Ajmal Action Reported

[Daemon]

Dbz.

 

[marc71178]

This is why Watson is so confused.

Watson isn't confused, he's blinkered.

 

[Sean Flynn]

Ajmal a chucker? Not a blooody chance mates. To me people are suspicious because of the pause before delivery...doesn't necessarily mean he throws it. He will be cleared.

 

[cnerd123]

'If it looks like a bowler is chucking to the Umpire then the bowler should be assumed to be chucking and THEREFORE cited (reported).' - that's the crux of what I've been stating for quite some time now. Honest.

Yea dont think anyone would disagree with this.

It would be nice for the ICC to test some international bowlers with 'clean' actions and release the info though, sort of as a reference point.

 

[simonlee48]

The article is from November 2004;

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that.

 

[Migara]

It has been proven scientifically that the human eye CAN detect a 15 degree straightening - that's one of the reasons why 15 degrees was chosen back in 2004 as the cut-off. So yes, an Umpire can fairly and reasonably call a chuck without the help of a bio mechanical scientist. And should.

Only when bowler has a straight elbow. Once the fixed flexion deformities come in it become mighty difficult to judge it by naked eye. FFS Murali appeared as chucking even when he bowled with a brace.

 

[Migara]

Which is why Ajmal is still playing cricket and not banned till he has done the biomechanical tests.

But you can't have a situation where the Umpires simply do nothing just because there may or may not be an 'illusion'. If that were the case then no bowler would ever be cited by the Umpires unless his dodgy action fell into the category of the bleeding obvious (ie. "shot-putting").

And that's face it, most bowlers are not born with a congenital birth defect of their bowling arm. The vast majority of bowlers are anatomically typical and so the '15 degree naked-eye rule' (or whatever you want to call it) holds for the vast majority of bowlers.

would say otherwise. Ones with freaky joints have a better chance to become better bowlers, and the highest echelon of bowlers will have a relatively higher number of people with freaky joints.

 

[Spark]

It has been proven scientifically that the human eye CAN detect a 15 degree straightening - that's one of the reasons why 15 degrees was chosen back in 2004 as the cut-off. So yes, an Umpire can fairly and reasonably call a chuck without the help of a biomechanical scientist. And should.

The list of problems with this line of reasoning is long and my time is short, but answer me this: how does this help an umpire distinguish between, say, 12 degrees and 16 degrees?

 

[Migara]

I don't think anyone is saying that umpires shouldn't report bowlers whom they think are chucking. Report them, test them and accept whatever decision comes out after the tests. The umpires on-the-spot judgement shouldn't be the final word.

No, let them pick out suspicious actions as they come. As a blan ket rule evryone ,must b lab tested. Singling out ones with "dodgy" actions based on naked eye is a pathetic way of screening.

 

[Migara]

There is no need for obfuscation Hendrix - put simply, the Umpire believes that the bowler has straightened his arm more than the 15 degrees so he fills in the necessary paperwork recommending that he be biomechanically tested. Nothing wrong with that is there?

Of course the ICC could recommend that the cut-off be extended to 22 degrees but people like youself would still be complaining that the Umpires can't tell the difference between 21, 22, or 23 degrees, so it would be a case of back to square one all over again.

Long story short - the Umpires should be left alone to do their job as they are paid to do. That is, cite a bowler if they honestly believe him to be chucking.

To make a very long story short, umpires don;t need to recommend testings. Do it for everyone so the bias will be eliminated.

 

[watson]

The list of problems with this line of reasoning is long and my time is short, but answer me this: how does this help an umpire distinguish between, say, 12 degrees and 16 degrees?

We have already established that I basically agree with ORS so there is little to disagree upon other than some semantics. That is;

I don't think anyone is saying that umpires shouldn't report bowlers whom they think are chucking. Report them, test them and accept whatever decision comes out after the tests. The umpires on-the-spot judgement shouldn't be the final word.

I think that people have exaggerated my point about Umpires being able to reasonably cite (report) a bowler for chucking during a Match into something very different - that is, Umpires should ban a bowler from International cricket because they are able to detect a chuck during a match.

So are you saying Spark that because Umpires cannot be absolutely spot-on with their naked-eye assessment that they should therefore NOT cite (report) bowlers for chucking at all? That is, you believe that there should be an independant system in place whereby bowlers are routinely tested for chucking as a matter of course?

 

[watson]

To make a very long story short, umpires don;t need to recommend testings. Do it for everyone so the bias will be eliminated.

Now that is the kind of statement which I have been contesting for some time!

Perhaps we have reached some kind of clarity?

 

[slowfinger]

Hope Ajmal gets cleared, although maybe and definitely that's why he wears long sleeves, to hide his arm so it doesnt look so much like a throw

 

[Julian87]

Which umpires cited him?

Good on them.

 

[Migara]

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.

Bingo, as I suspected. The protocol on which deliveries to replicate and the selection methodology is obscure. Looks like the procedure is there to eliminate the named bowlers.

1. Report the bowler
2. Pick the deliveries with extreme extensions
3. Ask to replicate that deliveries
4. Announce action is illegal
5. Ban the bowler

While the ones with "clean" actions can go above limits in extreme deliveries. Stop the bull**** ICC, produce the selection protocol of deliveries, and start testing everybody, not named ones.

 

[cnerd123]

Bingo, as I suspected. The protocol on which deliveries to replicate and the selection methodology is obscure. Looks like the procedure is there to eliminate the named bowlers.

1. Report the bowler
2. Pick the deliveries with extreme extensions
3. Ask to replicate that deliveries
4. Announce action is illegal
5. Ban the bowler

While the ones with "clean" actions can go above limits in extreme deliveries. Stop the bull**** ICC, produce the selection protocol of deliveries, and start testing everybody, not named ones.

Wait...what? How did you get all that from that harmless innocent little quote?

 

[Daemon]

Wait...what? How did you get all that from that harmless innocent little quote?

this

He's been going on and on for ages now about his agenda regarding the 'clean actions'. True or not it's getting incredibly tiresome.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Incredibly over the top, but I agree with him that the ICC spelling out their entire selection protocol for the footage of the selected deliveries would be a good thing.

 

[hendrix]

We don't have any actual evidence from the ICC to suggest they were unhappy with the Perth testing centre. I'm not sure if Cricinfo has a source on that or whether they've made an assumption, but it seems equally likely that the ICC just felt other testing centres would make things more convenient and streamlined.

Perth was responsible for banning Shillingford and Samuels afterall.

 

[Migara]

Wait...what? How did you get all that from that harmless innocent little quote?

although ott, the protocol used for testing is suspicious. Just summed up evidence keeping the "conspiracy" plot in the mind to be extreme. Piyal Wijetunga the spin coach of SL had shown his displesure in selection of deliveries to reproduce. Should say nicely ties things up for the conspiracy plot though I don't believe in such.