Senanayake banned

[G.I.Joe]

How does one square a circle? By redefining Pi, of course.

 

[watson]

How does one square a circle? By redefining Pi, of course.

The circle was actually squared back in 2004 to accommodate a certain bowler. Now we are witnessing the aftermath of a such a myopic decision. So something pragmatic and useful needs to be done for s change.

Bending the rules on chucking - Cricket - www.smh.com.au

 

[YorksLanka]

The circle was actually squared back in 2004 to accommodate a certain bowler. Now we are witnessing the aftermath of a such a myopic decision. So something pragmatic and useful needs to be done for s change.

Bending the rules on chucking - Cricket - [url]www.smh.com.au[/

You mean Glenn McGrath??

 

[Maximas]

Just go back to the ATG threads, you're completely uninformed on this topic

 

[Maximas]

The circle was actually squared back in 2004 to accommodate a certain bowler. Now we are witnessing the aftermath of a such a myopic decision. So something pragmatic and useful needs to be done for s change.

Bending the rules on chucking - Cricket - [URL="http://www.smh.com.au"]www.smh.com.au[/

You mean Glenn McGrath??

Among many many others

 

[OverratedSanity]

It boggles my mind that there are still people here who don't know what chucking is

It's eight pages later and Watson till hasn't the foggiest clue what chucking actually is. First ban the doosra, now just ban all elbow bending. FMD

 

[OverratedSanity]

The circle was actually squared back in 2004 to accommodate a certain bowler. Now we are witnessing the aftermath of a such a myopic decision. So something pragmatic and useful needs to be done for s change.

Bending the rules on chucking - Cricket - [url]www.smh.com.au[/

You mean Glenn McGrath??

Regarding this, does anyone know how they actually measured whether McGrath, Trueman, Pollock, etc? They didn't call them to the lab so all they really could've done was analyse footage. That can't have been overly accurate.

 

[Maximas]

There's that article that says something to the effect of "it was found that those with classical actions such as McGrath and Pollock were in fact flexing up to 12 degrees". No concrete proof or exact figures, but it convinced the ICC

 

[watson]

It's eight pages later and Watson till hasn't the foggiest clue what chucking actually is. First ban the doosra, now just ban all elbow bending. FMD

You obviously have misunderstood or not bothered to read most of what I written. My arguments are cogent and I now know exactly what chucking is.

And so again, the current Law is unworkable short of spending a fortune on technology and making bowlers look like crash test dummies. Therefore it needs to be ditched or modified to accomodate on-field reality.

 

[watson]

There's that article that says something to the effect of "it was found that those with classical actions such as McGrath and Pollock were in fact flexing up to 12 degrees". No concrete proof or exact figures, but it convinced the ICC

Who cares about 12 degrees? If McGrath and Pollock don't look like that they chucking to the naked eye then they not chucking - period.

 

[hendrix]

You obviously have misunderstood or not bothered to read most of what I written. My arguments are cogent and I now know exactly what chucking is.

And so again, the current Law is unworkable short of spending a fortune on technology and making bowlers look like crash test dummies. Therefore it needs to be ditched or modified to accomodate on-field reality.

Your proposed law is far less workable than the current law.

Everyone here agrees that the current law is not particularly workable, but it is very close to the best law until we have the technology to deal with chucking in-game.

 

[Teja.]

Who cares about 12 degrees? If McGrath and Pollock don't look like that they chucking to the naked eye then they not chucking - period.

Outstanding. If something doesn't look like X, it isn't X. It looked plumb live so even if the ball was projected to be going over the stumps by technology, it should be lbw, simples.

Look, watson, I don't think I've ever agreed with you about pretty much anything but I thought you were a guy for science and objectivity in matters. I must say this has been a dire display.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Who cares about 12 degrees? If McGrath and Pollock don't look like that they chucking to the naked eye then they not chucking - period.

So all you care about is how a bowler looks? Not whether he's straightening his arm to gain an advantage, even if it's not perceived by the human eye?

It might be noble to not like the look of a bent arm in the game you love but getting rid of bowlers just because their action looks wrong (according to you) is a frankly horrifying suggestion.

 

[YorksLanka]

Who cares about 12 degrees? If McGrath and Pollock don't look like that they chucking to the naked eye then they not chucking - period.

sorry mate but using your argument, its all about perspective rather than facts?I would have said before the assessment of Satchi that his flex was close but legal, whereas you would have said no, he is a clearly a chucker..without the facts and standardisation of testing, its just down to personal choices -which cant be right

 

[Maximas]

Solid troll watson

 

[BackFootPunch]

Solid troll watson

He's gotta be trolling, right? Surely he's not actually serious.

 

[Maximas]

It looks like trolling therefore it is

 

[watson]

Well there is smidge of trolling. But it's more due to the fact that I happen to disagree with the stance taken by the vast majority of people on Cricketweb. Unpalatable I know, but this isn't North Korea.

 

[harsh.ag]

Why do you think a sufficiently bent arm and chucking should be synonymous?

 

[Prince EWS]

Personally, I think chucking should be redefined to include bowling across the seam, bowling short of a length, bowling left handed, bowling for Bangladesh, bowling deliveries that dismiss Shane Watson and other such things that I don't think look good. It's obviously not chucking now, but it should be!