'Official' Pakistan in West Indies

[salman85]

Err This :

Banning 1 delivery is idiotic.Either ban the bowler,or don't ban him.Simple.Banning 1 delivery is going to lead to a lot of issues in the future where bowlers will cross the thin line between legal and illegal deliveries because no one picked it during the match,only for the issue to come up after the match.It is not humanly possible to ensure that a bowler never ever bowls a particular delivery again.You're going to make the game very complicated by singling out illegal deliveries and banning them.Single out bowlers who have illegal actions,for 1 ball or completely illegal actions,and then handle the issue in another way.Banning particular deliveries in not the solution.

 

[Spark]

Why? If a delivery clearly breaks the law, then it should be banned. Quite simple. Or should we allow bowlers to baseball pitch every five overs or so, on the basis that their stock delivery is legal?

 

[salman85]

The fact that a bowler's stock delivery is illegal implies that you're making the bowler much less effective.If a delivery is illegal,then a bowler should be banned till he bowls every delivery legally.Banning particular deliveries is stupid.You can't impose a delivery restriction on a bowler for the reason i mentioned in my previous post.

 

[marc71178]

In that case no bowlers should ever bowl because they could all pitch it base ball style, which is illegal.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think what Salman's proposing is just giving bans on those found to have thrown, rather than "potential" throwers. Would act as a sizeable deterrent tbf.

 

[salman85]

In that case no bowlers should ever bowl because they could all pitch it base ball style, which is illegal.

Yes.and all Batsmen could play switch hits every delivery so no batsmen should play either.New rules of cricket : The side consuming more drinks in the break wins.

I think what Salman's proposing is just giving bans on those found to have thrown, rather than "potential" throwers. Would act as a sizeable deterrent tbf.

To put it in other words,yes.

Anyone who bowls a particular delivery regularly,like the Doosra for example,and after conducting the relevant tests it is discovered that the bowler does infact bend his arm more than 15 degrees for that particular delivery,then ban the bowler all-together till he can bowl every delivery,including his Doosra,legally.Whether that is achieved by increasing the accepted arm bend in the rules,or helping the bowler correct his action is another debate.

The Doosra is a great weapon for spinners,and putting a ban on it would make the game poorer since it would discourage upcoming spinners from using it,and that is wrong.Banning a bowler from using it, is not the solution.Correcting the action is,and till that happens,the Bowler can be suspended from the game.

 

[Howe_zat]

It seems unfair to not give them the option of cutting out their illegal delivery. A doosra in particular is a ball that requires a great deal of wrist movement, and so the physical limitations on most people would mean you have to throw from the elbow in order to get some power onto the ball.

The exceptions to this, the Muralis and Saqlains, are able to put power on the ball with their wrist while still turning the ball the other way. This often isn't possible.

Swann for example has said that he can bowl a doosra, but admits he can't physically bowl one legally. Doesn't mean he shouldn't play. If he decided to throw caution to the wind - no pun intended - and start chucking one anyway, that's when we have a problem.

 

[yoginavale]

WEst INdies west indies...........

 

[salman85]

YOu you...

 

[Agent Nationaux]

 

[Blaze 18]

Salman comes up with some pretty hilarious responses from time to time.

 

[Blaze 18]

The best was "boller is not important". !