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

[benchmark00]

Pretty much. I'm out.

Congratulations on having the courage to do that on the internet. Was George Michael or Elton John your inspiration?

 

[Prince EWS]

Congratulations on having the courage to do that on the internet. Was George Michael or Elton John your inspiration?

 

[Daemon]

Congratulations on having the courage to do that on the internet. Was George Michael or Elton John your inspiration?

You and Spikey.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Congratulations on having the courage to do that on the internet. Was George Michael or Elton John your inspiration?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Finally someone answers the question about how they use video to count revolutions.

 

[Prince EWS]

Finally someone answers the question about how they use video to count revolutions.

!!

 

[Daemon]

Finally someone answers the question about how they use video to count revolutions.

 

[Cevno]

Congratulations on having the courage to do that on the internet. Was George Michael or Elton John your inspiration?

Finally someone answers the question about how they use video to count revolutions.

!!!!

 

[Spark]

benchmark and SoC win the internet.

 

[Migara]

And again we get back to them coming up with 12 degree for McGrath and Pollock...astonishingly accurate measurements with the video footage we can't use anymore.

This is going nowhere mate. Good luck with it all though.

Seems like no answers. Thanks for the debate.

 

[Migara]

Well I'm certainly happier if they use some system of testing to comfirm or refute suspicions over blind assumption. It's not an amateur past time any more, it's a professional endeavour.

Exactly. Test everybody yearly without judging players on how actions look like. If possible test them all under match conditions.

 

[Migara]

Yeah, he's really not, you know.

Take this nugget:



Absolute classic strawman argument. There's not a scintilla of proof anyone with a quote-unquote "clean action" throws or, indeed, has ever thrown, so why would anyone even attempt to answer this? He's attempting to refute an argument with a superficially similar one that, in reality, has no relation to the original.

Thought no-one had bothered because it was so obviously horse poo. It seems not. Happy to clear that up for you tho.



Why any sportsman breaks any rule ever: to gain an advantage. If there were no benefits to using a bit of elbow why would anyone throw?

Ha ha, touched that raw nerve. Now what is the certainly that clean actions are in fact clean? The classic example of looks like Malaria, so should be Malaria stuff!

Using what ever scientific methods they showed McGrath and Pollock, two bowlers with most "purist friendly" actions gets borderline with extension. In fact some of the actions seems "clean" may be "dirtier" than seemingly dodgy ones. The resistance to checking the "clean" actions comes through the process that finding might shatter the fantasies of the purists.

Take this nugget: "If you think your eye is that great, why chicken out from testing?"

 

[Daemon]

Mmmm nuggets

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Exactly. Test everybody yearly without judging players on how actions look like. If possible test them all under match conditions.

The thing is, while it's possible for a guy who isn't chucking to look like he's chucking (due to illusions caused by the bent elbow held throughout the delivery swing being seen from various angles by a stationary camera blah blah blah), the opposite isn't actually true. It'd just be an enormous waste of money testing everyone. It's fair enough to only test someone regularly if it LOOKS like his action is consistently dodgy.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Mmmm nuggets

awta. Homemade if possible.

 

[GIMH]

The thing is, while it's possible for a guy who isn't chucking to look like he's chucking (due to illusions caused by the bent elbow held throughout the delivery swing being seen from various angles by a stationary camera blah blah blah), the opposite isn't actually true. It'd just be an enormous waste of money testing everyone. It's fair enough to only test someone regularly if it LOOKS like his action is consistently dodgy.

Yeah seeing as everyone seems to think DRS comparisons are appropriate in this thread, it would be like checking a delivery that has not hit the batsman's pad but rather been smashed for four, in case it was lbw.

 

[zaremba]

Exactly. Test everybody yearly without judging players on how actions look like. If possible test them all under match conditions.

You are kidding I hope. Who's going to pick up the fantastically expensive bill for this incredibly wasteful exercise?

 

[Migara]

The thing is, while it's possible for a guy who isn't chucking to look like he's chucking (due to illusions caused by the bent elbow held throughout the delivery swing being seen from various angles by a stationary camera blah blah blah), the opposite isn't actually true. It'd just be an enormous waste of money testing everyone. It's fair enough to only test someone regularly if it LOOKS like his action is consistently dodgy.

Evidence please!

There is every possibility that effort balls or at an end of a long spell, those guys might be stretching the limits. On the other hand no one has tested clean bowlers in the lab. i am quite sure there will be plenty of 10+ degree guys there.

 

[Migara]

You are kidding I hope. Who's going to pick up the fantastically expensive bill for this incredibly wasteful exercise?

Now bringing expenses to it. LMAO.

If testing, test everybody. Otherwise allow everybody. Or better, find a screening test which is cheap. That screening method is not an set of old biased men who reject illusions, see hallucinations and form delusions in their minds.

 

[sledger]

Now bringing expenses to it. LMAO.

Or better, find a screening test which is cheap.

Oh dear.