Cricket faces chucking crisis

[FaaipDeOiad]

perhaps not, but new evidence suggests that he was, not that i agree with it of course, it is just a theory

New evidence suggests that he flexed his elbow about as much as McGrath, Pollock, Hadlee and other non-chuckers. Running in off 14 paces and throwing it at 100mph is a different matter entirely to legitimate bowling that has an inconsequential level of flexion in the elbow. And given that this bio-mechanist is claiming that this particular feat of chucking can be managed without breaking the 15 degree tolerance limit, the whole theory with regard to changing the level of tolerance is bunk.

 

[chaminda_00]

Ludicrous. You are saying that McGrath is equally a chucker as Meckiff? Chucking has nothing to do with having some miniscule level of flexion in a flawless bowling action, but with purposely NOT bowling with a legitimate cricketing action in order to gain advantage over legitimate bowlers. If a bowler can jog in off 5 steps and purposely chuck it at 100 mph and only flex his elbow 14 degrees or less in the process, then the tolerance levels are FAR too high, or completely irrelevant to whether or not a bowler is actually chucking.

Clearly McGrath is not a chucker and Meckiff is, if they managed to determine from video footage that Meckiff had 14 degrees of flexion that would not change the fact.

I think the guy who did the research has blown the situation over the top. He made it sound a lot worse then it could actually be. If this situation was true then why would majority of other biomencantics(sp) be in favour of the changes.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think the guy who did the research has blown the situation over the top. He made it sound a lot worse then it could actually be. If this situation was true then why would majority of other biomencantics(sp) be in favour of the changes.

To speculate, because they are not experts in cricket. They have analysed video footage and detemined that X bowler has X level of flexion and Y bowler has Y level of flexion and suggested that the level of tolerance be raised based on this factual, scientific conclusion unrelated to the sport of cricket. If in fact it is possible for someone who is not a quality test cricketer to chuck the ball at 100mph (which is 160kph) without flexing more than 15 degrees but still bowling in a manner which would be clearly recognisable as a chuck to an umpire, then this is obviously not the right thing to do at all and the whole concept of measuring a legitimate bowling action through the degree of incidental flexion is the wrong way to go about it, and it should be returned to where it always should have remained, in the hands of the umpires.

 

[C_C]

New evidence suggests that he flexed his elbow about as much as McGrath, Pollock, Hadlee and other non-chuckers. Running in off 14 paces and throwing it at 100mph is a different matter entirely to legitimate bowling that has an inconsequential level of flexion in the elbow. And given that this bio-mechanist is claiming that this particular feat of chucking can be managed without breaking the 15 degree tolerance limit, the whole theory with regard to changing the level of tolerance is bunk.

whether he was called for it or not is irrelevant to the fact whether he broke the rules or not.
Since not detection doesnt mean you didnt break the rules. Merely means any one of the following:

1. You didnt break the rules
2. You broke the rules but pulled strings to save your hiney
3. You broke the rules but the detection system back then wasnt good enough to pick you up on it

In light of newer evidence, attained through better technology and understanding of the situation, it is categoric that Denis Lillee (alongside practically every other bowler there) chucked his way to glory by the rules applicable IN THEIR TIMES.
End of story really.

And If McGrath,Hadlee,Pollock etc. are non-chuckers, so is Murali,Harby,Akhtar,Lee.
For they are all under the tolerance limit specified.
If any of those are chuckers because they have a flexion in the elbow, then McGrath,Hadlee, Pollock etc. are all chuckers too.

As per running in and throwing at 100mph, again, i dont see the problem in the author's warning, considering that the research team, of which he was a part, proved that practically everyone in history of cricket did precisely that - run in and throw at 100mph, if the definition of throwing is set at 'any flexion of the elbow'.

Naked eye or not, that is completely superflous. For your information, in a civil or a criminal court, a case can be re-opened in light of newer evidence that hadn't been considered before due to unavailability.
Same applies here.

 

[chaminda_00]

To speculate, because they are not experts in cricket.

They may not be experts in cricket but either is the guy that did the research.

If in fact it is possible for someone who is not a quality test cricketer to chuck the ball at 100mph (which is 160kph) without flexing more than 15 degrees but still bowling in a manner which would be clearly recognisable as a chuck to an umpire,

Considering no other bio-mechanist have backed him up i have serious doubts wheather it is possible.

then this is obviously not the right thing to do at all and the whole concept of measuring a legitimate bowling action through the degree of incidental flexion is the wrong way to go about it, and it should be returned to where it always should have remained, in the hands of the umpires.

The decision should be left to umpires but umpires no longer have the confidence to call bowlers, so until they regain the confidence then we probably have to look at another way to judge it.

 

[C_C]

To speculate, because they are not experts in cricket.

you dont have to be an expert in cricket to realise whether a given system of physical constraints applies to the human arm. You have to be a biomechanist/kinesiologist to determine that.
Since the people who did the research are kinesiologists/biomechanists and the old fogey umpires/cricketing bigwigs arnt, the former group has far more credibility in what can or cannot be done by the human arm than the latter.

If in fact it is possible for someone who is not a quality test cricketer to chuck the ball at 100mph (which is 160kph) without flexing more than 15 degrees but still bowling in a manner which would be clearly recognisable as a chuck to an umpire, then this is obviously not the right thing to do at all and the whole concept of measuring a legitimate bowling action through the degree of incidental flexion is the wrong way to go about it, and it should be returned to where it always should have remained, in the hands of the umpires.

There never has and never should be a restriction in bowling styles and bowling actions.
The law concerned always dealt with the elbow flexion aspect of the bowling.
As such, umpires have no business trying to stifle the creative spirit of the sport to come up with newer variations- even if it is the field of bowling actions.
If everyone chucked with their 'regular action', they are no less chuckers with my 'irregular action'.
As long as you arnt breaking the elbow flexion rule, you can bowl as you want-be it the classical grace of McGrath or the frog-in-a-blender style of Paul Adams.

All this person is warning is that this new rule will see a proliferation of newer bowling actions and types. Well..nothing wrong with that. As long as the ball is delivered overarm and it doesnt break the elbow-flexion rule(which DOES require tolerance limit), players can bowl however the hell they want to.

 

[SJS]

Funny, I don't recall him ever being no-balled for it.

The problem is chucking is being defined by degree of flex.

This is the fallacy and everything else stems from it.

Chucking or throwing is when a person throws as is understood widely. All of us know a throw and knew it before this flexing and angles were ever talked of.

The problem is that, at that time it was felt that you could define chucking as any act of propelling an object where the elbow was straightened in the act of delivery. This was good enough since anyone who DELIBERATELY tried to throw, ended up bending the elbow sufficiently for ir to be noticed by the onlooker.

This was considered good enough for the onlooker, umpire, to call no ball since at least the action did not appear totally smooth.

It worked and the game remained widely free of chuckers for 150 years.

They did surface now and then but they came to the top not because the system was faulty BUT because the umpires who officiated where they bowled did not have the guts, OR, if they were home umpires for a home bowlers, they did not WANT to call. Otherwise the system was foolproof enough and all that was needed was for the administrative body to strengthen the umpires.

Also, till then, by and large, bowlers who tried to chuck were fast bowlers. Some finger spinners were occasionaly involved, Lock for example, but mostly it was bowlers trying to bowl faster.

Then came Saqlain Mushtaq with his doosra. The umpires were not even looking at a spinner for chucking. The batsmen were mesmerised by the delivery and wondering how to find out if it was turning this way or that. Then like the child in "The Emperor's Clothes" a player or two noticed that he appeared to be chucking. The word spread. Pakistani board and officials went up in arms.

Since then the authorities have got into a bigger and bigger mess trying to strike a balance between the laws of the game and pleasing their affiliate boards from where the offending actions were emanating.

Then came Mr Gavaskar and his great theory. Which talked of flex angles and allowed an arbitrary 5 degrees for spinners, 10 for medium pacers and 15 for fast bowlers. No one understands technicalities and most people who are scared of sounding stupid so every one hesitates to criticise a technical sounding report.

Then started the hoo-haa about the discrimination between fast bowlers and spinners. Clearly it was about Brett Lee and Shoaib versus Harbhajan and Murali. Again a good-for-all solution was found. Allow the highest of the thre limits to all bowlers. What can be better than this to calm everybody and keep the game going and the moolaah flowing?

To add muscle to their "theories" and to shut everyone up, they said, and supported with facts that everyone throws !!! Or rather everyone flexes their elbows. Now take your pick. Flexing the elbow = Throwing
But evry one who bowls flexes. Does that mean Bowling = Throwing ??
Ok we have a solutuin.
Throwing is not illegal if the flex is under 15 degrees but illegal if it is over 15 degrees.

So now.

Throwing can be BOTH legal as well as illegal.

So if some one tells ypou, you throw or chuck the ball. You are not supposed to punch him in the face. You are supposed to say, "Yes I do, but my throwing is legal since my flex is under 15 degrees."

 

[C_C]

The problem is chucking is being defined by degree of flex.

Any law that takes into account the limitations of the human physique/psychology is better defined and not problematic. In essence the pervious law was far more problematic, given the fact that it was unreasonable, idiotic and inaccurate.

Chucking or throwing is when a person throws as is understood widely. All of us know a throw and knew it before this flexing and angles were ever talked of.

no. you didnt know it. If you did, you would've called every single bowler for chucking, since according to your book, chucking = flexing the elbow and it is categorically proven that everyone flexes their elbows.
What you thought you knew was glossed over by the limitations of the human eye.

This was good enough since anyone who DELIBERATELY tried to throw, ended up bending the elbow sufficiently for ir to be noticed by the onlooker.

Inconsistent standards. I am sure if you got someone with a 40/20 vision like Von Richtoffen, he could've spotted a helluva lot more instances of flexion than 50 year old people with diminishing eyesight.
A rule must be taken into accordance with the best deterministic means available at that point. Today it is technology so any determination must be made by technology and not by an inferior tool.

It worked and the game remained widely free of chuckers for 150 years.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.
It is ignorant to think that no one flexed their elbows in the last 150 years- not only is it ignorant, it is also inaccurate.
What you didnt know and couldnt determine back then didnt bother you. But today you can determine it and learn to deal with it, instead of applying 'well it worked previously...lets go back to that even though it is complitely false in light of modern evidence' line of thought- which is erroneous and shortsighted.

They did surface now and then but they came to the top not because the system was faulty BUT because the umpires who officiated where they bowled did not have the guts, OR, if they were home umpires for a home bowlers, they did not WANT to call. Otherwise the system was foolproof enough and all that was needed was for the administrative body to strengthen the umpires.

They didnt surface until now BECAUSE the system was faulty and crude. With greater precision, more errors are caught and this is a quintissential case.

No one understands technicalities and most people who are scared of sounding stupid so every one hesitates to criticise a technical sounding report.

Then it is the perogative of those people to understand the technicalities before commenting on it. To do otherwise is commenting on something without full understanding of it. Which , in short, *IS* stupid.

Allow the highest of the thre limits to all bowlers. What can be better than this to calm everybody and keep the game going and the moolaah flowing?

Factually incorrect.
The analysis wasnt restricted to these four bowlers but involved a lot of international and domestic bowlers. It was found that quiete a few approached the 15 degree mark but very few exceeded it. Which made it a logical choice for limit.

Does that mean Bowling = Throwing ??

If throwing is defined as ANY flexion of the elbow, then yes, bowling is throwing.
That is a simple, elementary deduction.

Throwing can be BOTH legal as well as illegal.

ofcourse. legality often depends on the severity and degree of transgression involved.
A killer is not necessarily a murderer even though they've done the same thing, which is extinguishing the life in a person.( for eg: you killed someone in self defence). Whether it is considered an accident or a first degree cold blooded transgression is dictated by the circumstances surrounding the event and not the event itself.
That applies in a court of law, that applies in theology and metaphysics and that also applies in sports.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There never has and never should be a restriction in bowling styles and bowling actions.
The law concerned always dealt with the elbow flexion aspect of the bowling.

This is factually incorrect and shows your clear lack of understanding of both the history of the laws of cricket and intent behind the original chucking law. The original law of chucking mentioned nothing about degrees of elbow flexion, but simply prohibited a player throwing the ball, and in the process pointed out the blatantly obvious fact that throwing as opposed to bowling involved straightening the arm in the act of delivery. This had nothing at all to do with incidental straightening to the arm which is invisible to the naked eye and has been proven to exist in the action of every bowler, but with DELIBERATELY subverting the rules of cricket by straightening your arm to gain an advantage over legitimate bowlers. It is significantly easier to bowl faster and with more accuracy by chucking than by bowling, and the original law was designed to prevent bowlers from chucking the ball to obtain these advantages, and the square leg umpire was instructed to watch the bowling action of the bowler to see if he was deliberately straightening his arm in delivery to gain advantage. One bowler who did this was Ian Meckiff, and whether he straightened it 4 degrees, 14 degress or 24 degrees is irrelevant - the fact is he was a chucker while Hadlee, Pollock and McGrath are not.

I mean, try it out in your backyard. First, throw the ball as you would returning it from the outfield. The ball will go quickly and accurately, and your elbow will straighten to a large degree. Next, jog a few steps and try bowling with a normal cricketing action but keeping your arm slightly bent and straightening it at the last second to get a significant boost in pace. This is what constitutes chucking in terms of the laws of cricket - throwing the ball by straightening your elbow as opposed to bowling with your arm straight, and attempting to disguise it as a legitimate cricket delivery. Chances are you will still have to straighten your arm a significant degree, but all a bowler has to do under the current rules to manage this is get their level of flexion under 14 degrees. If, as this particular bio-mechanist claims, this can be done, then we will soon see an army of bowlers jogging in off 5 steps and chucking the ball within the 15 degree limit at a quicker pace than Brett Lee with greater accuracy given that it is significantly easier to throw the ball at a particular spot than bowl it. This is exactly what the law of cricket regarding chucking was designed to stop, and the gutless attempts by the ICC to appease cricket boards who could not handle their bowlers being told they were chucking the ball has taken this law and made it completely useless. It is now a) unenforcable and b) does not restrict the ability of bowlers to chuck as opposed to bowl. This has nothing to do with new bowling actions, but with bowlers no longer having to bowl at all.

SJS is dead on the money in the respect that the chucking issue never had anything to do with a specific level of flexion you were allowed and a specific degree you were not allowed. It is about deliberately throwing the ball as opposed to bowling it with a more-or-less straight arm, and it has the potential to change cricket in a massive and harmful fashion if the theory espoused in this article is accurate.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Naked eye or not, that is completely superflous. For your information, in a civil or a criminal court, a case can be re-opened in light of newer evidence that hadn't been considered before due to unavailability.
Same applies here.

Not in the case of aquittal it can't, and that is what is being done here, sullying the reputation of past bowlers by claiming that they were chuckers when they clearly were not.

Anyway, I thought your "field of expertise" alternated between bio-mechanics, mechanical engineering and sociology. Are you going to lecture a law student about the functioning of the legal system now?

 

[C_C]

This is factually incorrect and shows your clear lack of understanding of both the history of the laws of cricket and intent behind the original chucking law. The original law of chucking mentioned nothing about degrees of elbow flexion, but simply prohibited a player throwing the ball, and in the process pointed out the blatantly obvious fact that throwing as opposed to bowling involved straightening the arm in the act of delivery.

you would wish to read what i wrote again. Irrespective of HOW the elbow flexion rule is defined or undefined, the rule still addresses elbow flexion.

As per the bolded part,
the ACCURATE fact is that bowling involves flexion of the arm (straightening is too arbitary-technically it can also be bending the arm for throwing) and a simple prohibition of flexing the arm is incorrect and inaccurate because the human system is INCAPABLE of doing so and thereby every bowler is guilty of it.

This had nothing at all to do with incidental straightening to the arm which is invisible to the naked eye and has been proven to exist in the action of every bowler, but with DELIBERATELY subverting the rules of cricket by straightening your arm to gain an advantage over legitimate bowlers.

Unless you can categorically prove that Murali/harby/Akhtar/Lee's flexion is deliberate and not incidental straightening, you have no ground to stand on.

It is significantly easier to bowl faster and with more accuracy by chucking than by bowling, and the original law was designed to prevent bowlers from chucking the ball to obtain these advantages, and the square leg umpire was instructed to watch the bowling action of the bowler to see if he was deliberately straightening his arm in delivery to gain advantage. One bowler who did this was Ian Meckiff, and whether he straightened it 4 degrees, 14 degress or 24 degrees is irrelevant - the fact is he was a chucker while Hadlee, Pollock and McGrath are not.

Can you wrap your mind around the fact that bowling involves flexion of the elbow ?
Can you ?
If you can then consider that the rule stated that any flexion of the elbow is chucking.
Therefore, ANY bowling is technically chucking without tolerance limits specified.
Whether a bowler is DELIBERATELY straightening the arm or not is pure conjencture and until you make some breakthrough progress in the field of brain study, you are in no position to comment.
I can say then that Meckiff wasnt deliberately straightening his arm but McGrath/Pollock are.
Care to prove me wrong ?

And the fact is very simple: WITHOUT tolerance limit, everyone is a chucker. WITH tolerance limit, not every one is a chucker. Try to wrap your mind around that.

First, throw the ball as you would returning it from the outfield. The ball will go quickly and accurately, and your elbow will straighten to a large degree.

Common misunderstanding and erroneous assumption by the masses.
Throwing from the outfield if a different action than bowling, involving different variations of musco-skeletal forces and therefore, it is irrelevant what happens in the case of throwing from the outfield.
Thats like comparing the dynamics of walking with a roundhouse kick. They are different motions and thus irrelevant.

his is what constitutes chucking in terms of the laws of cricket - throwing the ball by straightening your elbow as opposed to bowling with your arm straight, and attempting to disguise it as a legitimate cricket delivery.

And for the umpteenth time, it has been categorically proven that straightening (OR BENDING) the elbow has been done by almot all bowlers in history of cricket and nobody bowls with an absolutely straight elbow. Thus everyone in cricketing history has disguised their chuck as a legitimate ball.
Whether it is incidental or premeditated- i dont think you can make that call.

Chances are you will still have to straighten your arm a significant degree, but all a bowler has to do under the current rules to manage this is get their level of flexion under 14 degrees. If, as this particular bio-mechanist claims, this can be done, then we will soon see an army of bowlers jogging in off 5 steps and chucking the ball within the 15 degree limit at a quicker pace than Brett Lee with greater accuracy given that it is significantly easier to throw the ball at a particular spot than bowl it.

Tough beans for the batsmen then.
There was no rule to how long the bowler's run up needs be, whether chest-on or side-on action is legal/illegal etc etc. and to introduce it now is incredibly shortsighted.
The dynamics is simple. These are the rules, anything within rules is acceptable.
Rules concern bowling overarm and the elbow flexion. if it is within rules, it is within rules. Period.

his is exactly what the law of cricket regarding chucking was designed to stop, and the gutless attempts by the ICC to appease cricket boards who could not handle their bowlers being told they were chucking the ball has taken this law and made it completely useless. It is now a) unenforcable and b) does not restrict the ability of bowlers to chuck as opposed to bowl. This has nothing to do with new bowling actions, but with bowlers no longer having to bowl at all.

The law of cricket tried to stop something that in reality CANNOT be stopped. Therefore the only way to go is either accept the reality- that everyone chucks and therefore tolerance level is required or scrap the rule alltogether.
And the law has been made redundant based on ACCURATE FACTFINDING USING SCIENTIFIC BASIS, not cricket-politics.

It is now a) unenforcable and b) does not restrict the ability of bowlers to chuck as opposed to bowl. This has nothing to do with new bowling actions, but with bowlers no longer having to bowl at all.

The previous law was equally unenforcable, given that everyone chucked.
And given that bowling is technically chucking, there is no difference in it without tolerance limit speficifications.

It is about deliberately throwing the ball as opposed to bowling it with a more-or-less straight arm, and it has the potential to change cricket in a massive and harmful fashion if the theory espoused in this article is accurate.

And you have to be able to categorically prove a players' intention before you can make that assertion.
Question is, can you? Can you PROVE that Meckiff deliberately chucked but mcgrath doesnt deliberately chuck ?

 

[C_C]

Not in the case of aquittal it can't, and that is what is being done here, sullying the reputation of past bowlers by claiming that they were chuckers when they clearly were not

The country i come from (Canada), along with many other countries ( US, IND, several middle-eastern nations, Italy, etc.) allows any case to be opened - aquittals and/or guilty verdicts in light of newer evidence that hadnt been considered before.
I dont know in australia, but precident has been set in Canada and the US over it - a murderer who was aquitted in the-then timeframe CAN and HAS been tried in light of newer forensic evidence, especially in cases from the 40s/50s that had little or no DNA analysis being reopened in the 70s/80s.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The country i come from (Canada), along with many other countries ( US, IND, several middle-eastern nations, Italy, etc.) allows any case to be opened - aquittals and/or guilty verdicts in light of newer evidence that hadnt been considered before.
I dont know in australia, but precident has been set in Canada and the US over it - a murderer who was aquitted in the-then timeframe CAN and HAS been tried in light of newer forensic evidence, especially in cases from the 40s/50s that had little or no DNA analysis being reopened in the 70s/80s.

...

Think about it for a second. A murderer is AQUITTED... found NOT GUILTY by a jury of peers. If new evidence comes to light, the trial CAN NOT be re-opened. It could only be re-opened in the case of a mis-trial where the charges are dismissed. A guilty verdict can always be challenged in light of new evidence, an aquittal can not be under any circumstances. Hell, if someone CONFESSES to the crime after being aquitted they still can't be charged with it again. For further information, consult the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[C_C]

I am not a lawyer and i am merely talking from knowledge of incidents.

You claim that under no circumstances can a person, who has been found 'not guilty' by the jury, be tried again, even in light of newer eviendce.
And 'newer evidence' can be used only to upturn a wrong 'guilty' verdict.

Now, can you tell me how this case can happen ?

This incident(i am pretty sure was the backdrop of 'missisippi burning') fits what i am saying.
Two white males were found 'not guilty' by their peers for the murder of a black minor(acquitted) and then after so many years, the Justice Department is re-opening the case in light of new evidence.

Also, if you see the case of Edgar Ray Killen, you will find that the former Klan member was acquitted in 1967 and then recharged with 3 counts of murder in 2005.

Again, i am not an authority in this, but it does seem to fit the case of 'found not guilty by the-then presented set of evidence but will be tried again(and possibly found guilty) based on a newer set of evidence'.

 

[Scallywag]

The rule states once the umpire has made his decision it final, I dont think it matters what the Canadian, US or Italian courts say. Anyway they dont even know anything about cricket.

 

[C_C]

The rule states once the umpire has made his decision it final, I dont think it matters what the Canadian, US or Italian courts say. Anyway they dont even know anything about cricket.

Why oh why cant i ignore the sound of critters on the field when i go a-hunting ?

 

[Scallywag]

Why oh why cant i ignore the sound of critters on the field when i go a-hunting ?

Cos when you go a hunting you try and use a shotgun to kill flies.

How idiotic to start quoting American and Canadian laws in reference to bowlers bending their arms or not. Its cricket and a sport for gods sake.

 

[C_C]

How idiotic to start quoting American and Canadian laws in reference to bowlers bending their arms or not. Its cricket and a sport for gods sake.

Try following the conversation.

I made an assertion that based on new evidence, Lillee,Holding,Marshall,Lindwall et. all are chuckers.
Faaip said that you cannot call them guilty since the umpires didnt call them.
I said that it is irrelevant if the umpires called them or not because being called/not called doesnt necessarily mean one is/isnt a chucker...merely means that(assuming fairplay) at the current time, the evidence required wasnt available and i proceeded to state that it is similar in a court of law.

At this faaip said that "once found guilty, you cannot be re-charged. period in a court of law".
At this, i said the country I Come from, along with several other countries(USA for eg) allows this.
Faaip said that isnt true and quoted a part of the US constitution to me.
I then posed a question to him on how can cases like Killen and the murder of Till be reopened with re-charging of the accused, who've been declared not guilty previously.
And now i am currently waiting for his response.

Do try to follow the conversation instead of picking stuff outta context.
Whether cricket is a sport, an illicit activity or the most important thing on this planet is irrelevant.
The point about raising the judicial angle is to debate the consistency of any decision, be it judicial or non judicial.

 

[Scallywag]

I did follow the conversation and FaaipDeOiad was making a valid point but you as usual introduced something not relevent to cricket to muddy the waters.

Its called if you cant dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshyt.

 

[C_C]

If you did follow the convo, you would realise that i am merely raising a point about consistency and what is logically and ethically consistent.

saying the older chucking law should apply may be far less severe in grand scheme of things but it is just as logically and ethically void as saying negroes are inferior to whites.

If you cannot make that connection, do read the thread several times.