-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Shabbir cops 12 months
- Thread starter vic_orthdox
- Start date
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Hmm.
If I were to indulge my "whinging Pom" instincts for a while I could point out that the five wickets a now convicted chucker took in the first test arguably cost us that match.
Think that is the basic flaw with the current system tho, it can only ever be applied retrospectively.
If I were to indulge my "whinging Pom" instincts for a while I could point out that the five wickets a now convicted chucker took in the first test arguably cost us that match.
Think that is the basic flaw with the current system tho, it can only ever be applied retrospectively.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Hence the "to an extent" part. But yes, that's a massive problem with the system.BoyBrumby said:Hmm.
If I were to indulge my "whinging Pom" instincts for a while I could point out that the five wickets a now convicted chucker took in the first test arguably cost us that match.
Think that is the basic flaw with the current system tho, it can only ever be applied retrospectively.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm not too comfortable with calling this a 'penalty', to be honest. Unless it was proven beyond a pretty reasonable doubt that he willfully ignored the remedial work on his action after the first time 'round, portraying this as a punishment is wrong I think. He's not a robot and muscles/ligaments change so even though he might have strengthened the areas which straighten his arm in delivery, they might have changed and he might have had little control over it. Who knows?
Either way, punishing someone for just being unable to bowl with a straight arm (provided it's not deliberate) is wrong and exactly why people remember the treatment of Ian Meckiff and others as leaving a rather nasty taste in the mouth. Like I said, punishing him for not taking on-board the remedial work is one thing but punishing him for something out of his control is another entirely. Having seen Shabbir bowl, I tend to think he can't do anything about his action without remedial work and that his bent arm isn't deliberate or malicious. Why? Even bowling with a bent arm, he's barely above 130km/h. It's not as if he slips in the occasional ping which is much quicker than his stock ball or anything.
Are we punishing guys like Shabbir for ignoring advice or for having a physical defect which, with work, is able to be remedied? If it's the former that he's being punished for, I'm not a fan at all. I know Malcolm Speed makes reference to Shabbir 'slipping back into old ways' but where's the proof that it's deliberate?
Either way, punishing someone for just being unable to bowl with a straight arm (provided it's not deliberate) is wrong and exactly why people remember the treatment of Ian Meckiff and others as leaving a rather nasty taste in the mouth. Like I said, punishing him for not taking on-board the remedial work is one thing but punishing him for something out of his control is another entirely. Having seen Shabbir bowl, I tend to think he can't do anything about his action without remedial work and that his bent arm isn't deliberate or malicious. Why? Even bowling with a bent arm, he's barely above 130km/h. It's not as if he slips in the occasional ping which is much quicker than his stock ball or anything.
Are we punishing guys like Shabbir for ignoring advice or for having a physical defect which, with work, is able to be remedied? If it's the former that he's being punished for, I'm not a fan at all. I know Malcolm Speed makes reference to Shabbir 'slipping back into old ways' but where's the proof that it's deliberate?
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Having watched a fair portion of the first test, I'll say there looked to a be a marked deterioration in Shabbir's action as the game progressed. I'll stop short of calling it deliberate, but it certainly looked like the remedial work went by-the-by as the pressure & fatigue increased.
Now lots of actions look awful but are within the tolerance limits, after study by the bio-mech experts it seems his isn't. It may be harsh to ban him, but in the interest of fairness if an exception was made for him it would be have to be made for everyone. The current law may be an ***, but if we don't have some manner of edict on chucking we may as well have baseball-style pitching!
Now lots of actions look awful but are within the tolerance limits, after study by the bio-mech experts it seems his isn't. It may be harsh to ban him, but in the interest of fairness if an exception was made for him it would be have to be made for everyone. The current law may be an ***, but if we don't have some manner of edict on chucking we may as well have baseball-style pitching!
Scaly piscine
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Same goes to a fair extent with lots of other things in cricket. If footballer type 'characters' played cricket it'd be absolute chaos, fortunately virtually every country plays pretty much to the spirit of the game without seeing how much cheating they can get away with.BoyBrumby said:Hmm.
If I were to indulge my "whinging Pom" instincts for a while I could point out that the five wickets a now convicted chucker took in the first test arguably cost us that match.
Think that is the basic flaw with the current system tho, it can only ever be applied retrospectively.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Actually I agree with this; his action definitely did deteriorate but I do think it was a question of fitness. I don't think he looked match-fit at all. Even with his 5 wickets.
I don't have a problem with taking him out of international cricket whilst his action is illegal. Not at all. What I have a problem with is a blanket 12-month ban. In effect the ICC isn't saying "Okay, we have a problem so let's work to correct it." but "You're a chucker and we have proof. You're on your own." Not a constructive solution, in my view. Now, if you have a guy who deliberately pings the ball in short from wide on the crease at 140km/h when his stock ball is 10km/h slower, that's a different story. Shabbir, I feel, is different. When Murali has gone through his millions of tests, he's had a ton of support. I get the feeling Shabbir is going to be left in the lurch a bit.
Matteh
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I agree - I don't think he's done something that merits a ban...maybe they should say that he can't play test cricket until there's proof his action is fine....
in my mind the term ban implies he's brought the game into disrepute e.g. drugs/cheating - when what he's done wrong isn't deliberate and can be corrected with the right application.
in my mind the term ban implies he's brought the game into disrepute e.g. drugs/cheating - when what he's done wrong isn't deliberate and can be corrected with the right application.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
51 wickets off no-balls, then? I wonder if the opposition can have those back...
SpaceMonkey
International Debutant
Whether he's chucking on purpose or not, he's had 3 chances now to correct his action and failed. Theres nothing to say a 4th or 5th chance would be any different, you cant have him keep coming back and putting the opposition at a disadvantage each time.
He's cheating, maybe not on purpose but he cant be allowed to bowl differently to every other bowler. Its clear he needs a total modification of his action and not just a little fix, something which his 12 months out should let him do.
He's cheating, maybe not on purpose but he cant be allowed to bowl differently to every other bowler. Its clear he needs a total modification of his action and not just a little fix, something which his 12 months out should let him do.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Firstly, aside from its' significance, test cricket is no different to z-grade park cricket - it's all played by the same set of rules. If it has been found that you dont conform to the rules, then you must accept the relevant penalty which, in this case, is a ban.Matteh said:
Secondly, whilst the umpire's opinion is the sole arbiter of whether a bowler gets reported or not, his opinion and/or video trial of performances in match situations, are not valid indicators of whether a bowler contravenes the laws. As a result, lab testing has been decreed as the only means by which a bowler has a fit action and he shouldnt be allowed to play any level of cricket until he has satisfied the relevant level of tolerance in controlled conditions.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Another flaw in the current system can be found in the example of Shoaib Malik, who is permitted to bowl so long as he doesnt bowl a doosra.
As Botham pointed out yesterday, what chance is there of an umpire picking up the fact that he has bowled an illegal delivery if he only delivers one every 15 or 20 overs?
As Botham pointed out yesterday, what chance is there of an umpire picking up the fact that he has bowled an illegal delivery if he only delivers one every 15 or 20 overs?
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Let's hope so. I was more reacting to the inference that the 12-month thing is a 'ban' and a 'punishment' rather than a period of time in which he works on fixing his action. It, to my mind, is very harsh calling it 'cheating' when he bowls the same way most deliveries (therefore making it a physical problem) as opposed to throwing the occasional delivery in order to gain an unfair advantage.
Indeed, a definite logical flaw there. Realistically, even if he bowls one every 5 overs, I doubt an umpire will pick him up on it.
Tony Blade
U19 Cricketer
Well the umpire will know when he bowls a doosra. If he does, they can just look over the replays to see if he bent his arm.social said:
Slow Love™
International Captain
Well, this makes sense to me. If somebody's done remedial work and they've shown they can operate within the tolerance levels, I think there have to be substantial consequences to going out in a game and transgressing again. The system at present is far from perfect, and it won't be properly functional until we have some real-time monitoring during matches, but it's good to see the ICC act on this.
I read in the Age today that the assessment of Shabbir's action was based on footage from the Multan Test in comparison with a UWA assessment done in September. Which is great - we are slowly but surely getting to the point where we are actually acting on what a bowler is doing in a match, as well as in a lab, rather than solely the latter. I'm not entirely certain, but I think I recall this being done with Harbhajan earlier this year.
I read in the Age today that the assessment of Shabbir's action was based on footage from the Multan Test in comparison with a UWA assessment done in September. Which is great - we are slowly but surely getting to the point where we are actually acting on what a bowler is doing in a match, as well as in a lab, rather than solely the latter. I'm not entirely certain, but I think I recall this being done with Harbhajan earlier this year.