Chuckers....

[open365]

Is there any bowler in world FC or international cricket that has been called for a chuck and stopped playing?

there seems to be a lot of people being called nowadays but as yet, i've they all seem to have been cleared.

 

[greg]

Is there any bowler in world FC or international cricket that has been called for a chuck and stopped playing?

there seems to be a lot of people being called nowadays but as yet, i've they all seem to have been cleared.

What happened to that Perera bloke who played against England at Lords in 2002?

Technically I think, Shabbir wasn't "cleared". He had his action remodelled and it is the remodelled action that was cleared. IMO it would make more sense (allow would probably be challenged in the courts) if the criteria were made a lot stricter for remodelled actions.

 

[The Baconator]

I think one of the Aussie guys who played in the tied test was called for chucking shortly after and never played again.

 

[cameeel]

Is there any bowler in world FC or international cricket that has been called for a chuck and stopped playing?

there seems to be a lot of people being called nowadays but as yet, i've they all seem to have been cleared.

Ian Meckiff was called out of the game in the 60's, He was a left arm fast bowler with a very suspect action, although it'd probably pass now since the ICC changed the rules.

 

[greg]

I don't think open365 was really talking about bowlers from the past, but in recent years. Back then of course an accusation of chucking was clearly enough to end a player' s career.

 

[Richard]

What happened to that Perera bloke who played against England at Lords in 2002?

Ruchira Perera has had a somewhat disjointed international career since his 1998\99 debut, with a perfectly legal action in all games bar Lord's 2002.
He is, however, a little on the rubbish side of average and hasn't played much lately with the cooing over Maharoof, Malinga and the like.

 

[Richard]

I don't think open365 was really talking about bowlers from the past, but in recent years. Back then of course an accusation of chucking was clearly enough to end a player' s career.

Mercifully times have changed. The procedures these days are far more appropriate - private reports, sparing bowlers of on-field humiliation and all emphasis on correcting the problems.
Which, happily, means more bowlers are corrected and less forced-out.
Amazing that Tony Lock became a chucker in 1954 and thought nothing of it for 5 years until repenting upon seeing film of himself in 1959.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Kirtley Banned

From cricinfo:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/222380.html

It's funny, isn't it? Despite the new tolerance limits it still seems to be the bowlers with the unconventional looking actions who get reported...

Kirtley's looks horrible (always has), but with the new regs he's probably no more guilty than many other seamers. Unfortunately (for him) he'll come under more scrutiny because of his action's look to the naked eye; which, as the bio-mec studies have shown us, is a v unreliable tool.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not entirely to the point, but I'll mention it anyway. I dislike the way the ICC handles the whole issue. By allowing a grace period between the time a bowler is reported and the time assessment and adjustments of his action are made, it basically gives license for that bowler to throw. As the bowler is allowed to continue playing within that time, and can't be reported again, he could technically run in and throw the ball every delivery. The ruling tells bowlers, "you're a chucker, but for now, chuck away".

I dislike the term "chucker" too.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Not entirely to the point, but I'll mention it anyway. I dislike the way the ICC handles the whole issue. By allowing a grace period between the time a bowler is reported and the time assessment and adjustments of his action are made, it basically gives license for that bowler to throw. As the bowler is allowed to continue playing within that time, and can't be reported again, he could technicalled run in and throw the ball every delivery. The ruling tells bowlers, "you're a chucker, but for now, chuck away".

I dislike the term "chucker" too.

It's an interesting point, but I guess it's the old "innocent until proven guilty" thing. If a player was banned straight away & his action was shown to be within the tolerance range after inspection he's been taken out of the game for no reason.

It's a v thorny topic, no doubt...

& what would you prefer as a synonym for "chucker"? "Thrower"? "Elbow flexionly challenged"?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It's an interesting point, but I guess it's the old "innocent until proven guilty" thing. If a player was banned straight away & his action was shown to be within the tolerance range after inspection he's been taken out of the game for no reason.

It's a v thorny topic, no doubt...

& what would you prefer as a synonym for "chucker"? "Thrower"? "Elbow flexionly challenged"?

I like any term which contains "flexionly" actually. I use it in all my pickup lines.

I think it's fairer to have a bowler sit on the sidelines until proven innocent than to be allowed to act guilty for weeks whether or not he's innocent.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Liam's point is a very good one.

To take an example (and it's just one of many), look at Harbhajan Singh in the series against Pakistan fairly recently. That was a big series... India vs Pakistan is as big as they come. Harbhajan was reported for throwing, made a date with the bio-mechanists, and yet continued to bowl. Say he had taken 8/50 in the fourth innings of a deciding test and won the series for India, then a few weeks later gone to UWA, had the tests done and it was determined that his doosra (with which he took, say, four wickets) had a flexion level of 22 degrees.

What happens to the test in which he threw the ball, the umpires knew he was throwing the ball, HE possibily knew he was throwing the ball, the batsmen suspected he was throwing the ball, and in which he took 8 wickets and won the match? A few years ago, the umpires would have no balled him and his wickets wouldn't have counted, but now surely they would have to count.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The system we have is a nonsense, no doubt.

To use Faaip's scenario tho, I guess one could also imagine the reverse coming to pass: Harbhajan is reported, sits out the series which Pakistan narrowly win with Kaneria & Afridi spinning India to defeat on bunsens & the tests show a flexion of 13 degrees?

It's lose-lose, really. What is needed is technology that can tell the standing umps during a game that a bowler is outside the tolerance range. Until that's readily available, frankly I'm stumped!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yes, and until such a time as that technology is available, what we need is a set of rules which can be enforced by the umpires on the field at the time, like the ones we had until relatively recently. I'm not suggesting those accused of chucking sit on the sidelines for a few weeks and then have a test that is, frankly, completely irrelevant to how they actually bowl on the field of play. Rather, that the umpires, as they did for over a century, make a judgement call based on the intent of the bowler and the appearance of the action rather than a specific degree of flexion.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hmm. Can open, worms everywhere!

I'll just say that such a system would be practically impossible to enforce without bringing down an absolutely massive schisse storm down on any ump brave enough to call someone.

 

[social]

Not entirely to the point, but I'll mention it anyway. I dislike the way the ICC handles the whole issue. By allowing a grace period between the time a bowler is reported and the time assessment and adjustments of his action are made, it basically gives license for that bowler to throw. As the bowler is allowed to continue playing within that time, and can't be reported again, he could technicalled run in and throw the ball every delivery. The ruling tells bowlers, "you're a chucker, but for now, chuck away".

I dislike the term "chucker" too.

Exactly, the new regulations are a joke.

Hypothetically, a bowler can produce a match-winning performance without any sanction whilst all the time bowling with an illegal action.

The ICC has simply lost the will to combat such an emotive issue.

 

[greg]

From cricinfo:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/222380.html

It's funny, isn't it? Despite the new tolerance limits it still seems to be the bowlers with the unconventional looking actions who get reported...

Kirtley's looks horrible (always has), but with the new regs he's probably no more guilty than many other seamers. Unfortunately (for him) he'll come under more scrutiny because of his action's look to the naked eye; which, as the bio-mec studies have shown us, is a v unreliable tool.

Kirtley has been banned because he has been found to be in breach of the 15 degree limit, not because he "looks bad".

 

[Slow Love™]

Yes, and until such a time as that technology is available, what we need is a set of rules which can be enforced by the umpires on the field at the time, like the ones we had until relatively recently. I'm not suggesting those accused of chucking sit on the sidelines for a few weeks and then have a test that is, frankly, completely irrelevant to how they actually bowl on the field of play. Rather, that the umpires, as they did for over a century, make a judgement call based on the intent of the bowler and the appearance of the action rather than a specific degree of flexion.

I can't see how that can be fairly policed, given what we now know, though. Firstly, I don't like decisions made where an umpire is guessing as to the bowler's "intent". And secondly, it will lead to the scenarios Brumby mentioned - a) those with more unorthodox actions such as bent arms will be targeted when they don't necessarily transgress, and b) the possibility that a player bowling legitimate deliveries can be taken out of an attack during a match.

I'm aware of the "what if a guy just comes in and pitches it baseball style?" argument, but I think the best counter-argument is that it hasn't happened. (And I think we'd experience a player walkoff if it did.) Ideally though, I do really want real-time calls during play, and hopefully the technology to do this properly and effectively isn't long off, and we can then set severe penalties for breaking the rules. Until then, I'd rather stick with being more cautious, myself.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I can't see how that can be fairly policed, given what we now know, though. Firstly, I don't like decisions made where an umpire is guessing as to the bowler's "intent". And secondly, it will lead to the scenarios Brumby mentioned - a) those with more unorthodox actions such as bent arms will be targeted when they don't necessarily transgress, and b) the possibility that a player bowling legitimate deliveries can be taken out of an attack during a match.

Well, legitimate is the key point. Certainly, if umpires policed it, people might concievably be called for bowling with flexion under 15 degrees (although I doubt it personally), and if you believe that 15 degrees is the level at which someone is throwing the ball, then yes. However, we have no particular reason to believe that Ian Meckiff bowled with flexion of over 15 degrees. He might have, but maybe he bowled at 13 or 14 some of the time too, ot at least would have in lab conditions. That doesn't alter the fact that every major official of his time as well as most players believed that it was right to ban him and that he did indeed throw the ball.

I'm aware of the "what if a guy just comes in and pitches it baseball style?" argument, but I think the best counter-argument is that it hasn't happened. (And I think we'd experience a player walkoff if it did.) Ideally though, I do really want real-time calls during play, and hopefully the technology to do this properly and effectively isn't long off, and we can then set severe penalties for breaking the rules. Until then, I'd rather stick with being more cautious, myself.

If someone pitched it baseball style of course it would be a very different matter, although personally I would be rather pleased if it happened as it would simply show up how ridiculous the current system of combating throwing is. Either way, what is more likely and indeed more dangerous than someone pitching it in a test match is bowlers being encouraged to "throw it a bit" in order to gain some sort of advantage, and thereby completely altering what is considered "bowling" in the traditional sense. I'm not exactly a rabid traditionalist, but I am genuinely bothered by the idea of young cricketers being taught that instead of keeping your arm as straight as possible when bowling, they could straighten it a bit to get a bit of extra pace of turn it a bit more. There's already been plenty of talk from coaches and cricketers at various levels about encouraging bowlers to push the new limits and see how much advantage they could get from it, and I think it's a real problem.

I'm also a lot more annoyed with the ICC for losing the ability to handle this issue because of how sensitive it is than, say, giving Bangladesh test status too early.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If you're suggesting that the degree of flexing be made smaller and more exact, that would surely eliminate half the world's bowlers from playing the game legally. It would be a mass exodus.