Broad called him after his testing unless you can show proof Broad was wrong.honestbharani said:Proof?
Broad called him after his testing unless you can show proof Broad was wrong.honestbharani said:Proof?
No, that doesnt prove that Harby has bowled with a different action in the tests- like i said- READ the ICC clauses for the test and you will find out that one's action/pace/spin must be CERTIFIED as match-standard for the test to have credibility.Broad called him after his testing unless you can show proof Broad was wrong.
Well Harby must have changed his action bcause the ICC would not allow an idiot to be a match referee would they.C_C said:No, that doesnt prove that Harby has bowled with a different action in the tests- like i said- READ the ICC clauses for the test and you will find out that one's action/pace/spin must be CERTIFIED as match-standard for the test to have credibility.
Those certifying are umpires who've stood in a match with the bowler and/or video evidence.
Broad reporting Harby means one of two things - either broad is an idiot or Harby has changed his action in the ast 2 weeks.
If he gets called a second time wont that mean an automatic 12 month suspension.Vroomfondel said:so wait...harby changed his action with the biomechanical expert so the answer is to send him back to the biomechanical expert?
Whinging is an insult... whining is an insult... so is Indian an insult?Scallywag said:a machine wont get the pleasure I get from talking to a whinging whining indian sook.
Argh, I can't really disagree with anything you've said. Just you wait until the next Indian tour of Australia!!!Scallywag said:My dearest Gangster.
I see you have been very charitable in your explanation of a joke, as you quite rightly pointed out I have no idea what a joke is. Your warm generous response to my suggestion that bowling machines replace bowlers made me realise that it would be a joke to suggest that. My heart is soothed knowing how much it means to you trying to find some way to imply that there must be a reason for Australia being the top cricket nation while India fight with the peasants for the coverted second best.
is NOT a positive contribution to the debate.a machine wont get the pleasure I get from talking to a whinging whining indian sook.
are those even real curse words? those sounds made up to me...Scallywag said:a machine wont get the pleasure I get from talking to a whinging whining indian sook.
Top_Cat said:And YOU are the only one to criticise based on national lines. I suggest you stop it right now.
This stuff;
is NOT a positive contribution to the debate.
I only responded to this comment so if you want to take sides dont hide behind the moderator title fight like a man.honestbarani said:BTW, Scally,since we are on the topic of machines replacing human beings.........care to invent a racist, ****y, 'Australia is the best, rest are crap' machine to post instead of you?.
And his reponse was in response to this;I only responded to this comment so if you want to take sides dont hide behind the moderator title fight like a man.
Whoops..........It just seems that Indians cant ever grasp the fact that accepting the umpires decision is what makes the man not how much you can blame on the umpire.
This from a Indian report,Top_Cat said:Scally; you've no proof that Harby or anyone changed their actions when looked at by UWA so unless you have some, don't bother even bringing it up particularly when there's plenty of evidence to suggest the converse.
.
Thats a double whoops Top_Cat because you have allready raised that issue and we have moved on.Top_Cat said:And his reponse was in response to this;
Whoops..........
Try again.
Besides the difference is that you were having a go at Indians whereas he was having a go at you.
There's a big difference between a slight variation in one's delivery stride and a wholesale change to avoid the perception of chucking.So can you tell me which action he used in the test and why he has two actions and were both tested.
As C_C said, their action needs to be verified by ICC regs as 'match correct' before the analysis can be accepted as representative of where they're at. And not just by one person but by several.I'm also interested in the evidence you have that suggests the converse or did you make that up.
Yeah and AFTER I told you that you DID IT AGAIN so no we obviously hadn't moved on at all!Thats a double whoops Top_Cat because you have allready raised that issue and we have moved on.
Remember you told me not to blanket stereotype people.
So which action did he use as the report in the khalee times clearly states that "Harbhajan bowled with a different action in the Kolkata Test" not a slight variation in ones delivery stride but a different action.Top_Cat said:There's a big difference between a slight variation in one's delivery stride and a wholesale change to avoid the perception of chucking.
As C_C said, their action needs to be verified by ICC regs as 'match correct' before the analysis can be accepted as representative of where they're at. And not just by one person but by several.
No, that doesnt prove that Harby has bowled with a different action in the tests- like i said- READ the ICC clauses for the test and you will find out that one's action/pace/spin must be CERTIFIED as match-standard for the test to have credibility.Broad called him after his testing unless you can show proof Broad was wrong.
high speed cameras have found out that 99% of bowlers flex their elbow when bowling. so it's unfair of u to just point ur finger at the above mentioned players. Or maybe u just want to ignore that fact because the chucking list include some of ur favourite players.SJS said: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 !!