Ajmal Action Reported

[hendrix]

So who peer reviewed them?. Just give me the names of who peer reviewed them?.

The names aren't available. The jounals would have sent them to various scientists around the world before publication.

 

[cnerd123]

Being published in an acclaimed Journal is enough evidence of being peer reviewed; and is more than the ICC has done.

 

[Athlai]

TNT hurts my brain. Have you ever been involved in the peer review process TNT?

I'll break it down for you.

Someone prints something.
People read it.
People tear it to ****.
And.... then print something.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[TNT]

bowling actions Uwa - Google ScholarCant go through all this now because i'm at work; but simple google scholar search brings up all these papers featuring Jaqueline Anderson of UWA.

The same search but substituting Loughborough for UWA brings up the all the papers featuring PJ Worthington, MA King, CA Ranson.Care to explain the difference.

 

[cnerd123]

The same search but substituting Loughborough for UWA brings up the all the papers featuring PJ Worthington, MA King, CA Ranson.Care to explain the difference.

Sure. After work when i have time to read though so give me about 8 hours - Athlai and Hendrix may respond sooner though

 

[Athlai]

Sure. After work when i have time to read though so give me about 8 hours - Athlai and Hendrix may respond sooner though

Na I'm at work too. We'll let Hendrix or Albi bang the drum.

 

[TNT]

TNT hurts my brain. Have you ever been involved in the peer review process TNT? I'll break it down for you.Someone prints something.People read it.People tear it to ****.And.... then print something.Rinse and repeat.

Ok so PJ Worthington, MA King, CA Ranson have published work they have done, what seems to be the problem, what problem do you have with the process they followed here. What is it they have done that is different to the scientific community?.

 

[Athlai]

Ok so PJ Worthington, MA King, CA Ranson have published work they have done, what seems to be the problem, what problem do you have with the process they followed here. What is it they have done that is different to the scientific community?.

The fact it took me 5 minutes to figure out who these people bloody were in relation to the current process is one of the problems. None of them have yet come out and published anything in regards to the current testing.

 

[Athlai]

We understand you may feel we're jumping the gun here TNT, but this is important and when arguably the world's leading scientific expert on the subject has concerns about the testing, we're allowed to feel a little outrage.

Yes that expert may have a chip on their shoulder but her concerns do appear valid, and until these are addressed by the new accredited facilities we'll be a bit peeved.

 

[Burgey]

Thought you were referring to Migara

 

[Bahnz]

Which is the concern.

Entirely new process, and the change was due to a dispute over money rather than any implication that UWA have been incorrect. And then we've had quite a remarkable crackdown on bowlers and had some widely varied results from these reports.

And we also have the previous tester raising concerns over the new testing process (who once again was canned over $$ not expertise).

But the ICC are SAYING they have "biomechanical experts" who are happy with the results. I don't really care what the ICC are saying, they're a cricket board. This is science, let the experts do the talking.

The article in the Cricket Monthly suggests that there isn't a huge difference between the two processes, at least according to people who've been involved in both. Further, even Alderson admits that the different protocols are unlikely to be the cause of the recent bans.

More cameras have been used for the newer testing and more images have been made available. Ultimately, however, the ICC and Alderson both acknowledge that in the instances of the current bowlers and their relatively large ranges of extension, the differences in testing methods make little difference.

 

[Maximas]

Thought you were referring to Migara

 

[Athlai]

The article in the Cricket Monthly suggests that there isn't a huge difference between the two processes, at least according to people who've been involved in both. Further, even Alderson admits that the different protocols are unlikely to be the cause of the recent bans.

Yeah overall the only two large critiques from memory have been the use of game video footage in the process and the mapping of the point of release. Ajmal being THAT much over was a fairly valid concern, definitely chucking but not chucking by that much.

I'm not pursuing this on the agenda that any of the tests have been wrong in their outcome, but getting the right result with the wrong equation could lead to issues down the road. The Samuels one seems a bit weird though. Bowling under a certain speed isn't quite the same as preventing a bowler from bowling a doosra.

 

[Maximas]

Yeah the Samuels one was a stupid outcome, it's not like speed-guns are properly accurate in game

 

[TNT]

UWA have two options. 1 They don't have access to the new protocols and therefore cannot comment one way or another on the validity of those protocols. 2 They have access to the new protocols and cannot insinuate that the protocols are not available for peer review.

 

[Athlai]

UWA have two options. 1 They don't have access to the new protocols and therefore cannot comment one way or another on the validity of those protocols. 2 They have access to the new protocols and cannot insinuate that the protocols are not available for peer review.

Or they're getting a little information but not the whole picture.

Why in the world are you so adamant the UWA is entirely in the wrong here? Seemingly irregardless of where they may be at fault too.

 

[TNT]

Or they're getting a little information but not the whole picture. Why in the world are you so adamant the UWA is entirely in the wrong here? Seemingly irregardless of where they may be at fault too.

Same thing if you don't have the whole picture then don't comment until you do!!. ..UWA only made the allegations to further their own interests regarding the legal issues they have with the ICC. It was simply a ploy to undermine the ICC that had no basis and if you look at what they said it was not only wrong but also unethical. You can argue all you want about the scientific merits of all this but the UWA are only interested in the financial side. UWA wanted a monopoly on testing and that was never going to work, they have been found out here and acted unprofessionally throwing their toys out of the pram.

 

[Athlai]

I understand where your coming from, but there is scientific merit behind the question. Sure UWA have their reasons for critiquing the new system but until the new facilities put their work out there to the wider scientific community, these critiques are valid.

The beauty of this whole process is that once it's printed, Jacqueline will have her own chance to publish something contrary to it. And if this holds no merit then it will be pulled to pieces and ridiculed by her peers.

Trusting that ICC got it right first time just seems foolish though. They're as greedy and foolhardy a sports council as any other in the world.

 

[TNT]

I understand where your coming from, but there is scientific merit behind the question. Sure UWA have their reasons for critiquing the new system but until the new facilities put their work out there to the wider scientific community, these critiques are valid.The beauty of this whole process is that once it's printed, Jacqueline will have her own chance to publish something contrary to it. And if this holds no merit then it will be pulled to pieces and ridiculed by her peers. Trusting that ICC got it right first time just seems foolish though. They're as greedy and foolhardy a sports council as any other in the world.

The ICC are just the clients, what reasons do you have to question the biomechanics that are driving this. One has worked for UWA and another has a extremely long history in sports covering many things like tennis ect. So can I ask why you think these biomechanics who have tested dozens of bowlers in the new protocols have not got it right?.

 

[Athlai]

The ICC are just the clients, what reasons do you have to question the biomechanics that are driving this. One has worked for UWA and another has a extremely long history in sports covering many things like tennis ect. So can I ask why you think these biomechanics who have tested dozens of bowlers in the new protocols have not got it right?.

Well the Samuels slower ball call for one sounds very odd.

Ajmal being called at 45+ degrees also sounds unusually high. And the idea that ICC is allowing any new testing process to use archival video footage from games seems wrong. Seems to be ignoring the limitations of the technology and the perspective the viewer has when viewing footage from a single camera. Those are my personal areas of concern and nothing that has come out of the new centres has reassured me on any of these points.

I'm sure others will have different concerns. It's also annoying that a lot of people are using the changeover to effectively discredit anything UWA did prior to this.