Ajmal Action Reported

[brockley]

KARACHI (Reuters) - Banned Pakistan spinner Saeed Ajmal was reported for a suspect action in a domestic match in 2006 but the cricket authorities turned a blind eye until, eight years later and after six years of international cricket, he was suspended from the game.

Ajmal, 36, now faces an uphill battle to revive his Pakistan career after the International Cricket Council (ICC) banned him from bowling following a failed biomechanics test in Brisbane.

"I had reported his action after a first-class match between KRL and Habib Bank because they were problems with some of his deliveries," test umpire Riazuddin said on Pakistan's Geo Super television network.

"Unfortunately I don’t know what happened about the report but no action was taken and he continued to play in domestic cricket."

Saeed’s case is not unique on Pakistan's domestic circuit, where bowlers with suspect actions have been allowed to carry on playing despite reservations from match officials.

"No-one in the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has ever taken this problem seriously," Pakistan’s former captain Rashid Latif told Reuters.

"There are cases of bowlers, who clearly straighten their arm more than the permitted 15 degrees angle, being allowed to carry on playing.

"But now with the new protocol put in place by the ICC for (testing) bowlers with suspect actions, the PCB realises it has to be proactive and not reactive. That is why they have set up the illegal bowling action committee."

 

[brockley]

Ok done it.
Yes i am being honest only notice a bit of a bend,admittedly i don't use the glasses i bought.

 

[smash84]

I am surprised you never thought he was chucking. It was quite obvious and the only defence was that he had been cleared by the ICC so he must be doing something right.

But that no longer is the case.

 

[brockley]

No not that but may have not seen it as clearly,don't spend my time analysing actions,also been a while seen Pakistan play.Going to watch Pakistan - oz,so may watch some of the actions more clearly.As a heads on any chuckers likely to replace Ajmal?

 

[Maximas]

Didn't Ajmal have some sort of accident after 2006 that probably changed his action somewhat? Not to mention he got cleared in 2009

 

[Burgey]

The accident being that he bent his arm one day at training and realised he could get blokes out a lot easier if he kept doing so.

 

[Migara]

Williamson is white so I reckon you should just put the race card back in the deck.

Then go kill yourself.

Just as an afterthought thought of writing this doe to the sheer dumbness of the post. Firstly, everybody knows Williamson is not Asian. Secondly Al Amin and Gazi are Asian. You don't need to wait till the tests finish to know that.

I see nothing more than a dumb****ing than to interpret everything in racial lines or anticipating others to do so.

 

[Migara]

Just because the Police don't catch all criminals all of the time doesn't mean that they should stop catching some criminals some of the time.

In the same way, just because field Umpires don't catch 100% of chuckers 100% of the time doesn't mean that they should not cite some obvious chuckers.some of the time.

Irrelevent in the context. It's analogous to catching murderers where the victims body is found and letting them scott free when the victim's body is not found,Field umpires don't and won't catch chuckers 100%. Go ahead and test them all or at least test everyone randomly.

 

[Migara]

I look forward to reading your breakthrough published work on how a straight line isn't straight

Straight line is an imaginary one and away from realism. That would be a good starting point.

 

[watson]

Irrelevent in the context. It's analogous to catching murderers where the victims body is found and letting them scott free when the victim's body is not found,Field umpires don't and won't catch chuckers 100%. Go ahead and test them all or at least test everyone randomly.

Testing 'everyone randomly' is no good because you might not randomly get around to testing the blatant chuckers like Ajmal, Senanayake, and Shillingford for a year or two. And that's no good.

Therefore, field Umpires will need to cite blatant chuckers until such times that the technology is cheap enough and good enough to allow all bowlers to be 'match tested'.

 

[Maximas]

Testing 'everyone randomly' is no good because you might not randomly get around to testing the blatant chuckers like Ajmal, Senanayake, and Shillingford for a year or two. And that's no good.

Nah you just test a few 'clean' actions to make sure the testing procedure and laws are all good and that all this business of picking on the dodgy actions is the right way to go about it

 

[watson]

Nah you just test a few 'clean' actions to make sure the testing procedure and laws are all good and that all this business of picking on the dodgy actions is the right way to go about it

A retrospective study of clean actions was carried out during 2004 with the resultant recommendation that 15 degrees be adopted as the cut-off point. So we already know what's OK and what isn't. Are you saying that the same sort of study be performed all over again? If so, why?

More startling revelations surfaced from retrospective biomechanical tests in 2004. Some of the cleanest bowlers from the past seemed to have been flexing their elbows beyond the limit, and finally, in November 2004, the ICC set a uniform 15-degree limit for all bowlers.

Cricket's Turning Points: The 15-degree rule | Highlights | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[harsh.ag]

On account of supposed improvements in the process of measurement which makes it harder for bowlers to do something different in testing (I think).

 

[Maximas]

@watson: I'm well aware of that whole thing, but I only made my suggestion to prove that testing 'clean' actions to ensure the testing process and the law is all good in order to show how easy it would be rather than have some massive testing process for everyone on rotation or whatever

 

[Riggins]

A retrospective study of clean actions was carried out during 2004 with the resultant recommendation that 15 degrees be adopted as the cut-off point. So we already know what's OK and what isn't. Are you saying that the same sort of study be performed all over again? If so, why?

Well since Ajmal was tested under the old system and was fine, and now has been tested again and is not fine, it's not unreasonable to suggest the new system should at least be tested on at least one guy who, for all intents and purposes, has a textbook action.

He can go and get ****ed with the straight line crap though.

 

[watson]

Well since Ajmal was tested under the old system and was fine, and now has been tested again and is not fine, it's not unreasonable to suggest the new system should at least be tested on at least one guy who, for all intents and purposes, has a textbook action.

He can go and get ****ed with the straight line crap though.

Fair enough. But one would assume that some kind of 'negative control' is used during each testing process as it is standard scientific practice. Falls into the category of the blinding obvious.

 

[Riggins]

You'd think so, but if they did it then you would assume they would release the results, just like last time. Especially since it would be reinforcing their point all along.

 

[Migara]

Testing 'everyone randomly' is no good because you might not randomly get around to testing the blatant chuckers like Ajmal, Senanayake, and Shillingford for a year or two. And that's no good.

I dunno how you have got this impression. Rndom testing will be in addition to the testing of reported bowlers and contraol subject bowlers. Hence this can only add to the credibility of whole process.

Therefore, field Umpires will need to cite blatant chuckers until such times that the technology is cheap enough and good enough to allow all bowlers to be 'match tested'.

Technology is cheap enough. Doubling or trpling the number tested is not gpoing to hurt ICC. Especially when so much money used to develop DRS, a fraction of it can be utilised to test random bowlers

 

[watson]

I dunno how you have got this impression. Rndom testing will be in addition to the testing of reported bowlers and contraol subject bowlers. Hence this can only add to the credibility of whole process.

I'm pretty certain I know where the 'impression' came from.

So are we making progress yet Migara? I think that we are.

 

[BeeGee]

Yeah it'd be Hafeezy for him to fix it you feel.

Hafcheezy.