scientists; instead we're maintaining our faith in them.

 

[TNT]

The reason it's popping up now is because the University that used to do the tests - UWA - have deemed the ICC's methods as unreliable. The ICC has shared their new procedures nor have gotten them peer-reviewed by a board of scientists.Chucking controversy : ICC falls out with long-serving bowlers' testing centre | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN CricinfoSo basically; the scientists we were trusting all those years back are now telling us to not support the current system. We've not suddenly changed our opinions of the scientists; instead we're maintaining our faith in them.

But we also know that the ICC have shared their protocols with the boards and they are happy and support the ICC's new protocols.

 

[cnerd123]

Umm...the ICC is made up of people from the Boards. Of course they were going to approve lol.

 

[Migara]

why are some people worried when normal actions to be tested randomly?

 

[GIMH]

why are some people worried when normal actions to be tested randomly?

Nobody's worried

But other than tinfoil merchants like you, nobody sees the point either