Ajmal Action Reported

[TNT]

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.

Samuels was tested at UWA, not under the new protocols. Archival footage is used to compare the bowlers action to the action he uses during testing, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't UWA introduce this. The new protocols use 3D from multiple cameras. UWA opened the door by trying to discredit the testing procedures not on merit but for commercial reasons.

 

[Athlai]

Archival footage being used at all is an issue. Better to actually have an umpire on board to call the player out for bowling differently.

The Samuels thing is a criticism of the ICC's approach to chucking and testing. The science said Samuels chucked when bowling a quicker ball, it was the ICC who decided that this can be policied with a speed gun. You have to take the ICC's own expertise in this field with a grain of salt. They're experts on cricket, not biomechanics and sometimes those views are counterintuitive.

 

[Maximas]

Yeah the ICC are just as commercially and financially motivated as any organisation, if they had a scientific basis on which to respond to the criticisms made by the UWA then why don't they share it instead of simply saying "we have run this past some unnamed people/institutions and they gave it the green light so it's fine believe me"?

 

[TNT]

Archival footage being used at all is an issue. Better to actually have an umpire on board to call the player out for bowling differently.The Samuels thing is a criticism of the ICC's approach to chucking and testing. The science said Samuels chucked when bowling a quicker ball, it was the ICC who decided that this can be policied with a speed gun. You have to take the ICC's own expertise in this field with a grain of salt. They're experts on cricket, not biomechanics and sometimes those views are counterintuitive.

If you don't use archival footage of a bowlers action how will the testers know if the bowler is using the same action he uses/used in the match he was called in?. Relying on Samuels not to bowl his quicker ball is no different to relying on Murali not to bowl the doosra when he was banned from bowling it.

 

[Maximas]

If you don't use archival footage of a bowlers action how will the testers know if the bowler is using the same action he uses/used in the match he was called in?. Relying on Samuels not to bowl his quicker ball is no different to relying on Murali not to bowl the doosra when he was banned from bowling it.

Yes it is

 

[TNT]

Yeah the ICC are just as commercially and financially motivated as any organisation, if they had a scientific basis on which to respond to the criticisms made by the UWA then why don't they share it instead of simply saying "we have run this past some unnamed people/institutions and they gave it the green light so it's fine believe me"?

The ICC have no reason to get into a slinging match with UWA, they are no longer a client of UWA and believe they have got the system right, what is the motivation of UWA in withdrawing their services and then wanting to be involved in the new system?.

 

[TNT]

Yes it is

No its not.

 

[Maximas]

The doosra is a more arbitrarily measurable change from the stock delivery or other variations (plus it takes a very deliberate effort from the bowler to bowl compared to trying to keep under a certain speed), plus it can be witnessed by the on-field umpire and called immediately

 

[TNT]

The doosra is a more arbitrarily measurable change from the stock delivery or other variations (plus it takes a very deliberate effort from the bowler to bowl compared to trying to keep under a certain speed), plus it can be witnessed by the on-field umpire and called immediately

It is so much more easier for the umpire to detect when a bowler has bowled the faster ball, If Samuels is bowling his stock ball then suddenly bowls the faster ball the umpire will find it very easy to pick up on. The doosra on the other hand is harder to pick because the umpire is watching the bowlers foot and not his action.

 

[TNT]

The Samuels thing is a criticism of the ICC's approach to chucking and testing. The science said Samuels chucked when bowling a quicker ball, it was the ICC who decided that this can be policied with a speed gun. .

Just another question on this, did the UWA raise this A) when it happened, B) after they reviewed it. C) when they felt it was an opportunity to undermine the ICC's new testing protocol?.

 

[harsh.ag]

It is so much more easier for the umpire to detect when a bowler has bowled the faster ball, If Samuels is bowling his stock ball then suddenly bowls the faster ball the umpire will find it very easy to pick up on. The doosra on the other hand is harder to pick because the umpire is watching the bowlers foot and not his action.

Yeah, ball spinning the other way can be hard to pick.

 

[TNT]

Yeah, ball spinning the other way can be hard to pick.

And you have no chance of picking the faster ball.

 

[cnerd123]

Samuels was limited under a certain speed. How can an umpire watching tell if a ball is bowled at 99kmph or 101kmph?

Similarly, what if he steadily increases his speed each ball? How do you know which ball crossed the line?

It's like when you are playing as kids in a constrained area and the batsmen calls out "too fast" when a bowler is bowling too quick. It's all subjective then.

I dont see what point you are trying to make TNT. Do you work for the ICC? Is that why you are so aggresively defending such a weak stance? What harm will more transparency and a testing of a control group bring to cricket that you are so strongly against it?

 

[TNT]

Samuels was limited under a certain speed. How can an umpire watching tell if a ball is bowled at 99kmph or 101kmph?Similarly, what if he steadily increases his speed each ball? How do you know which ball crossed the line?It's like when you are playing as kids in a constrained area and the batsmen calls out "too fast" when a bowler is bowling too quick. It's all subjective then. I dont see what point you are trying to make TNT. Do you work for the ICC? Is that why you are so aggresively defending such a weak stance? What harm will more transparency and a testing of a control group bring to cricket that you are so strongly against it?

Samuels was well aware that if he did bowl the faster ball he would be banned from cricket for two years, he cant fool the umpires, third umpire, match referee and video replays. Yes he could have bowled a faster ball just like murali could have bowled a doosra.,,I don't know why you want the ICC to waste a huge amount of money and bowlers time doing something they have already done. Why is it so important to you that the ICC repeat something again that will do nothing except waste money and players time. Its like when kids play cricket and you hit the ball and get caught but claim because you didn't see the fielder catch the ball you are not out.

 

[uvelocity]

Samuels was limited under a certain speed. How can an umpire watching tell if a ball is bowled at 99kmph or 101kmph?

Similarly, what if he steadily increases his speed each ball? How do you know which ball crossed the line?

It's like when you are playing as kids in a constrained area and the batsmen calls out "too fast" when a bowler is bowling too quick. It's all subjective then.

I dont see what point you are trying to make TNT. Do you work for the ICC? Is that why you are so aggresively defending such a weak stance? What harm will more transparency and a testing of a control group bring to cricket that you are so strongly against it?

think we've found the reason for india's travails in australia

also tnt you should declare your interest

 

[cnerd123]

Where is your evidence that the ICC has done any of this?

Around 5 pages of debate and you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support your claim. You're about as transparent as the ICC is tbh.

 

[cnerd123]

think we've found the reason for india's travails in australia

Yea **** those kids. Would have had so many more wickets if not for their dumb rules.

Altho tbf i think I may have been chucking back then.

 

[Maximas]

Where is your evidence that the ICC has done any of this?

Who needs evidence, we know that the ICC isn't motivated by self interest or anything, trust me

 

[TNT]

Where is your evidence that the ICC has done any of this?Around 5 pages of debate and you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support your claim. You're about as transparent as the ICC is tbh.

PCB confirm that they are using the protocols the ICC use.

The PCB informed that the test in Loughborough was conducted according to the standard ICC Illegal Action Testing Protocol, which is used to assess the degree of elbow extension from the point of the upper arm horizontal to ball release within the bowling action. Pakistan Cricket News: Ajmal's action improving but needs more work | ESPN Cricinfo

PCB support the new protocols.

Akram said the new testing methods were very stringent, but the PCB fully supported the ICC's stance. "It very hard to clear tests under the ICC's new protocols, with 3D software.Pakistan Cricket News: Saeed Ajmal's offspinner and faster delivery remedied | ESPN Cricinfo

ICC have indicated that they have problems with UWA.

Primarily, the ICC is unhappy with the biomechanics lab at the University of Western Australia in Perth, where bowlers with suspect actions have usually been sent for testing and correction. The ICC is not convinced that the lab's testing procedures are rigorous enough, at least to the standards they want. They are unhappy that not enough of the bowlers reported and then tested in recent years have been found to possess suspect actions. Ajmal move reveals ICC's firm hand | Cricket News | Pakistan | ESPN Cricinfo

Benchmarks have been set using the protocols by testing dozens of bowlers.

The ICC also suggested that the UWA had "unfairly maligned" the staff at the new testing centres by raising concerns over their experience and training, and said both its newly accredited centres in Brisbane and Chennai had "world-class facilities and highly-qualified staff", who had "tested dozens of bowlers using the ICC testing protocol". Chucking controversy : ICC rebuts UWA, backs new testing methods | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

Have the ICC been open to peer review, yes they have.

Regarding the "accusations made by a UWA representative that the ICC has not subjected its testing protocol to peer scrutiny", the ICC said it had provided its protocol to "a number of highly-credentialed biomechanists associated with five different tertiary institutions across the world" but not to the UWA, since it had ended its relationship with the ICC, or to "third parties that have approached the ICC to obtain the testing protocol on behalf of UWA." Chucking controversy : ICC rebuts UWA, backs new testing methods | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

As you can see I have read all the information and not just what UWA said, I guess the only thing left now it too call everyone involved liars.

 

[cnerd123]

Nononono you have just provided evidence of the Boards accepting the ICC's Protocols. That means nothing. The ICC is made up of people from the Boards ffs.

You have also just provided us with the ICC's own word that they have given the protocols out for peer review - no other source can back their claim up.

You have literally wasted your time digging up links we have all read to prove absolutely nothing.

It's just like if we looked for evidence of a kid doing his homework, and the only evidence we get is that same kid assuring us he did it. Where is the actual homework? Who are the teachers who are grading it? Where is the solid proof that it has been done?

Where is conclusive, 3rd party proof that the ICC's protocols have been peer reviewed and that they have carried out testing on a control group?