Senanayake banned

[Valer]

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

He'll run half the team out before he gets out tho.

 

[Гурин]

passed with flying colours IIRC. Less than his off spinner. Something like 9 degrees of elbow extension.

The confusion lay with the fact that he abducts his arm as he bowls.

Place your arm straight out in front of you, palm up. Rotate so the palm is down. That's what he does.

The problem is this: do that with a bent arm. It looks like chucking, doesn't it? But by the ICC guidelines, it's not, because it involves no elbow extension. This is a gap in the laws that needs to be rectified, IMO. Abducting your arm while bowling with a straight arm offers no mechanical advantage, but doing it with a bent arm does. That's a problem in the current laws, IMO.

Wait wait wait, I need this to be clarified once and for all:

So if I lock my elbow in a brace at a 45° angle (even better, in a brace which allows a 7,5° of flexibility either way), my deliveries would be legit? Just like that?


I think I'm going to bowl some mean offspin pretty soon.

Hopefully it'll end better than that time that I was given a warning for changing batting stance (LH to RH) according to who was bowling. "Not in the spirit of cricket" the umpire said. Yeah right! And I got bowled around my legs.

Bloody intentionalism.

 

[G.I.Joe]

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?

The article mentions that B was not considered representative of his match action, while C bore the closest resemblance on the occasion. C does seem to fall short of being identical to the match action, but it was found to exceed the permissible limit anyway, and so it stands to reason that the match action would grossly exceed the limit too.

 

[Burgey]

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.

How do you know a once in a while chuck is deliberate though?

 

[Jarquis]

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.

 

[watson]

It appears that many people got lots of mileage out of that quote, so I'm happy so oblige a few laughs

However, it is the only logical conclusion if we assume that more power be restored to the Umpires, and that it is their 'naked eye' which makes actual decisions with regards to chucking during play - not a biomechanic scientist. At the minute Umpires are generally too scared to call a no-ball for chucking because they too apprehensive about the inevitable politics. That needs to change.

 

[Maximas]

They're too scared to call it because they have no real way of knowing

EDIT: Oh my hat, your sig is now deadset worse than Jassy's

 

[viriya]

Lyon is being taught the doosra by that dirty cheat Murali.. should ban Australia from playing cricket imo.

 

[Burgey]

How do you know a once in a while chuck is deliberate though?

I'm heading out tomorrow night for a catch up with some of my old high school mates.

I expect to have one of my once in a while chucks, tbh.

 

[Migara]

How do you know a once in a while chuck is deliberate though?

No way to know TBH. That is why on field testing is needed. If it goes over the limit called no ball. But EVERYONE has to wear the sensors, not a selected few who looks dodgy to some eyes.

 

[Migara]

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.

 

[Migara]

It appears that many people got lots of mileage out of that quote, so I'm happy so oblige a few laughs

However, it is the only logical conclusion if we assume that more power be restored to the Umpires, and that it is their 'naked eye' which makes actual decisions with regards to chucking during play - not a biomechanic scientist. At the minute Umpires are generally too scared to call a no-ball for chucking because they too apprehensive about the inevitable politics. That needs to change.

scrap DRS, scrap 3rd umpire you fools. That super naked eye is much suited for the job. The thing can identify an extension of 8 degrees moving in a speedy complex path. The line decisions should be a piece of cake for such a thing.

 

[Burgey]

scrap DRS, scrap 3rd umpire you fools. That super naked eye is much suited for the job. The thing can identify an extension of 8 degrees moving in a speedy complex path. The line decisions should be a piece of cake for such a thing.

What you say is right*, but then you turn around and talk about people "deliberately" chucking occasionally. How can you know another's subjective intent in a situation like that?


*This week's edition of "Things you never thought you'd type".

 

[watson]

They're too scared to call it because they have no real way of knowing

EDIT: Oh my hat, your sig is now deadset worse than Jassy's

I should refer you back to the OP;

Just in: Senanayake banned from bowling in international cricket after testing finds his action to be illegal

https://twitter.com/ESPNcricinfo/sta...60664867356672

Credit to the umpires, a big call but the right one. Hardly a surprise to anyone who has watched the bloke and puts pay to some rather embarrassing conspiracy theory type thinking.

And....

ODI Series: Spin bowler Sachithra Senanayake reported to ICC by match umpires following Lord's victory over England on Saturday

Senanayake, who has twice recorded career-best figures in the ongoing Royal London series against England, was reported by umpires Ian Gould and Marais Erasmus at the end of his team's victory at Lord's on Saturday.

He will be free to bowl again in the series decider at Edgbaston on Tuesday, but will face further scrutiny under International Cricket Council regulations......

So obviously Umpires Gould and Erasmus 'knew' enough because they ended up making the correct call - and that's what we employ them for. So yeah, the apparent 'impossible' is actually possible - dodgy bent bowlers can be picked by the field Umpires.

 

[hendrix]

So obviously Umpires Gould and Erasmus 'knew' enough because they ended up making the correct call - and that's what we employ them for. So yeah, the apparent 'impossible' is actually possible - dodgy bent bowlers can be picked.

Your understanding is scarily poor.

They didn't make any "call". They simply referred him to those with enough knowledge and technology to make the call.

 

[BackFootPunch]

The main issue with what Watson is proposing is the danger of people who aren't chucking being branded chuckers.

He's saying the umpires proved their ability to notice someone throwing it by picking Senanayake. Well, duh. The whole world could see he was a potential chucker. The umps referred it to the experts and were proved correct. Of course someone who is chucking it will look like they're chucking it. That's the whole point of the 15 degree thing.

What Watson doesn't seem to understand (or is ignoring) is that people can have a dodgy action but not actually be throwing it. In his dream world there'd be a **** load of collateral damage in the form of guys who have a different action to what is considered 'pure' or 'clean'. And that's rubbish, really. You can't make a law that gets all the main offenders, as well as others that just look like they might offend. Better off having a few slip through the cracks for a bit too long (as it seems Senanayake did), rather than tarring innocent bowlers with the throwing brush.

 

[hendrix]

I do think it's unacceptable that Senanayake played for so long without undergoing ICC-sanctioned testing.

 

[Dan]

The umpire isn't empowered to call a bowler for having a bad action on the field anyway. The immediate no-ball call is for when Jimmy Anderson runs up and pegs it at Ravindra Jadeja's smug face, not when an off spinner's action looks a bit dodgy.

Everybody knows that an umpire can't tell whether a bowler's action exceeds 15 degrees in real time. It isn't their job, and never has been since the throwing law was reformed to be something that is scientifically testable (accuracy of the testing process notwithstanding). The no-ball call remains there so that cases of bowlers pitching the ball at the stumps can be sanctioned immediately.

 

[watson]

Your understanding is scarily poor.

They didn't make any "call". They simply referred him to those with enough knowledge and technology to make the call.

No. You merely misread my post and misunderstood the word 'call'. And that was a bad call (hint).

 

[BoyBrumby]

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

On this, whilst your question is presumably for rhetorical purposes, from a biomechanical point of view it is much harder not to flex one's elbow bringing the arm over the shoulder at any kind of speed whilst one's elbow is bent rather than locked straight.

Try it.

Obviously chaps like Murali who cannot straighten their arms muddy the waters, but the Venn diagrams of those who bowl with bent arms and those who exceed the flexion limits will have some degree of overlap.