So the ICC evidence is finally in - and apparently even Glen McGrath chucks...

[honestbharani]

It is basic. But you said you thought the rules didn't even mention arm bend. I just showed you up again, that's all.

The rules that you quoted are the ones that now have this 15 degree limit. For some reason, Law 24 in the MCC site doesn't have it but it doesn't it is not part of the law, which was my point.

 

[uvelocity]

 

[honestbharani]

 

[Burgey]

yeah.. why bother with facts?

When I think of the purest bowlers in cricket history, I'll always think of Ajmal and Botha, Murali and Harbi.

Smooth, legal. Poetry.

 

[honestbharani]

and when I think of clever, unbiased posters in CW, I think of Burgey..

 

[Burgey]

and when I think of clever, unbiased posters in CW, I think of Burgey..

Yes. Which is why I said I thought Lee's action was questionable at times.

But don't worry. When I think of buffoons, your name springs to mind.

 

[Turbinator]

and when I think of clever, unbiased posters in CW, I think of Burgey..

 

[Migara]

And again, dunno if this has been discussed before.

Lets say a bowler who chucks em is asked to bowl under controlled conditions - and he doesn't chuck over there - so does that mean he'd be cleared if he comes clean in controlled conditions?

What is the assurance you could give for bowler with "clean" actions not doing it?

 

[honestbharani]

Yes. Which is why I said I thought Lee's action was questionable at times.

But don't worry. When I think of buffoons, your name springs to mind.

why would I worry about that? At least buffoons are good for a few laughs..

 

[Fusion]

and when I think of clever, unbiased posters in CW, I think of Burgey..

Yes. Which is why I said I thought Lee's action was questionable at times.

But don't worry. When I think of buffoons, your name springs to mind.

That would be enough. No more shots at the other please.

 

[Burgey]

Lookin' forward to some silky smooth Ajmal action in the second test. If he and Botha could play for the same T20 franchise, it would be every purist's dream, surely? And no one would or should raise an eye brow. Their actions are as pure as Hadlee's, McGrath's and Kapil Dev's. No, really.

Buffoonery truly is good for a laugh or two.

 

[Top_Cat]

Just re McGrath/Pollock chucking under the old rules: it should be noted that the study which found everyone bar Sarwan was a filthy pinger wasn't based on assessment in a lab nor did it name any names. IIRC it was conducted at a Champions Trophy.

This raises a few points:

1) How accurate are the measurements?

2) If degrees of flexion can be measured in match situations why isn't this done more often?

3) If the measurements do have a high margin of error why was the study given so much credence?

Without wishing to don my tinfoil hat or cultivate vials of my own bodily fluids, it could look as if it suited some person's and/or governing body's agenda to let it be believed bowlers whose actions look as pure as the driven snow were really no better than your lowliest doosra thrower.

Maybe but I don't think the measurements were given much creedence away from the public eye. No-one mentions the actual measurements do they? The take-home for me was that from what I remember was that everybody had movement in their joints (**** me, what a shock) and further, more exact work was needed to determine what an appropriate level is so that there was an evidence base for deciding to ban bloke short of 'looks jerky to the umpire at square'.

Realistically, the Sri Lankans of the 90's were absolutely right in querying the basis upon which Murali was no-balled. There simply was no agreed level of 'acceptable' joint movement and hyper-extension wasn't even a factor. That's a fairly ludicrous situation for a profession where one prick with middle-aged eyes with their own bias' is expected to judge what is a matter of millimetres and can end a career.

 

[Teja.]

I don't really know where I stand on the Ajmal issue, should have him checked for the teesra though.

I still can't believe people are even thinking of hinting at questioning the legality of Murali's action though after the intense testing he had to go through with long spells replicating the same spin at same speeds without chucking.

Oh well, people still believe in astrology, creationism etc.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Oh well, people still believe in astrology, creationism etc.

And that the world is flat

 

[Burgey]

I don't really know where I stand on the Ajmal issue, should have him checked for the teesra though.

I still can't believe people are even thinking of hinting at questioning the legality of Murali's action though after the intense testing he had to go through with long spells replicating the same spin at same speeds without chucking.

Oh well, people still believe in astrology, creationism etc.

Murali was something of a physiological freak though. I don't say that disparagingly, he really was. I haven't heard it said Ajmal (or indeed Botha) has anything like the same unique make up to his arm which Murali has.

As you say, he should be tested and I guess we just wait and see what comes of it.

 

[GIMH]

Would you hold that opinion if he were English?

Yes

 

[Son Of Coco]

He may have chucked the teesra but was cleared by the ICC for his doosra.

So it's ok as long as you keep on coming up with different names for the deliveries you bowl?

 

[Black_Warrior]

So it's ok as long as you keep on coming up with different names for the deliveries you bowl?

No its not ok. But he needs to be reported first. As far as I know, he was not..so we have to assume its so far so good.

 

[Arachnodouche]

It's all a matter of degrees isn't it? Where do you draw the line between what is humanly inevitable, and what is palpably illegal? I've never had much interest in this subject to be honest, but how much did Murali's arm hyperextend compared to say a McGrath? I'd imagine the difference between a 10 degree bend and a 15 degree one would not only be noticeable to the naked eye but also impact the "effectiveness" of the delivery.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No its not ok. But he needs to be reported first. As far as I know, he was not..so we have to assume its so far so good.

Given we apparently can't make any judgement with the naked eye it's hard to make any assumptions at all. He has to be tested to be cleared, and he has to be adjudged to be throwing (with the naked eye) to be sent for testing.