Saeed Ajmal reported for chucking

[honestbharani]

Going back to Amjal, and doosra's. Do people think there's logic in pre-emptive testing for bowlers who have visibly bent elbows? Eg, the country could have done the testing in advance so even if he has to go for an ICC check-up there is some solid evidence backing up these guys as they continue playing.

Bowling with bent elbow was always legal once the overarm rule came in, I think... Chucking and bent elbow are not the same thing.

 

[four_or_six]

Bowling with bent elbow was always legal once the overarm rule came in, I think... Chucking and bent elbow are not the same thing.

No, I know. But a bent elbow makes the action look suspicious. So why do the home boards not take suspicious looking actions and get them cleared before the player plays international cricket? I think that would reduce a lot of bad feeling. Then even if a player has to go for a check-up, it's just that. A double-check.

 

[Jono]

And if I was playing against someone who I thought had a suspect action, and there were official umpires officiating - I'd have a word. Regardless of the level.

Have a word to the umpires or the player?

 

[Jono]

Can't believe most of the **** in this thread. Watson didn't make a 'song and dance' about it like people have been saying, he said a few words during the game, that's it. We don't even know for sure what he was talking about, FFS.

a) He didn't just have a few words, it was pretty frickin' obvious that something was up as he was visibly upset. Even the commentators made note of it straight away.
b) People don't know for sure what was said between Harbhajan and Symonds, yet people commented, and rightly so. People can make inferences, and if they are proved wrong, they cop the criticism. But they're still allowed to make it based on the evidence and scenes they witness.

 

[Smudge]

Have a word to the umpires or the player?

Probably both - as Heath will confirm, I'm an incredibly mouthy **** on the field...

 

[chaminda_00]

No, I know. But a bent elbow makes the action look suspicious. So why do the home boards not take suspicious looking actions and get them cleared before the player plays international cricket? I think that would reduce a lot of bad feeling. Then even if a player has to go for a check-up, it's just that. A double-check.

I don't know Amjal's situation, but more often then not players do get tested to an extent domestically. But generally the testing isn't suffient enough to make a complete judgement whether a player is bowling within the current limits or not. Effectively if a players has a hyper-extention that is enough to clear a player on the basic of optically illusion. Most country can't afford to send every player to do lab tests, if they have actions that don't look great. You can't rule someone out anymore on the basic of them looking bad visually especially if they have a bent elbow to start with or hyper-extention.

The other thing is someone like Amjal has modified his action to bowl the doosra recently. He hasn't been bowling it for 10 years, it just something that he has developed recently. So for most of his career there was nothing wrong with his action and technically it wasn't until this series where he got it to come out right that there was anything wrong with his doorsa. Actions change over time, one day they might be fine, next day they are awful.

 

[four_or_six]

Ajmal facing disciplinary action from his own team over comments about Watson. Hope it doesn't go too far.

 

[pasag]

Can't believe most of the **** in this thread. Watson didn't make a 'song and dance' about it like people have been saying, he said a few words during the game, that's it. We don't even know for sure what he was talking about, FFS. But yeah, I'm sure the four umpires reported the guy cause Watson may have said something about it. Not sure why Watson's the one copping the flac as well, it's not like he came out in the press and publicly criticised another player, like Amjal's done. If you've been called for throwing, you don't blame another player for 'tipping off' the officials, you blame yourself for having a ****house action in the first place.

Spot on candy

 

[Son Of Coco]

And if I was playing against someone who I thought had a suspect action, and there were official umpires officiating - I'd have a word. Regardless of the level.

Yeah me too, and I have done.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Going back to Amjal, and doosra's. Do people think there's logic in pre-emptive testing for bowlers who have visibly bent elbows? Eg, the country could have done the testing in advance so even if he has to go for an ICC check-up there is some solid evidence backing up these guys as they continue playing.

Yeah I think this would be a good idea. It wouldn't mean they shouldn't be tested, but it might mean their action is at least a little cleaner. Means not a lot ball-by-ball during the game but at least you'd have an idea of what you'll get back from the testing.

 

[duffer]

On the pre-game show they said he was tested after Lawson saw him at a development camp and he was found to have a flexation within ICC regulations. Personally think considering some of the other actions around I don't see the issue now that he has been through a round of testing.

 

[Migara]

They don't complain when they have a legitimate action.

See Anyone complaining about Afridi's action when he got 6 for?

Haven't you seen his quicker ball? When Blewett 1st had got it in Brisbane IIRC, he was suggesting nothing other than that (which is correct IMO as well)

 

[Migara]

Going back to Amjal, and doosra's. Do people think there's logic in pre-emptive testing for bowlers who have visibly bent elbows? Eg, the country could have done the testing in advance so even if he has to go for an ICC check-up there is some solid evidence backing up these guys as they continue playing.

Good idea.

 

[Richard]

Don't recall the Aussies having a problem with Vettori who generally always does well against them. Though, that's not surprising because Vettori is one of the only spinners in the game to have a clean action.

No, he's not. He's one of those to have an action which looks clean to the naked-eye.

Reality is that experienced players generally have a fair idea whether a bowler's action is dodgy or not (........ waits for Richard's rant)

Well, they might think they do, but in reality they only have a fair idea of whether a bowler's action looks dodgy or not. Same way, well... anyone else with a pair of eyes and an understanding of the game does.

Experienced player or not.

 

[Uppercut]

Hasn't he just been "reported" for checking? Doesn't mean he's actually a chucker. Just means an ICC committee need to take a closer look at him right?

YES!

Why is everyone moaning about Watto when the fact is, if he's not cheating, there won't be the slightest bit of harm done to anyone. And if he is, well he's got away with it for several series more than he should have. It's a win-biggerwin situation for Pakistan.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, the proper procedure was followed. No problem at all with him being reported.

 

[Jono]

YES!

Why is everyone moaning about Watto when the fact is, if he's not cheating, there won't be the slightest bit of harm done to anyone. And if he is, well he's got away with it for several series more than he should have. It's a win-biggerwin situation for Pakistan.

I actually don't think anyone was annoyed with him being reported. Action does look dodgy, right thing done.

Probably best for it not to be openly pointed out mid-over though.

What if it is legal then? Watson looks like an even bigger douche.

 

[four_or_six]

Boycott and Ramiz Raja have called for the 15 degrees to be increased so that the Doosra is always legal.

 

[silentstriker]

Boycott and Ramiz Raja have called for the 15 degrees to be increased so that the Doosra is always legal.

Disagree. The 15 degree rule wasn't arbitrary - according to biomechanists, that's the minimum required to discern it with the naked eye with any sort of regularity. I don't think you should just increase it to fit a particular type of delivery - especially as its not a standard classical delivery - in.

 

[Pratters]

Disagree. The 15 degree rule wasn't arbitrary - according to biomechanists, that's the minimum required to discern it with the naked eye with any sort of regularity.

AWTA fully.