And here we go again....

[SJS]

BTW, before anyone misunderstands, I think Murali chucks his doosra as does harbhajan. Malik chucks often and SAfridi blatantly chucks his fater one. The problem is that thye new law has made the umpires job one of reporting to the ICC rather than calling a throw a throw when "they are not fully satisfied ". This will only cause careers to be ruined and bowlers since there is no way a bowler can be "taught" to flex, say 12 degrees, but not 16 !!

It is a mockery of a simple rule which existed and which, unfortunately, only few umpires were willing to implement as it stood !

Instead of asking the umpires to implement it strictly without fear, the ICC started on an excercise to "contain" the problem and has ended up with this laughable law that can not be implemented. Whats the point in banning a bowler for one year but not being able to stop him from bowling when he did what resulted in the ban ??

Ludicrous !!

 

[biased indian]

Yes its true Gavaskar committee has shown somethings that were not known. Actually that was not done by the Gavaskar committee. It was done by those technicians with all those fancy gadgets.

and thats exactly why its said that it was introduced by gavaskar committee.
if some had done the work for his committee it was due to the fact that they asked them to find out the things simple

 

[biased indian]

i clearly remember during the second session of play on last day when manjarekar was asked by rameez raja y was bhajji was not bowling the doosra more manjarekar replied back "the only reason i could think of was that its chris broad in the match refrees box"

 

[Sanz]

Clearly, Harbhajan needs to stop using his 'Doosra'. If he can't do that, he better look for a career somwhere else, may be a standup comedian, He will be more successful there.

It is annoying as hell to wake up everyday and read all this 15 degree crap again and again.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The problem we have now is that the ICC has lumbered the cricketing world with a law that can only be applied retrospectively (as in Harbhajan's case). What is clearly needed is a camera that can immediately ascertain a bowler's degree of flexion after the delivery. I don't know if such apparatus is available as of now (it can obviously be done, but I guess speed may be the problem), but the law as it currently stands can find a player guilty of chucking after the event when his performance is already in the record books.

Is India's win to be asterisked (*Harbhajan guilty of throwing) if the committee decides he was over the tolerance level?

 

[Gangster]

The problem we have now is that the ICC has lumbered the cricketing world with a law that can only be applied retrospectively (as in Harbhajan's case). What is clearly needed is a camera that can immediately ascertain a bowler's degree of flexion after the delivery. I don't know if such apparatus is available as of now (it can obviously be done, but I guess speed may be the problem), but the law as it currently stands can find a player guilty of chucking after the event when his performance is already in the record books.

Is India's win to be asterisked (*Harbhajan guilty of throwing) if the committee decides he was over the tolerance level?

Nah, Harbhajan bowled like crap anyway. We'd have been better off it he had been banned before the match!

 

[Gangster]

Guys, let's not jump to any crazy conclusions. The fact that it's the same match referee who always calls someone a chucker and the same umpire who always calls someone a chucker plus the same umpire who hates the Indian team are purely coincidental.

 

[Top_Cat]

I have written extensively on this before and dont want to repeat myself accept to say that any law which can not be enforced on the field of play is not worth the piece of paper it is written upon.

No kidding, this is insane. The law cannot be enforced on the field of play because the umpires don't have the physical ability to enforce it. That's why it's been left to the actual experts on throwing, not the umpires.

The problem is that thye new law has made the umpires job one of reporting to the ICC rather than calling a throw a throw when "they are not fully satisfied ".

That leaves the judgement of what is a 'throw' in the hands of an umpire. As the new technology has shown, this is crazy because none of the umpires (as far as I'm aware) is a human movement specialist and can often make a wrong call in calling someone who 'looks' like they throw. It's precisely why the new regs were implemented; NO-ONE can tell at full speed whether someone chucks or not unless it's a genuine ping at the batsman. The new regs allow for a bowler bowing illegally for a little while whilst the reporting process goes into effect, yes, but it's better than the previous situation where a bowler is unfairly labelled for a physical abnormality which makes them 'appear' to chuck because no-one could be really sure whether they did or not.

Most umpires are generally 50+; would you put the future of your career in the hands of someone who doesn't understand the physics and biology of movement in addition to the fact that their eyesight is in the process of deterioration? I know I wouldn't. Yes we are diminishing the role of the umpire but that's only because there's no way they can tell definitively whether a bowler throws whilst out int he middle.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Unfortunately my reading of the cricinfo report is that Harbhajan has been reported on the evidence of Broad & the Umpires' perception; to wit: it looked like he was chucking. Whilst this isn't as bad as him being called (perhaps incorrectly) in a game, it means (if I'm correct in my assumption that Harbhajan has been reported on the strength of a suspicion derived from the appearance to the naked eye rather than rigorous analysis of every bowler's action) that bowlers whose actions looks iffy (I'm sure we all know the usual suspects) are going to be reported more often than those whose looks pure-as-the-driven-snow.

Some of the mud sticks & a bowler's rep takes another little knock.

 

[Gangster]

No kidding, this is insane. The law cannot be enforced on the field of play because the umpires don't have the physical ability to enforce it. That's why it's been left to the actual experts on throwing, not the umpires.



That leaves the judgement of what is a 'throw' in the hands of an umpire. As the new technology has shown, this is crazy because none of the umpires (as far as I'm aware) is a human movement specialist and can often make a wrong call in calling someone who 'looks' like they throw. It's precisely why the new regs were implemented; NO-ONE can tell at full speed whether someone chucks or not unless it's a genuine ping at the batsman. The new regs allow for a bowler bowing illegally for a little while whilst the reporting process goes into effect, yes, but it's better than the previous situation where a bowler is unfairly labelled for a physical abnormality which makes them 'appear' to chuck because no-one could be really sure whether they did or not.

Most umpires are generally 50+; would you put the future of your career in the hands of someone who doesn't understand the physics and biology of movement in addition to the fact that their eyesight is in the process of deterioration? I know I wouldn't. Yes we are diminishing the role of the umpire but that's only because there's no way they can tell definitively whether a bowler throws whilst out int he middle.

It's been said before and I'll say it again: no one goes to the stadium for the umpires. No one. Even Bucknor's wife showed up at Kolkata to see Tendulkar bat, not to see his stupid golden bails ceremony. Umpires should be eliminated as soon as technology allows it.

 

[C_C]

I for one have no problem with the umpiring job becomming obsolete IF technology can fully replace an umpire....Currently i think technology can do a better job than umpires regarding no balls, catches, lbws, run outs and near-boundary incidents....
I for one am not a traditionalist, i am a realist. If a computer can do a better job than the ump-boo frickin hoo for the umps. Off you go. And no, dont give me the 'umpires have always stood there' etc. crap.... that is the rule of the world....how many knitters you see sitting in a factory knitting shirts ? how many mechanics you see on the production lines welding the car body ? how many painters do you see painting the vehicle in production line ??
All those jobs are obsolete and off they went. One day the umpiring job will become obsolete so off they go as well.

 

[marc71178]

Guys, let's not jump to any crazy conclusions. The fact that it's the same match referee who always calls someone a chucker and the same umpire who always calls someone a chucker plus the same umpire who hates the Indian team are purely coincidental.

Someone's been reading too many conspiracy theories.

 

[marc71178]

Unfortunately my reading of the cricinfo report is that Harbhajan has been reported on the evidence of Broad & the Umpires' perception; to wit: it looked like he was chucking. Whilst this isn't as bad as him being called (perhaps incorrectly) in a game, it means (if I'm correct in my assumption that Harbhajan has been reported on the strength of a suspicion derived from the appearance to the naked eye rather than rigorous analysis of every bowler's action) that bowlers whose actions looks iffy (I'm sure we all know the usual suspects) are going to be reported more often than those whose looks pure-as-the-driven-snow.

IIRC that was the idea of the 15 degrees.

The human eye can detect that amount in normal speed, but nothing less.

 

[Scallywag]

. If a computer can do a better job than the ump-boo frickin hoo for the umps. Off you go. And no, dont give me the 'umpires have always stood there' etc. crap.... that is the rule of the world....how many knitters you see sitting in a factory knitting shirts ? how many mechanics you see on the production lines welding the car body ? how many painters do you see painting the vehicle in production line ??
All those jobs are obsolete and off they went. One day the umpiring job will become obsolete so off they go as well.

A bowling machine can bowl faster and more accurately than a human bowler so why not allow teams to use a bowling machine, Batsmen would get out less if we allowed them to have bigger and wider bats and fielders would drop less catches if they were allowed to use catching mitts so why are we stopping all these advancements in cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

A bowling machine can bowl faster and more accurately than a human bowler so why not allow teams to use a bowling machine, Batsmen would get out less if we allowed them to have bigger and wider bats and fielders would drop less catches if they were allowed to use catching mitts so why are we stopping all these advancements in cricket.

Don't see the relevance. C_C isn't advocating changing anything to do with the players per se. He's talking about the people who umpire the game. What's wrong with technology ensuring decisions are correct? We already do it just to a slightly lesser extent.

 

[Scallywag]

Don't see the relevance. C_C isn't advocating changing anything to do with the players per se. He's talking about the people who umpire the game. What's wrong with technology ensuring decisions are correct? We already do it just to a slightly lesser extent.

The same relevance as a knitter, a man welding a car or even a man painting a car.

 

[Top_Cat]

The same relevance as a knitter, a man welding a car or even a man painting a car.

It is a relevant example in the context of jobs evolving (and sometimes being made redundant) with the use of technology, as are umpires.

 

[Scallywag]

It is a relevant example in the context of jobs evolving (and sometimes being made redundant) with the use of technology, as are umpires.

Well then you explained it yourself, A welder user to weld cars now a machine does, a painter used to paint cars now a machine does , a bowler used to bowl now a machine....

 

[Gangster]

Well then you explained it yourself, A welder user to weld cars now a machine does, a painter used to paint cars now a machine does , a bowler used to bowl now a machine....

Are you stupid? You must be.

 

[Scallywag]

Are you stupid? You must be.

I love it when you talk dirty Gangster.