Cricket faces chucking crisis

[FaaipDeOiad]

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

Yes, I can. Note the following sections of the article:
Four months after the trial, knowing that double jeopardy protected them from being tried again, Bryant and Milam admitted to a reporter from Look magazine that they had in fact tortured and murdered Till. They were paid $4,000 for their story.

And...
When the U.S. Justice Department announced recently that it was opening a new investigation into the 1955 murder, it said the case was a “grotesque miscarriage of justice,” and that it is examining evidence pointing to the possible involvement of more than a dozen people.
Bryant and Milam, who were tried and acquitted, are dead, but a number of others are still alive and could face criminal charges for their roles in Till’s abduction, beating, murder and attempts to cover it up.

So to clarify, Bryant and Milam, were they still alive, would be exempt from prosecution by the 5th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. They can never be re-tried for the same crime after being aquitted by a jury, regardless of the circumstances, and this is shown by the fact that they confessed to the crime afterwards but were never re-tried. The case is being re-opened because new evidence suggests other people not previously tried could be responsible, and obviously they are not protected by the 5th Amendment as they were never tried and as such are not being "subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb".

And, I am not familiar with the case of Edgar Ray Killen in terms of specifics, but I would assume based on what you said that he was being tried for different murders or a different crime, simply because it is grossly unconstitutional to re-try anybody for a crime. The only possible method I could imagine was if an aquittal could be overturned and declared a mistrial on the grounds that the jury was bribed or threatened in some fashion into giving a verdict that they did not believe. Even this would be difficult to manage, but it is about the only way I can imagine that the US Supreme Court would allow a violation of the 5th Amendment in order to prosecute a criminal who had already been tried once for the crime in question.

 

[telsor]

My understanding of retrials is that the evidence can only be used once, so the eye witness that was in the first trial can't be used in the second, but new forensics developed since can be used. There are a few loopholes that allow evidence from trial one to be brought in if it can be related to the new stuff, although I'm not sure exactly what is needed to make that qualify.


Back to the real issue.

Having a set degree is there because small minded people can't accept the umpires decision without calling him a cheat, so they brought in a rule where no discression is allowed and the limits set so loosely that they offend nobody.

That this rule makes international cricket subject to a different set of rules to all other forms of cricket seems irrelevant to these people.

NB, nowhere did anyone say that McGrath, Pollock etc bowled anywhere near 15%, the statement was that all bowlers arms bent as they bowled and some bowlers got upto almost 15%. In other words, 90% of bowlers may have been less that 5%, but the limit was set so as not to offend the few who were higher. ( NB. the numbers are indicicative, and not meant to be taken literally ).

BTW, bending the arm != straightening the arm, and only the latter is illegal.

The biomechanical process that requires the arm to bend is quite likely to cause the ball to be slower. If the elbow faces the batsman, the speed the hand moves will actually be slower than if it had remained rigid.

If the elbow is facing away from the batsman and the arm is getting straighter, that is 'against' the laws of physics and the result of arm muscles tightening..ie, a deliberate action and therefore a 'throw'. The doosra requires this kind of action.

 

[vic_orthdox]

yeah, there's a guy who i play cricket against who bowls legspin. his whole action uses a bent arm, and he bends it further as he progresses, with his release point above the left hand side of his head. now under this law he's deemed to be legal. it would be interesting to see what people would have thought of him if he played 15 years ago.

 

[SJS]

Having a set degree is there because small minded people can't accept the umpires decision without calling him a cheat, so they brought in a rule where no discression is allowed and the limits set so loosely that they offend nobody.

How does that matter ? Lot of people dont accept some LBW decisions, some bat pad decisions, the law is not tinkered with to get this dissenters numbers to reduce. There aill always be dissenters if someone is going to fair badly due to a decision which he thinks he can make a noise about.

 

[C_C]

The only possible method I could imagine was if an aquittal could be overturned and declared a mistrial on the grounds that the jury was bribed or threatened in some fashion into giving a verdict that they did not believe. Even this would be difficult to manage, but it is about the only way I can imagine that the US Supreme Court would allow a violation of the 5th Amendment in order to prosecute a criminal who had already been tried once for the crime in question.

Could it also be overturned by any argument regarding the integrity/fairness of the jurors in concern ? Ie, if your jury is predominantly KKK or near-KKK mentality and the trial is of a racial nature, can it be argued that the jury who were initially picked can be seen as unfit later down the road ?

In anycase, you i think you can legally say person A had violated rules before but never charged because of evidence back then.
Never being charged due to lack of evidence(and therefore, being newly charged) isnt the same as standing a trial and being aquitted.

Having a set degree is there because small minded people can't accept the umpires decision without calling him a cheat, so they brought in a rule where no discression is allowed and the limits set so loosely that they offend nobody.

No having a set degree is there because it isnt contradictory and hypocritical as the old law.
According to the old law, if you flex your arm, you chuck. Well by that definition, EVERY SINGLE BOWLER is a chucker and therefore, i think McGrath deserves just as much heat as Murali got.

NB, nowhere did anyone say that McGrath, Pollock etc bowled anywhere near 15%, the statement was that all bowlers arms bent as they bowled and some bowlers got upto almost 15%. In other words, 90% of bowlers may have been less that 5%, but the limit was set so as not to offend the few who were higher. ( NB. the numbers are indicicative, and not meant to be taken literally ).

I would say 11-12 degree flexion is damn close to 15 degrees, wouldnt you ?
Again, you are going by optical illusions and lack of understanding of the human dynamics..one's action may LOOK better than another's but it is a fact that the previous person can flex just as much or maybe even more than the latter one. That is the gist of the study and that is what you folks arnt grasping.

BTW, bending the arm != straightening the arm, and only the latter is illegal.

No. You are wrong. ANY elbow flexion is illegal according to the old law. Be it bending or straightening.

The biomechanical process that requires the arm to bend is quite likely to cause the ball to be slower. If the elbow faces the batsman, the speed the hand moves will actually be slower than if it had remained rigid.

If the elbow is facing away from the batsman and the arm is getting straighter, that is 'against' the laws of physics and the result of arm muscles tightening..ie, a deliberate action and therefore a 'throw'. The doosra requires this kind of action.

Not necessarily. I have tried in my backyard(and i am a pacer).. you can bowl just as quickly while bending your elbow-infact in some instances you can bowl it quicker, since you are now exerting torque on the ball using the muscles on your upper arm as oppsed to a straight arm where the upper arm muscles dont come into play.

And elbow facing away from the batsman->arm straightening isnt against the laws of physics. If something was against laws of physics, it couldnt be done.
And like i said, until you can credibly accuse someone of doing something deliberately/perchance in this matter, you cannot say whether he/she is doing it deliberately or not.
McGrath can be a deliberate chucker as well.

What is fundamental about consistency is that you cannot be penalising/criticising one man (Murali) while supporting/not criticising another(mcGrath) when they are guilty of exactly the same thing ( flexing the elbow) and you have absolutely no way of telling who is doing it deliberately and who isnt. For all we know, like i said before, McGrath could be the deliberate chucker and murali by happenstance.