• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jonbrooks chucking Megathread

J

jonbrooks

International Debutant
Dan said:
Yep, because the law has been changed for Shoaib Akhtar, Shabbir Ahmed, James Kirtley, Johan Botha (twice), Abdur Razzak, Shane Shillingford (twice) and Marlon Samuels, not to mention all those who were reported and not sanctioned -- Saeed Ajmal, Mohammad Hafeez, Jermaine Lawson, Brett Lee, Shoaib Malik, Harbhajan Singh and, somewhat hilariously, current Test umpire Kumar Dharmasena (who spent a year out of the game to remodel his action).

Grant Flower, Shahid Afridi, Henry Olonga, Courtney Walsh and Darren Gough also all had issues. Curtly Ambrose was also no-balled for throwing early in his career.

Lots of law changes for all of them.

So let's assume a conspiracy. From the list above, players from Australia, Bangladesh, England, New Zealand, South Africa, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and Zimbabwe have all been implicated. We've got off spinners, leg spinners and pacemen of various speeds all being cited. Some players are successful, others pretty mediocre. Some full-time bowlers, some part-timers.

But only one change to the law coming out of all of this, when the ICC actually bothered to begin biomechanically testing people, which just so happens to coincide with when Murali was called. Definitely got paid off by the SLC, such a huge body flushed with so much cash. The ICC are totally reptilians changing the law to undermine cricket because they all secretly hate it.

I wonder if there was a conspiracy when the LBW law got changed all those years ago. It served fast bowlers pretty well. Or when back foot no balls were abolished; definitely a conspiracy there. Laws change when they become unworkable, or the basis on which they rest is undermined by changing circumstances and/or new information. That goes in both the political and sporting realms.

You wouldn't charge someone under the Witchcraft Act of 1535, much in the way you wouldn't charge a bowler under the old chucking law of zero tolerance for straightening. The basis of both, as we are now aware, is pure fiction.

I ****ing hate conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
Oh my what a rant. Glad you got that off your chest ... but you are mistaken.

The reason the laws were changed was because the ICC could not go back on what they'd done i.e. let Muralitharan off. By this stage Muralitharan had already amassed several hundred wickets and if they were to ban him at this stage there would have been a mighty uproar (both for and against). That is why they changed the rules. For the ICC it solved one problem i.e. allowed Muralitharan to continue playing, but it unfortunately created another in more and more chuckers playing the game.
 
ImpatientLime

ImpatientLime

International Regular
What tests and analysis were run when the ICC declared that the likes of Pollock and Mcgrath exceeded the then rules?
 
indiaholic

indiaholic

International Captain
Yeah his action looks fine.. But I am a part of the test everybody brigade.. So don't mind more players being tested.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
jonbrooks said:
It is interesting, isn't it? It makes me wonder exactly how bad some of the others who got away were.
Click to expand...
This is a silly post. He's just been cited for testing; he's not been proven to be a chucker at all. People need to stop assuming a guilty verdict whenever a bowler gets reported; it's good that more marginal players are being tested now, and hopefully they come back clean.

As for those who say his action always looked fine to them -- he's recently added a couple of deliveries to his armoury. One is decidedly quicker and I imagine that's the delivery that has caught attention. It might not be a chuck but it's definitely a weird looking thing, so fair enough to have a look at it.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The biblical offering named bowlers seem to have a problem.i remember seein Blessing Maiwaring bowl in a game here one time and the stunned silence from the commentators for his entire first over. There was not a word uttered until he'd finished the set, ten Richie said "There's a lot of things young bowlers new to test cricket have learn, I think Blessing Maiwaring is about to find out about one of them".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top