Senanayake banned

[watson]

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

They are not.

But 100% of chuckers have a 'sufficiently bent arm' and so it is a very good indicator. Therefore, if you don't bend your arm then it is impossible to chuck. So don't bend your arm. That task might be difficult for a Primary School kid, but surely not too difficult for a FC bowler?

 

[Howe_zat]

Let's be honest, Senanayake has a filthy action and if the rigorous testing confirms what the naked eye so clearly suggests, namely that he's an obvious chucker, then banned he must be and we should all be prepared to welcome that.

On a personal level you can't help but have sympathy for the man who will now have difficulty in pursuing his chosen career. It always surprises me that bowlers like him are allowed to get this far without someone eliminating this risk somewhere along the line. Someone should have fixed Senanayake's throwing well before he reached international level and the age at which taking effective remedial action is difficult.

And before anyone accuses me of racism everything I've said goes equally for James Kirtley of my beloved Sussex.

Interesting James Kirtley fact: Curtley Ambrose was named after JK's grandfather.

Something that I worry about with this is that there may well be schools of thought - as evidenced by some of the more reactionary fans that post here - that having an action seen as anti-establishment may well be seen as a positive by some sections of a cricketing society that often sees itself as anti-establishment after having been denied by Anglo-Australian supremacy during the first 80% or so of the sport's history. At least I hope that's not the case, but it is the impression I get.

Scribd

As little as I want to be a flat earther on the quality of the testing I can't get past what I'm looking at here. Do people really think that B and C look the same as A?

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!

You are spot on - further to this point I would like to include within the definition of chucking such unsightly things as the press box at OLd Trafford, Mitchell Johnson's moustache and posts by Daemon

 

[sledger]

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.

Isn't it? Or does it just not look like it?

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

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.

These two posts one after the other are comedy gold

 

[watson]

These two posts one after the other are comedy gold

Now that's a troll, not that I care much.

Having a differing opinion even it happens to be wrong in the long run is not a troll. It's just a differing opinion, which if you think about it is the whole point of a forum. If we all agreed on everything right from the start then we could safely declare CW to be the most boring entity in the known Universe - with the possible exception of Vogon poetry of course.

 

[sledger]

Now that's a troll, not that I care much.

Having a differing opinion even it happens to be wrong in the long run is not a troll. It's just a differing opinion, which if you think about it is the whole point of a forum. If we all agreed on everything right from the start then we could safely declare CW to be the most boring entity in the known Universe - with the possible exception of Vogon poetry of course.

Yeah, it's not that you have a different opinion. It's that you have one based on totally tenuous and facile grounds that has led to everyone bagging on you.

 

[sledger]

I mean, come on, saying "it looks like chucking, therefore it is" is the kind of thing I would write in a Murali thread ffs.

 

[Prince EWS]

Now that's a troll, not that I care much.

Having a differing opinion even it happens to be wrong in the long run is not a troll. It's just a differing opinion, which if you think about it is the whole point of a forum. If we all agreed on everything right from the start then we could safely declare CW to be the most boring entity in the known Universe - with the possible exception of Vogon poetry of course.

Something like this:

If McGrath and Pollock don't look like that they chucking to the naked eye then they not chucking - period

.. isn't a difference of opinion though; it's factually incorrect. It'd be like me saying that if Shane Watson doesn't have a watermelon in his freezer then he's not lbw - period. I might like it to be true or, for some reason, support such a law being brought into place, but if I tried to argue it was already the case I'd just be outright wrong.

Moreover, on the subject of opinions and boring forums -- the forum would be just as boring as the dystopian community you described if everyone merely stated their own opinion and never tried to engage in debate over anyone else's.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Now that's a troll, not that I care much.

Having a differing opinion even it happens to be wrong in the long run is not a troll. It's just a differing opinion, which if you think about it is the whole point of a forum. If we all agreed on everything right from the start then we could safely declare CW to be the most boring entity in the known Universe - with the possible exception of Vogon poetry of course.

Wasn't a troll at all. I was just pointing out that you claimed that you understood what chucking is and then in the next post say that an action that looks like a chuck is a chuck which is the mmost insane thing I've heard on the chucking topic on CW.

And the problem isn't that we disagree with your opinion. That's what the forum is for. The problem is that the reasons you've given for your opinion have been frankly ridiculous and seem to show clearly that you've not done your research on the topic properly.

 

[Dan]

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!

inb4 Benchmark outlaws left arm orthodox spin entirely because it isn't bowling and thus, therefore, be chucking.

Also banning deliveries that get Shane Watson out won't work. He'll still find a way to be dismissed and review poorly.

 

[Migara]

Are you saying the bloke who chucks once every two overs when he strives for extra pace like Courtney Walsh used to is worse than the off spinner who chucks every ball?

Yes. When a person chucks everything, it's in a pattern. When some one chcks once in a while (deliberately) it will break the pattern and usually will get the batsman.

By chucking a off breal bowler can spin it bit more. Batsman can adjust to big spin easily. When the amount of spin starts to vary die to putch, bowlers inconsistent action, or due to deliberate chuck, it gets more difficult.

And, the deliberate chucker conceals his chuck in a sea of legal deliveries.

 

[Migara]

Cricket is not a game of Mr Nice where you make a ruling on whether a bowler 'means well' but suffers due to poor coaching. Such value judgements on the cricket field are ridiculous.

Anyway, bowlers are being pulled up when they 'dish out...something different'. Some bowlers aren't allowed to bowl their Doosra (Botha & Shillingford), or their 'Quick Ball' (Samuels), and so forth.

Don't you notice all of them are spinners?Mark my word, pacers are much worse when they dishout different things.

 

[Daemon]

Yes. When a person chucks everything, it's in a pattern. When some one chcks once in a while (deliberately) it will break the pattern and usually will get the batsman.

By chucking a off breal bowler can spin it bit more. Batsman can adjust to big spin easily. When the amount of spin starts to vary die to putch, bowlers inconsistent action, or due to deliberate chuck, it gets more difficult.

And, the deliberate chucker conceals his chuck in a sea of legal deliveries.

Why is the effort ball a deliberate chuck and the bloke who's been bowling them his whole life doing it by accident?

 

[uvelocity]

im confused as to my new location. most likes on either of the next two posts before sunday wins it

 

[Migara]

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.

It looks like Malaria, so even what ever the investigations state kit must be Malaria since it looks like Malaria

 

[uvelocity]

option one: my flaming sword of corpulent dirge

 

[uvelocity]

option two: the deliberate chucker conceals his chuck in a sea of legal deliveries.

 

[uvelocity]

dont interrupt my posts with your malaria dirge you quack ****

 

[Migara]

Why is the effort ball a deliberate chuck and the bloke who's been bowling them his whole life doing it by accident?

there are two types. when putting effort you may exceed the limit due to stress forces. By doing that you just shorten tthe bowling lifespan. The easy way out is to chuck and gain that 5-7mph without putting the rest of the body the stress. And it will result ina similar approach to the wicket till the last moment of the delivery unlike a real effort ball whwre you could see more arching of the back and bit more intent in the runup.

The one who is chcuking every ball is apparent and can be tested and banned easily. It's bad to chcuk, but it's even worse to look clean and chuck occasionally so it could not be monitored properly.

On field tests will catch these guys as well.

 

[91Jmay]

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.

Reminds me of when people are absolutely certain about something because 'common sense' despite all objective data that points to the other option being true.