Akila Dananjaya reported for suspect bowling action

[Migara]

And I don't think they're hiding any information that would be material to the cricketing world.

May be yes. But I find the whole process extremely unscientific, and open to bias all the way.

 

[Victor Ian]

I think you don't understand the bio-statistics.

In biostatistics most actions have a normal distribution or can be transformed in to one. If you bowl hundred off breaks, you will have hundred different mesures of extension different to each other. If you plot all these in a graph, it will give a bell shape curve (or similar one). Now the height and width of this graph defines two important properties. Average and variance. Variance is a representation of how much your arm extension changes between each deliveries. Now with this model, any amount of extension can occur. But when the number is more away from average, more it be comes unlikely. Hence it is a probability. You can calculate probability of a chuck for each player.

Ex.

Player A - Average extension 10 = 1, standard deviation (SD) = 2 - In this player we know that 2.5% of his deliveries will have an extension of less than 14 degrees. The probability of this guy going over 15 degrees is 0.62%

Player B - Average extension = 7, SD = 4: This guy has a chance of going over 15 degrees 2.3%. Despite having a lower average extension player B is likely to chuck the bowl four times more than player A

The rest of you post I cannot understand.

Yeah, I think I understand variance and all that. It exists everywhere. My point is that each bowler needs to bowl within 15 degrees minus their SD. probably within 3 SD. It appears that some bowlers are pushing the limits and opening themselves to getting called. You imply this is some sort of bias. I think not.
I'll agree with you that it would be nice if all these numbers were known, but do we really need to go down this path? If you can not keep your action straight when you know you are being tested after a report, I'd suggest you have a problem and need to fix it.

 

[Victor Ian]

For more clarity, you suggest Lyon should be tested when no independent judge has deemed him worth testing. Why should Lyon, or anyone else have to waste their time?

 

[OverratedSanity]

For more clarity, you suggest Lyon should be tested when no independent judge has deemed him worth testing. Why should Lyon, or anyone else have to waste their time?

How do we know it'll be a waste of time?

 

[the big bambino]

Because he hasn’t been reported? Why would anyone undergo a test when there isn’t an obligation to do so.

 

[Daemon]

sigh

 

[Victor Ian]

Am I missing something? The whole reason numbers were changed was because all this testing had been done. So we came to 15 degrees to accommodate the biomechanical variance being talked about.
Maybe I misunderstand that. If not, this is all sour grapes. The equivalent of me asking for all countries to undergo cheating testing because my country got caught. You get caught, you live with it. Casting aspersions on everyone else is just weak.

 

[the big bambino]

sigh

Anyone who supports completely unnecessary tests are wearisome. But ok. Lets pat down everyone for sandpaper now bcos Bancroft. Stimulated now?

 

[Bolo]

Anyone who supports completely unnecessary tests are wearisome. But ok. Lets pat down everyone for sandpaper now bcos Bancroft. Stimulated now?

You know exactly where he hid the sandpaper. We are not so easily fooled as to believe your desire for a patdown us a randomly generated hypothetical

 

[the big bambino]

Believe me I don't want to go there. Others might be compelled though.

 

[YorksLanka]

That's exactly the point I was making, it does need the icc to share it's testing methods. Coaches should be able to see what they think are poor actions and voluntarily have them tested..

 

[Victor Ian]

That's exactly the point I was making, it does need the icc to share it's testing methods. Coaches should be able to see what they think are poor actions and voluntarily have them tested..

Yeah, I'm all for transparency in the testing methods. If this were done it may be possible to identify this earlier so that players' careers are not ruined.

I'd also like to know what the identification process is to be called in for testing. For all I know, Migara might be right and it is based on country of origin.

 

[Migara]

Yeah, I think I understand variance and all that. It exists everywhere. My point is that each bowler needs to bowl within 15 degrees minus their SD. probably within 3 SD. It appears that some bowlers are pushing the limits and opening themselves to getting called. You imply this is some sort of bias. I think not.

This means still there will be 0.135% of deliveries illegal. That is about 8 deliveries per 1000 overs. Now the fundamental question is, do we consider such a bowler illegal, and send him over to remedial actions?

I'll agree with you that it would be nice if all these numbers were known, but do we really need to go down this path? If you can not keep your action straight when you know you are being tested after a report, I'd suggest you have a problem and need to fix it.

Keeping the action straight doesn't mean a thing. First we should know whether all the bowlers with clean actions are infact clean. If clean actions are not infact clean, then singling out with dodgy looking actions is bias and discrimination. Unless we prove that clean looking actions are infact clean, pulling people up for testing based in action is absurd, at least in borderline cases.

 

[Migara]

For more clarity, you suggest Lyon should be tested when no independent judge has deemed him worth testing. Why should Lyon, or anyone else have to waste their time?

Once it is a ICC regulation it doesn't matter whether you are reported or going for random testing. Player have to comply.

 

[Migara]

Because he hasn’t been reported? Why would anyone undergo a test when there isn’t an obligation to do so.

Obligations will come with regulations in place.

 

[Migara]

Am I missing something? The whole reason numbers were changed was because all this testing had been done. So we came to 15 degrees to accommodate the biomechanical variance being talked about.

Rules changed because of testing. Yes it is advancement. But I ma speaking of the next level of it. This is about establishing a strong definition of chucking. It may be little difficult to understand,but there is undeniable scientific basis behind it.

Maybe I misunderstand that. If not, this is all sour grapes. The equivalent of me asking for all countries to undergo cheating testing because my country got caught. You get caught, you live with it. Casting aspersions on everyone else is just weak.

We don't know whether your country is cheating or not. We were told to take your word for it or take external observers word for it who have primitive technology. Being hurt by scientific facts is weaker TBH.

 

[Burgey]

Nicaea, you’re gong too hard here and only proving the senitivity this issue carries for SL supporters, who in their hearts know their champion was literally bent.

 

[cnerd123]

Am I missing something? The whole reason numbers were changed was because all this testing had been done. So we came to 15 degrees to accommodate the biomechanical variance being talked about.
Maybe I misunderstand that. If not, this is all sour grapes. The equivalent of me asking for all countries to undergo cheating testing because my country got caught. You get caught, you live with it. Casting aspersions on everyone else is just weak.

The ICC changed labs in 2014 and there are concerns that their current methodology doesn't match the ones used to establish the existing rules

I linked to an article about this earlier

 

[Migara]

Nicaea, you’re gong too hard here and only proving the senitivity this issue carries for SL supporters, who in their hearts know their champion was literally bent.

More and more you prove that you are towards the left end of the bell curve that define IQ.

 

[Victor Ian]

This means still there will be 0.135% of deliveries illegal. That is about 8 deliveries per 1000 overs. Now the fundamental question is, do we consider such a bowler illegal, and send him over to remedial actions?

I'd imagine 1 delivery in 125 overs is not a problem. I'd guess you would too, if you could see past your wahing. I'd also suggest that you do not get sent to testing based on one or two bad deliveries every innings - though it would be nice to know for sure. I'm going out on a limb and going to say that you are probably bowling enough chucky deliveries to make someone think - 'this is a problem'.

Playing the victim card, do you really think that they would not jump all over Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood and Lyon and send them to remedial class, if they had any reasonable chance of showing the world how Australia are still at this cheating thing? This is proof enough they do not need testing, because, you know, the world has a hard on for showing Australian's cheat.

Face it - chucking is cheating, but for things that Australia do not do, we do not call it cheating.

Take yourself back to the days the new rule was brought in. They changed them because, on testing, they realised that ALL bowlers are bending their arm beyond what was currently acceptable, only it was too hard to notice. So they changed the rule to what IS noticeable and also what is fairly achievable to bowl. So players who are being tested have obviously chucky actions. That is all that matters.

You want the ICC to create a regulation to make everyone comply with testing. I'd prefer the ICC make every Sri Lankan fan comply with not being a sook.