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

[Agent Nationaux]

HB, the ICC make sure that the bowler bowls at the same speed and imparts the same amount of revolutions on the ball in the lab as he does in match conditions. They do this by comparing using the latest technology and video footage from matches.

So if Murali was legal in lab conditions, he was most certainly legal in matches. This might not be 100% accurate, but there is no better method available at the moment.

 

[honestbharani]

HB, the ICC make sure that the bowler bowls at the same speed and imparts the same amount of revolutions on the ball in the lab as he does in match conditions. They do this by comparing using the latest technology and video footage from matches.

So if Murali was legal in lab conditions, he was most certainly legal in matches. This might not be 100% accurate, but there is no better method available at the moment.

lol.. you are preaching to the choir mate. That is the exact point I made.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I was just re confirming your excellent point.

Although I did not know that you knew about the tests the ICC conduct.

 

[marc71178]

HB, the ICC make sure that the bowler bowls at the same speed and imparts the same amount of revolutions on the ball in the lab as he does in match conditions. They do this by comparing using the latest technology and video footage from matches.

So if Murali was legal in lab conditions, he was most certainly legal in matches. This might not be 100% accurate, but there is no better method available at the moment.

So using the latest technology that's only just come in, how exactly do they use this to clear people previously tested?!

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I just gave an example but I meant the latest tech available to them at the time.

Would it make you feel better if Ajmal was tested annually?

 

[smash84]

I just gave an example but I meant the latest tech available to them at the time.

Would it make you feel better if Ajmal was tested annually?

no it wouldn't as he would still be chucking according to the "impartial" eyes of some people

 

[Son Of Coco]

You just have a hard time believing that everyone chucks, don't you?

If you mean I don't automatically believe it because it suits my line of argument, then yes. Everyone wasn't tested for a start. There are a large number of players who weren't playing in that tournament that haven't been tested.

And the testing process was immediately shelved after that tournament.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Would it make you feel better if Ajmal was tested annually?

While I believe Ajmal is bowling legit currently, this is exactly what should be happening for bowlers like him. Otherwise, there's nothing stopping him from chucking after he's been cleared once.

 

[Fusion]

So due to Pakistan's victory over England, I've been having a "cricket 101" conversation with an American friend of mine via email. The subject of chucking came up and I'm having a hard time explaining the rule to him. Does anyone have a helpful link to a site that I can use? Particularly one that perhaps demonstrates a chuck via graphics/pics?

 

[Jono]

Weird way to try and hit on chicks on the net Fusion.

 

[Shri]

He said 'him' Joni.

Btw, how ya doing?

 

[honestbharani]

Pakistan v England, 2011-12: Unravelling the mystery of Saeed Ajmal | Cricket Features | Pakistan v England | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[honestbharani]

If you mean I don't automatically believe it because it suits my line of argument, then yes. Everyone wasn't tested for a start. There are a large number of players who weren't playing in that tournament that haven't been tested.

And the testing process was immediately shelved after that tournament.

I am not saying it is a fact but it is a reasonable assumption that if almost every bowler tested during that CT was flexing their elbows, chances are, almost every bowler who is around today is doing the same. Add to it the biomechanists explaining how it is impossible to hurl the cricket ball down off a bowling action windup without flexing the elbow, I feel the argument is conclusive enough.

 

[Migara]

HB, the ICC make sure that the bowler bowls at the same speed and imparts the same amount of revolutions on the ball in the lab as he does in match conditions. They do this by comparing using the latest technology and video footage from matches.

So if Murali was legal in lab conditions, he was most certainly legal in matches. This might not be 100% accurate, but there is no better method available at the moment.

And add the fact that bowlers with supposedly clean actions are also exceeding the limit, but never caught because their actions are not dodgy in the eyes of few frail old men.

 

[Fusion]

Weird way to try and hit on chicks on the net Fusion.

Haha, we all need a hobby.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

So who is this dude dressed as a chick Fusion. You're not getting confused are you.