And here we go again....

[Scallywag]

Remember the good ole days when players accepted the umpires decision and played cricket.

Nowdays they wont accept the umpires decision (certain groups anyway) and will try to infer that the umpire is a cheat or picking on them for some reason, the supporters will accuse the umpire of all sorts of things and personally attack the umpire if he doesn't do things exactaly as the supporters wants.

Soon we will need lawyers, judges and a jury for every decision and wait two days for any appeals, maybe cricket needs to be split into those that want to play by the rules and those that want to rule the rules.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

SJS- i dont agree with your viewpoint there.

One critical flaw in your argument is that it does NOT take into account stuff like illusions created due to permanent flexion in the elbow or hypermobile wrists(both of which Murali has) or deformities like Hyperextension, which is not throwing.

Why should it? As SJS pointed out, the law was originally enforced on the JUDGEMENT of the umpire. We rely on the umpire to an impartial expert in the basic elements of cricket who can oversee the playing of a match and make necessary decisions during in it - one of these is whether or not he is confident that a bowler is bowling with a legal action. If he isn't confident, he calls it as a no-ball and the bowler tries to bowl with a smoother action. If the bowler can't bowl it with an action that is legal in the mind of the umpire then he has a problem.

I have no problem with a bowler who is repeatedly called for throwing going to an expert to attempt to work on corrective measures for his action, but breaking down the entire structure of rules in cricket and requiring someone to go and see an expert in front of high speed cameras at UWA before the umpire can decide if it was a no ball or not is ludicrous.

 

[dinu23]

so ur saying a player with a deformity shouldn't be alowed to pla cricket.

 

[C_C]

it is Irresponsible, shortsighted and selfish to think that the career of a player is worth decieding ON THE SPOT by two old men who arnt even experts in this field.
I certainly dont see any problem with referral to biomechanicians for a thorough checkup...
or do you think it is prudent to put your entire career into the 'capable' (sic) hands of two gents that arnt experts in the said field and are gonna deciede in a matter of moments without thorough research ?

Like i said, a whole lotta hot air comming from people who do not KNOW the standards and procedures set in a biomechanical analysis. Instead of posting notions based on erroneous assumptions and lack of understanding, it would be MUCH more prudent to go visit your local university department of Kinesiology.

Remember the good ole days when players accepted the umpires decision and played cricket.

which players and which days? days of 'Dr. Cheat' aka WG Grace ?

Nowdays they wont accept the umpires decision (certain groups anyway)

Does that group include Shane Warne, who showed dissent and pointed towards the big screen ?

maybe cricket needs to be split into those that want to play by the rules and those that want to rule the rules.

Or instead we could have a democratic vote amongst the cricketing world and see what the majority wants...what says ? or aer ya gonna prove yourself to be predictably marginalist and ignore democracy when it suits your needs ?

Soon we will need lawyers, judges and a jury for every decision and wait two days for any appeals,

no. we will need technology, which utterly solves the question of bias or favouritism/influence and currently performs at a higher level than the human umpire in certain cases.

 

[SJS]

Why should it? As SJS pointed out, the law was originally enforced on the JUDGEMENT of the umpire. We rely on the umpire to an impartial expert in the basic elements of cricket who can oversee the playing of a match and make necessary decisions during in it - one of these is whether or not he is confident that a bowler is bowling with a legal action. If he isn't confident, he calls it as a no-ball and the bowler tries to bowl with a smoother action. If the bowler can't bowl it with an action that is legal in the mind of the umpire then he has a problem.

I have no problem with a bowler who is repeatedly called for throwing going to an expert to attempt to work on corrective measures for his action, but breaking down the entire structure of rules in cricket and requiring someone to go and see an expert in front of high speed cameras at UWA before the umpire can decide if it was a no ball or not is ludicrous.

Absolutely.

And just blook back over the history of the game at the bowlers who have been called before Murali. There isnt one about whom today there is any doubt expressed about the legality of their actions. In each and every case, there is unanimity that the umpires were correct. These fellows DID throw. In fact, if there has been a lapse on the part of the umpires it has been on the side of leniency rather than strictness.

So we can rest assured that bad actions will get weeded out and it will happen at the place where it should...on the ground and WHEN the violation takes place.

All that was required was
a) have on;ly neutral umpires to ensure no motives are imputed to their actions
b) strengthen the hands of the umpires and stress to them that they are tpo call when they are NOT 100% SURE that the delivery is legal and not when they are 100% SURE that it is illegal.
c) Explain to all concerned that a call for throwing does not mean the umpire thinks the bowler is cheating just like a benefit of the doubt to a batsman doesnt mean he was necessarily not out.
d) Ensure (and ICC has to ensure that) the umpiring is strict at all levels, not just international, so that the problem can be rooted out at source and not when it becomes such a major issue for a persons career, livelihood, etc etc.

 

[SJS]

so ur saying a player with a deformity shouldn't be alowed to pla cricket.

How come only those who are called for throwing seem to have hyper extension in their arms ?

How come so many off spinners and fast bowlers are afflicted by it ?

And yes, if a deformity does not allow you to do certain things you do something else.

My son suffers from enkylosing spondylitis. So far the problem is well within controll but he is not able to pursue his career as a pilot although he has worked at and got his license. Tough luck and broken heart !!

 

[C_C]

Why should it? As SJS pointed out, the law was originally enforced on the JUDGEMENT of the umpire

because, like i said, accuracy and credibility of observation is just merely a component of technology. 100 years ago, the human eye was the best damn thing out there to guage these kinda things....today it isnt. So what it originally was, is utterly and completely irrelevant. That is the traditionalist approach which defies logic, reasoning and adaptability that keeps pace with the technology(ies) of the day.

We rely on the umpire to an impartial expert in the basic elements of cricket who can oversee the playing of a match and make necessary decisions during in it -

correct. but the FACT is, it is not the most impartial expert for the job. Therefore, by deduction, it leads to the fact that umpires are POTENTIALLY NOT impartial experts. Before we didnt have a better choice than to ASSUME the honesty and integrity of a decisionmaker that involves a field of pre-determined and set rules and scenarios.
Today, we have a better choice in SOME of the instances but yet some argue with the old, antiquated and inferior modus operandi...which defies logic and the very essence of progression in a society.

I have no problem with a bowler who is repeatedly called for throwing going to an expert to attempt to work on corrective measures for his action, but breaking down the entire structure of rules in cricket and requiring someone to go and see an expert in front of high speed cameras at UWA before the umpire can decide if it was a no ball or not is ludicrous.

Not ludicrous...but responsible and cogent, as i have explained in my previous post.
being called for no-ball wrt to chucking is a huge deal in cricket and almost always career-ending. It is irresponsible and shortsighted to think that such a fundamentally strong and career-altering decision can be made instantly by people who are nto qualified for the job.

 

[C_C]

ow come only those who are called for throwing seem to have hyper extension in their arms ?

Incorrect and erroneous assumption.
Akram has hyperextension, Ambrose had hyperextension and Imran Khan had hyperextension(that i knwo of atleast)....there are ample pictures available of all three to SHOW that they have hyperextension

My son suffers from enkylosing spondylitis. So far the problem is well within controll but he is not able to pursue his career as a pilot although he has worked at and got his license. Tough luck and broken heart !!

Sorry to hear about that and my condolences...but the reason your son isnt gonna be a pilot is because he cannot do the jobs of a pilot safely and competently enough with that condition.
Hyperextension does not involve that.
For equivalent reference, check the case of this paralysed guy who was allowed by PGA to drive a buggy from tee-off range to the hole.

 

[C_C]

There isnt one about whom today there is any doubt expressed about the legality of their actions. In each and every case, there is unanimity that the umpires were correct.

That unanimity comes from the traditionalistic approach rather than logical approach.
The reason no one questioned them IN THE PAST is because umpires and the human eye were the most accurate instruments available to determine that. Today it no longer is. And considering that the umpires have been proven WRONG in the case of Murali along with the notion of who does/doesnt chuck, logically speaking, those past decisions are VERY MUCH questionable.

 

[C_C]

Proof that Akram had hyperextension

To my knowledge, Akram was NEVER called for chucking...therefore, your insinuation that hyperextension is used as a coverup for chucking (especially when that determination is made by neutral party authentic sources such as biomechanists from UWA) are utterly and completely rubbish.

 

[Top_Cat]

As is the pattern in this thread so far, I'm in total agreement with C_C on this one. The issue isn't necessarily whether umpires are impartial (in terms of bias) but whether they are in the best position to judge whether a player throws either under the old rule or the new one. My personal position is that they are not for many reasons;

1) They are watching many other aspects of the the play (no-balls, LBW's, etc.) and so cannot concentrate fully on whether a bowler throws.

2) They aren't in the best position to see any flexion/abduction in the arm anyway. The umpire at the bowler's end is in front of the bowler until they let go of the ball and won't see the delivery whereas the square-leg umpire is too far away to see the movement at the elbow closely.

3) Even if they were in better positions, the movement is too fast for them to judge with any degree of accuracy whether there was any movement at the elbow or not.

4) Even if they had exceptional eye-sight, no umpire I know is an expert on biomechanics and so by definition, should NOT be allowed to judge whether a player's movements are fair or not (not withstanding the optical illusions that hyper-extensions can cause). That should be left in the hands of those who know what they're talking about i.e. the biomechanisists.

5) Even if they were biomechnics experts, as any scientist would, they would want the most precise method of measurement available and you wouldn't find a single scientist saying that their eyes would do the job as well as slow-motion, high shutter-speed photography and associated modelling software.

Why should it? As SJS pointed out, the law was originally enforced on the JUDGEMENT of the umpire. We rely on the umpire to an impartial expert in the basic elements of cricket who can oversee the playing of a match and make necessary decisions during in it - one of these is whether or not he is confident that a bowler is bowling with a legal action.

Mine and C_C's position is that an umpire can never be confident in his own judgement whether a player chucks (well, not confident with any credible degree of justification any way). Any umpire who says he is is deluding himself because it's physically impossible for an umpire to see (under either the old or the new rules) whether a player chucks, not to mention when his eyes play tricks on him (parallax error, optical illusions, etc.). Therefore, the judgement (which is open to legal interpretation) should NEVER be in the hands of someone who is not an expert in the matter. In this case, the umpire is whom I'm referring to.

And just blook back over the history of the game at the bowlers who have been called before Murali. There isnt one about whom today there is any doubt expressed about the legality of their actions. In each and every case, there is unanimity that the umpires were correct. These fellows DID throw. In fact, if there has been a lapse on the part of the umpires it has been on the side of leniency rather than strictness.

Well, having watched repeatedly old footage of Ian Meckiff I possess, I'm of the opinion that in light of newer technology, his action would have a chance of being cleared because the way he bowled looked more like a hyper-extension than a genuine throw (reminded me very much of Shoaib's in fact). I would, in fact, throw out all judgements on players who were judged on the naked eye as he was. By definition, you're dealing with an imperfect instrument (the eye and associated brain activity which is certainly far from precise) and the horrendous degree of error in that case should render the judgements (no matter how many umpires agreed with it) to be null and void. History judges him and others to be chuckers; science may prove history to be wrong (as it has on so many other occasions in so many other fields of endeavour).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

so ur saying a player with a deformity shouldn't be alowed to pla cricket.

Errm, if their deformity doesn't allow them to bowl a legal delivery in the mind of the umpire then obviously they can't play, can they? It's tough luck for them, but people with deformities can't always do the same things as everybody else.

Anyway, you are obviously referring to Murali, and this discussion really isn't about him. He was certainly allowed to bowl by various umpires throughout the years, the problem is that when he WAS called his captain threw a fit and took his team off the field.

Anyway, the issue at hand is how the chucking debate should be handled in terms of rule enforcement, and for mine, like most issues in cricket, it should be left in the hands of the umpire. The only time things should be taken out of the hands of the umpire is when a CLEAR, black and white, yes or no decision can be assisted to a conclusive and simple end by technology aiding a human umpire off the field. Examples are run outs, borderline boundary calls and, if the technology can be put into place well enough, no balls via a cyclops type machine. Catches, lbws and anything else which cannot be decided CONCLUSIVELY by technology every time (or at least 90% of the time, like run outs) in a SHORT period of time should be left in the hands of the umpires. Throwing fails the short time period test, given that it takes... well, weeks. If it can't be made on the field, it's useless. As BoyBrumby said earlier, what happens if Harbhajan is found guilty, given that his doosra should have been called as a no ball? Are India stripped of their win? Are his wickets expunged from his record? It's just a ridiculous complication of a simple situation.

 

[dinu23]

totally agreed there top_cat.

 

[SJS]

Errm, if their deformity doesn't allow them to bowl a legal delivery in the mind of the umpire then obviously they can't play, can they? It's tough luck for them, but people with deformities can't always do the same things as everybody else.

Anyway, you are obviously referring to Murali, and this discussion really isn't about him. He was certainly allowed to bowl by various umpires throughout the years, the problem is that when he WAS called his captain threw a fit and took his team off the field.

Anyway, the issue at hand is how the chucking debate should be handled in terms of rule enforcement, and for mine, like most issues in cricket, it should be left in the hands of the umpire. The only time things should be taken out of the hands of the umpire is when a CLEAR, black and white, yes or no decision can be assisted to a conclusive and simple end by technology aiding a human umpire off the field. Examples are run outs, borderline boundary calls and, if the technology can be put into place well enough, no balls via a cyclops type machine. Catches, lbws and anything else which cannot be decided CONCLUSIVELY by technology every time (or at least 90% of the time, like run outs) in a SHORT period of time should be left in the hands of the umpires. Throwing fails the short time period test, given that it takes... well, weeks. If it can't be made on the field, it's useless. As BoyBrumby said earlier, what happens if Harbhajan is found guilty, given that his doosra should have been called as a no ball? Are India stripped of their win? Are his wickets expunged from his record? It's just a ridiculous complication of a simple situation.

Spot on FDO

Umpires should do the job. Technology can and should be used if, and only if, it can assist them to make a better informed AND on-the-spot decision, not in a far away lab at a later date.

 

[Top_Cat]

Umpires should do the job. Technology can and should be used if, and only if, it can assist them to make a better informed AND on-the-spot decision, not in a far away lab at a later date.

And since it can't, now what? Leave in the hands of the umpire? Sure thing. Of course we would just have to accept a lower degree of accuracy with the call. Now, suppose you were a very promising bowler who is thrown out of the game because your action 'looks' bad but actually isn't; then what?

Just what is your objection to results being analysed later when they can be more accurately determined?

 

[C_C]

Top_Cat: i am in complete agreement with what you are saying.

Errm, if their deformity doesn't allow them to bowl a legal delivery in the mind of the umpire then obviously they can't play, can they? It's tough luck for them, but people with deformities can't always do the same things as everybody else.

True. But whether they are barred from a profession or not is determined by the competence and safety factor of the said profession. A bowler with hyperextension is no less competent than a bowler without hyperextension and doesnt posess a safety risk to himself or another.

Anyway, the issue at hand is how the chucking debate should be handled in terms of rule enforcement, and for mine, like most issues in cricket, it should be left in the hands of the umpire.

I disagree, in light to the consideration that the human eye and developments in certain fields of science render the umpires INCOMPETENT.

Catches, lbws and anything else which cannot be decided CONCLUSIVELY by technology every time (or at least 90% of the time, like run outs) in a SHORT period of time should be left in the hands of the umpires.

Erroneous judgement.
Catches and Lbws can be BETTER judged by technology than umpires. The current hawkeye is the prodigy of one scientist working in his spare time and boasts an error margin of one millimetre. That is FAR more accurate than the human eye and given proper consideration ( since only ONE person was involved in designing it as opposed to a team of qualified and experienced professionals), they can improve on it significantly.
Also the average time for verdict is less than 10 seconds- that is an insignificant amount of time over the course of the entire match.
And in fields of radar guidance ( i am currently using a hawkeye-related technological tool for satillite communications course) the precision is 99.9% with an accuracy of 98.7%
That is significantly superior to the 91-92% precision and accuracy rate of umpires.
Therefore, it is patently INCORRECT to claim that umpires are more accurate/precise in guaging/projecting the path of a projectile than current technology at hand.

. Throwing fails the short time period test, given that it takes... well, weeks. If it can't be made on the field, it's useless.

again, in light to the magnitude of the decision, it is hopelessly irresponsible and shortsighted to think that such a descision can be taken instantaneously or in matter of minutes by an entity not qualified to make that determination ( inferior projection skills, vision and no qualifications in the field concerned - biomechanics). It is akin to advocating that a courtcase be decieded in a matter of seconds or minutes. The decision to noball a bowler carries enormous consequences for a bowler. He automatically gets branded as a chucker and almost always is in a career ending scenario. It is absolute inconsideration from a person to make such a focal decision in such a short span when one is NOT qualified to make that judgement especially in light of a more cogent, conclusive and credible avenue at hand.
This is akin to a construction worker telling me if my thesis paper circuit-board design is adequate or not in a matter of seconds or a plumber decieding on a company merger for the CEO in a matter of seconds....sheer stupidity.

As BoyBrumby said earlier, what happens if Harbhajan is found guilty, given that his doosra should have been called as a no ball? Are India stripped of their win? Are his wickets expunged from his record? It's just a ridiculous complication of a simple situation.

The above condition can ONLY be seriously entertained if all past and present bowlers are put to scrutiny under QUALIFIED people and any instance of chucking in the past decreed as an expunging of the record/stripping of the win.
Since past chuckers have been allowed to keep their records despite being banned for chucking and result of the match remained unaffected, i see no reason why that is gonna be any different if harbhajan is found to be guilty of chucking.

As always... the best possible solution is to incorporate the most accurate and precise modus operandi in hand. Traditionalism at the face of modernisation accomplishes nothing, except going against the fundamentally natural grain of progression in every society

 

[Top_Cat]

No kidding, this assertion that if a technique can't be used in real-time it's useless is akin to saying that if a drug test can't be applied at the moment of a 100m race, it's useless.

Aside from the 'moral' objections, what's the problem with outside testing? Because I ain't seeing it, particularly since a more accurate result can be determined and to avoid a legal challenge, that's exactly what needed to occur.

 

[C_C]

No kidding, this assertion that if a technique can't be used in real-time it's useless is akin to saying that if a drug test can't be applied at the moment of a 100m race, it's useless.

Thank you for providing an analogy that is closer to the sphere of activities we are talking.

 

[SJS]

The common error made everywhere AND on this forum is that the umpires HAVE to be 100 percent sure that a bowler chucks before they can call.

THIS WAS NOT THE LAW.

The umpires had to be 100% sure that the bowler was NOT chucking so as NOT TO CALL .

I hope the difference is clear.

As far as seeing tapes of Mckiff is concerned. Lots of people have seen them. This is the first time I am hearing that he didnt chuck. There was unanimity that he chucked. I dont kknow what the flex angle was. It is not relevant. He threw as you throw deliberately and that is a throw. When you throw from the deep you may take your toime and bend your elbow 90 degrees. On the pother hand you may throw on the run from close in and flex a few degrees only but if you are throwing you are thrpowing.

This 15 degree bunk has been brought in mainly to allow those who throw to survive on the pretext that thjose who bowl also flex their elbows.

What has happened is that while earlier, bending of the elbow ever so slightly was considered as a must for throwing. All this committee has done is to show that there is some flexing (bending) even when NOT throwing. So the definition of throwing has changed.

Flexing of the elbow, irrespective of degree, is not synonymous with throwing any more. That is why, it is even more important to let the umpires decide wheter the action is clean OR doubtful and thats all that was originally meant and thats all that is needed.

While the angle of flex is not possible to verify with the naked eye, a clean and a doubtful action can be separated by an onlooker. THAT IS WHY THE EARELIER SYSTEM WAS BETTER !

 

[SJS]

Just what is your objection to results being analysed later when they can be more accurately determined?

I have already stated in detail. Here is one main reason.

The damage may already have been done on the field of play. The delivery (found illegal 21 days later) may already7 have claimed wicket/s and a match may have been decided based on that.

How does one undo that damage ?

There are other reasons. If you read back you will find them.