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

[weldone]

However thorough the testing is, the bloke who's being tested in lab conditions is always going to be focussing very closely on not chucking. With every single ball he bowls he will be trying his very hardest not to chuck. That is his primary aim in the entire process. His career could depend on it.

That is not, however, going to be the case when bowling in a match. In a match he knows he won't get banned, or even no-balled, if he chucks it. So his focus quite rightly going to be on what he's doing with the ball, not what he's doing with his arm. He is intent on getting the batsman out. He may tend to strive for a little extra spin or (for a quickie) for a bit of extra pace. In doing so, or just through tiredness, he may unwittingly allow his action to slip a little bit.

Now I fully appreciate that the lab testing is rigorous, and they check (so far as they realistically can) that he's bowling in the lab as he does in a match, and do so over an extended period. But the bowler's mind-set in the two environments will be completely and utterly different.

I'm not accusing anyone of chucking, by the way. Just offering an answer to Daemon's question.

But the precise point of Daemon's question is that they compare pace and revolution on the ball between lab testing and match conditions...

 

[Son Of Coco]

...care to answer Daemon's question?

It's been answered hasn't it?

 

[weldone]

It's been answered hasn't it?

As far as I am aware, no.

 

[sledger]

Seems like Zaremba answered it quite nicely tbh.

 

[M0rphin3]

They don't compare it with video footage of his bowling action; they compare it with the accuracy, speed, number of revolutions on the ball, etc over a large sample size. If the guy can do all that without chucking in the lab, why the **** would he chuck in a match? For fun?

So if a guy presents stripped down version of the delivery, i.e. somewhat the same number of revolution, pace, accuracy (i don't even know how this works) - and replicates the same delivery, just unchucked, how could they possibly know? I mean he could very well be bowling **** that day for all they know. Still a lot of subjective elements in there, am I right?

 

[zaremba]

But the precise point of Daemon's question is that they compare pace and revolution on the ball between lab testing and match conditions...

In fact the question he asked was that, given the player's ability to comply when tested, "why the **** would he chuck in a match? For fun?" That's what I was answering.

I respect the thoroughness of the testing. I also appreciate that a player who's passed the testing has shown that he is able to bowl lawfully; but it simply doesn't follow that he always does outside the lab, and there are obvious reasons for that.

No offence, but I'd rather not get drawn any further into this desperate debate. It's one of those wretched set-piece rows in which posters have settled views (which are often informed by which part of the world they come from, which team they support, and who their favourite bowler is) which are unlikely to be persuaded to change via reasoned debate.

 

[G.I.Joe]

So if a guy presents stripped down version of the delivery, i.e. somewhat the same number of revolution, pace, accuracy (i don't even know how this works) - and replicates the same delivery, just unchucked, how could they possibly know? I mean he could very well be bowling **** that day for all they know. Still a lot of subjective elements in there, am I right?

If he's bowling it with the same revs, pace and accuracy in the match situation as he does under controlled conditions, what particular benefit is he supposed to be deriving from the supposed chucking?

 

[sledger]

If he's bowling it with the same revs, pace and accuracy in the match situation as he does under controlled conditions, what particular benefit is he supposed to be deriving from the supposed chucking?

Less exertion.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Less exertion.

I'd be more appreciative of the skillz required to bowl the exact same delivery using two different sets of muscles.

 

[Migara]

But you keep saying a bowler's career could be ended by them being called in a game...so are we playing the game in the yesteryear or now? Bowlers can be tested...so there's absolutely no threat of them being banned for life.

Please educate me on the mechanism in pre-Murali era for coming back. The exact point is that the TESTING was used for a bowler to come back from remedial work shows victory of objective measurement over subjective naked eye guess work. If you want to talk about the current game, I would say everybody should be tested, whatever the action looks like. That will unveil some interesting facts.

It would be interesting to note, Murali aside (and I know you'll be surprised to hear this topic can be broadened in such an astonishing way), how many bowlers have been sent for testing after being suspected (with the human eye) and actually needed remedial action.

That was after the 15 degree rule I should mention. Now who would have picked Pollock and McGrath as chucks when they extended it 12 degrees and went over the prescribed limit of 7.5 degrees for fast medium bowlers? There are people as bad as "chuckers" bowling with seemingly clean actions. Test everybody, catch everybody.

Just so you know, I won't be taking messages from Murali's fan club and/or secretary. Especially when it seems to be operating under the idea that this whole conversation is about him.

:facepalm:

 

[Migara]

However thorough the testing is, the bloke who's being tested in lab conditions is always going to be focussing very closely on not chucking. With every single ball he bowls he will be trying his very hardest not to chuck. That is his primary aim in the entire process. His career could depend on it.

That is not, however, going to be the case when bowling in a match. In a match he knows he won't get banned, or even no-balled, if he chucks it. So his focus quite rightly going to be on what he's doing with the ball, not what he's doing with his arm. He is intent on getting the batsman out. He may tend to strive for a little extra spin or (for a quickie) for a bit of extra pace. In doing so, or just through tiredness, he may unwittingly allow his action to slip a little bit.

Now I fully appreciate that the lab testing is rigorous, and they check (so far as they realistically can) that he's bowling in the lab as he does in a match, and do so over an extended period. But the bowler's mind-set in the two environments will be completely and utterly different.

I'm not accusing anyone of chucking, by the way. Just offering an answer to Daemon's question.

Care to explain how a "clean action" guy is not going to throw that odd ball when it comes to effort ball or a special ball?

 

[Daemon]

However thorough the testing is, the bloke who's being tested in lab conditions is always going to be focussing very closely on not chucking. With every single ball he bowls he will be trying his very hardest not to chuck. That is his primary aim in the entire process. His career could depend on it.

That is not, however, going to be the case when bowling in a match. In a match he knows he won't get banned, or even no-balled, if he chucks it. So his focus quite rightly going to be on what he's doing with the ball, not what he's doing with his arm. He is intent on getting the batsman out. He may tend to strive for a little extra spin or (for a quickie) for a bit of extra pace. In doing so, or just through tiredness, he may unwittingly allow his action to slip a little bit.

Now I fully appreciate that the lab testing is rigorous, and they check (so far as they realistically can) that he's bowling in the lab as he does in a match, and do so over an extended period. But the bowler's mind-set in the two environments will be completely and utterly different.

I'm not accusing anyone of chucking, by the way. Just offering an answer to Daemon's question.

Valid points mate, I'll admit I hadn't thought of that. Unfortunately I don't think there's a way to confirm or deny your take on the bowler's mentality. It's difficult to argue such a thing because the opposing view is just as plausible imo - if a bowler's thinking that much about his delivery, then he's bound to not get the same revs, speed and accuracy that he usually gets in a match situation and as a consequence, will not be cleared.

In the end it's all up to us as how we want to intrepret things, because the issue at hand is such that there are going to be numerous factors in play all at once, of which some come down to simple speculation on our part, as viewers with both limited facts and incomplete knowledge of what goes unreported.

 

[weldone]

So if a guy presents stripped down version of the delivery, i.e. somewhat the same number of revolution, pace, accuracy (i don't even know how this works) - and replicates the same delivery, just unchucked, how could they possibly know? I mean he could very well be bowling **** that day for all they know. Still a lot of subjective elements in there, am I right?

For example, if the umpires report Ajmal's actions for teesra for the first test he will be asked to bowl the same delivery in a lab. They will compare speed, revolutions etc of the delivery in the first test with the delivery in lab conditions. The assumption is that the bowler won't chuck in a match since there is no incentive for the bowler to chuck if he can bowl the same delivery with and without chucking, and even if he chucks in the match (for the sake of argument) 'in spite of' there being no incentive for it then that shouldn't alter the result in any way.

 

[M0rphin3]

If he's bowling it with the same revs, pace and accuracy in the match situation as he does under controlled conditions, what particular benefit is he supposed to be deriving from the supposed chucking?

Not the same pace, you can't surely ask a bowler to reproduce the exact same delivery in controlled conditions? I'm talking about bowling the same delivery without chucking, i.e. the amount of turn/pace might be less, but overall it is the same delivery isn't it?

 

[M0rphin3]

For example, if the umpires report Ajmal's actions for teesra for the first test he will be asked to bowl the same delivery in a lab. They will compare speed, revolutions etc of the delivery in the first test with the delivery in lab conditions. The assumption is that the bowler won't chuck in a match since there is no incentive for the bowler to chuck if he can bowl the same delivery with and without chucking, and even if he chucks in the match (for the sake of argument) 'in spite of' there being no incentive for it then that shouldn't alter the result in any way.

My point is, if Ajmal bowls teesra without chucking in labs (which might be considerably less effective, but that's irrelevant) and goes on to chuck in match, how are they going to find out? There is no incentive for chucking? How about the same delivery being way more effective, for starters?

 

[Prince EWS]

My point is, if Ajmal bowls teesra without chucking in labs (which might be considerably less effective, but that's irrelevant) and goes on to chuck in match, how are they going to find out? There is no incentive for chucking? How about the same delivery being way more effective, for starters?

It's not, though. The point is that if he can't bowl it with the same release, or at the same speed, or get the same amount of turn, bounce or drift, they'll ask him to bowl it again until he can get it to do what it gets it to do in the match. And if he needs to chuck it to get it to happen - well then they'll find out.

They have ways of measuring whether or not it's the same delivery.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Not the same pace, you can't surely ask a bowler to reproduce the exact same delivery in controlled conditions? I'm talking about bowling the same delivery without chucking, i.e. the amount of turn/pace might be less, but overall it is the same delivery isn't it?

What if he bowls it with greater pace and/or turn in controlled conditions? Why assume that he'll bowl it with less pace or turn?

 

[zaremba]

Care to explain how a "clean action" guy is not going to throw that odd ball when it comes to effort ball or a special ball?

He might - I didn't suggest otherwise, I was answering a completely different question, and I am not suggesting that any particular player is or isn't a chucker.

Sorry but I have no desire to enter into a debate, I just don't care enough, and life is far too short.

 

[GIMH]

zaremba has won this thread, FTR

 

[Teja.]

It's not, though. The point is that if he can't bowl it with the same release, or at the same speed, or get the same amount of turn, bounce or drift, they'll ask him to bowl it again until he can get it to do what it gets it to do in the match. And if he needs to chuck it to get it to happen - well then they'll find out.

They have ways of measuring whether or not it's the same delivery.

Subscribe very strongly to these views, personally.