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

[Slow Love™]

buddy we agree on just about everything - bar the 'unjust treatment' - for mind he has had the MOST dodgy looking bowling action in the game (as opposed to THE strangest from 'frog in a blender') - as a consequence it would be wrong if his action was NOT subject to some scruitiny and repeatedly so, as I can not accept the arguement that once 'exhonorated' then a player should not be scrutinised again..........

.....

bottom line IMO they have f***ed up BIIG time by including any statement / testing of retired bowlers as this is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the current laws, players & situation.............

Yeah, we're destined to disagree on the unjust treatment, as we obviously are using different qualifiers - although I'm not saying that he should never be scrutinized again, rather that the namecalling and obsession with him on the part of the public needs to cease.

But you're right about the past bowlers thing - firstly, yes, the way those conclusions were arrived at needs to be explained, and secondly, the study of the contemporary bowlers already proves the point (regarding Murali) that they're trying to make. The question has to be asked - do we have specifically have a problem with contemporary bowlers throwing the ball, or HAS there always been transgression on such a general basis, throughout cricket's history (well, since overarm bowling, at least)? Perhaps it's the case that because so many bowlers are in violation, the study is making probability assumptions backwards - although the fact that they've named specific bowlers tends to suggest otherwise.

 

[anzac]

But you're right about the past bowlers thing - firstly, yes, the way those conclusions were arrived at needs to be explained, and secondly, the study of the contemporary bowlers already proves the point (regarding Murali) that they're trying to make. The question has to be asked - do we have specifically have a problem with contemporary bowlers throwing the ball, or HAS there always been transgression on such a general basis, throughout cricket's history (well, since overarm bowling, at least)? Perhaps it's the case that because so many bowlers are in violation, the study is making probability assumptions backwards - although the fact that they've named specific bowlers tends to suggest otherwise.

I have no idea of the frequency of violations by the current bowlers - do they breach the law EVERY delivery?, once an over?, short/over pitched?, after 15 overs for the day or 6 overs on the trot etc etc.............presumably it would have to be a general violation as a result of their delivery action & would be occurring with basically EVERY delivery - otherwise there would not be the need for such a large increase in tolerations - if at all!!!!

but regardless of this I cringe at the reference to retired bowlers as IMO they have just unnecessarily opened up a can of worms as this information is NOT relevant to any decisions regarding the current laws & players.........

sure they can do a follow up study if they want to see how long it has been like this - but IMO they should have dealt with 1 thing at a time - let the players & public digest the bombshell regarding the current bowling & revise the laws accordingly - then once this has been 'accepted' then they can go back in time etc...........

for mind it just seems typical of the way the ICC mis-handle most things, in so much as they don't put 1 thing to bed properly b4 they stick their foot in their mouths about something aligned to the initial issue, thus bringing the whole situation back under the microscope etc etc..........

 

[JustTool]

In spite of the fact that Hair has been proven 100% in calling Murali?

And, speaking of Hair, he has been proven 100% WRONG, and I daresay, stupid and biased, by NOT calling Brett Lee and Glen McGrath. Wake up guys - the subcontinent brings in all the $ and they are not going to take this crap from the Aussies or the ICC anymore.

The days of one-way bias are long over. Have you seen how the Aussie Press and so-called 'greats' are hypocritically squirming in their respective responses. BTW, Buchanan supports the ruling - like it matters what a biased Aussie might think ? Why don't we discuss what Arjun Ranatunga thinks ?

 

[Tugger]

And, speaking of Hair, he has been proven 100% WRONG, and I daresay, stupid and biased, by NOT calling Brett Lee and Glen McGrath. Wake up guys - the subcontinent brings in all the $ and they are not going to take this crap from the Aussies or the ICC anymore.

Why would he call them when they're not chucking? I don't give a rats what the subcontinent does just because they outnumber us. Why should we take crap from them? Then again, why not beat them at their own game and have the Australian Institute of Sport's Men's Cricket Division develop a top notch chucking program. Then we'll be playing on a even wicket, so to speak.

 

[JustTool]

Why would he call them when they're not chucking? I don't give a rats what the subcontinent does just because they outnumber us. Why should we take crap from them? Then again, why not beat them at their own game and have the Australian Institute of Sport's Men's Cricket Division develop a top notch chucking program. Then we'll be playing on a even wicket, so to speak.

You do give a rat's ass when they beat you fair and square, you can't stand it and resort to personal sledging, false accusations, cheating and media assaults. And then such frustrated posts as yours.

 

[tooextracool]

apparently ramnaresh sarwan was amongst the 1% of bowlers that dont chuck......

 

[anzac]

And, speaking of Hair, he has been proven 100% WRONG, and I daresay, stupid and biased, by NOT calling Brett Lee and Glen McGrath. Wake up guys - the subcontinent brings in all the $ and they are not going to take this crap from the Aussies or the ICC anymore.

The days of one-way bias are long over. Have you seen how the Aussie Press and so-called 'greats' are hypocritically squirming in their respective responses. BTW, Buchanan supports the ruling - like it matters what a biased Aussie might think ? Why don't we discuss what Arjun Ranatunga thinks ?

just sooo OTT that the moniker just about says it all..............

mate you should really read some of the crap you are putting out - very much the pot calling the kettle black..............particularly re your obsession with the other bowlers NOT being called..............amongst others

 

[Langeveldt]

apparently ramnaresh sarwan was amongst the 1% of bowlers that dont chuck......

Yep..

I'll eat my computer and cellphone if I chuck.. I just can't believe it to be honest.. Just a way of diverting the attention from Murali tbh.. And its working a treat..

 

[Scaly piscine]

From Cricinfo: "Last week, an ICC panel announced that, after extensive studies of the actions of the leading bowlers in international cricket, up to 99% of fast bowlers occasionally exceed their permitted 10-degree leverage."

So that's "up to 99%", which means it could be any number from 0 to 99.

and "occasionally exceed their permitted 10-degree leverage", unlike Murali who I assume ALWAYS exceeds the 10-degrees for his doosra. There is a big difference between occasionally (especially in ICC-speak) and always.

 

[Langeveldt]

So that's "up to 99%", which means it could be any number from 0 to 99.

Haha, would laugh profusely if they said.. Yeah, we meant 0!!!

 

[Sanz]

and "occasionally exceed their permitted 10-degree leverage", unlike Murali who I assume ALWAYS exceeds the 10-degrees for his doosra. There is a big difference between occasionally (especially in ICC-speak) and always.

Are you saying that it is okay to chuck occasionally ??

 

[Scaly piscine]

Are you saying that it is okay to chuck occasionally ??

Depends on how occasional it is (1 in 10/50/1000/1000000?), since the ICC don't go into details it could be that someone throws a bit at the end of long spell or it could be the odd effort ball or bouncer is being thrown. It's certainly not as bad as consistently throwing a specific delivery that makes you a much bigger threat as a bowler overall like Murali does/did with his doosra.

I should also point out that Murali being a spinner has a lower arm speed than fast bowlers, so the angle of straightening should be lower for him to begin with anyway.

 

[Richard]

But you're right about the past bowlers thing - firstly, yes, the way those conclusions were arrived at needs to be explained, and secondly, the study of the contemporary bowlers already proves the point (regarding Murali) that they're trying to make. The question has to be asked - do we have specifically have a problem with contemporary bowlers throwing the ball, or HAS there always been transgression on such a general basis, throughout cricket's history (well, since overarm bowling, at least)? Perhaps it's the case that because so many bowlers are in violation, the study is making probability assumptions backwards - although the fact that they've named specific bowlers tends to suggest otherwise.

My thoughts about exactly.
It doesn't really make sense that they say such a thing without saying why. Nonetheless, it would be a logical assumption - if everyone nowadays flexes more than previously assumed on occasions, it's pretty likely that everyone who's ever tried does. Me, I'm almost certain that my normal action involves no straightening at all, but I can't believe I never - unintentionally - bowl illegal deliveries.
Which is why I think a braces-as-standard would be about the only fair alternative - it would put a stop to deliberate and unintentional occasional illegal deliveries, and it would force all bowlers to bowl with the same rules, rather than one straightening 4 degrees, another 7 and the next 13. It would also, after about 200 years, uphold the ideals that it would be logical to assume have never been upheld by anyone (even Ramnaresh must, really, if we think about it, bowl illegal balls occasionally).

 

[Sanz]

Depends on how occasional it is (1 in 10/50/1000/1000000?), since the ICC don't go into details it could be that someone throws a bit at the end of long spell or it could be the odd effort ball or bouncer is being thrown. It's certainly not as bad as consistently throwing a specific delivery that makes you a much bigger threat as a bowler overall like Murali does/did with his doosra.

I should also point out that Murali being a spinner has a lower arm speed than fast bowlers, so the angle of straightening should be lower for him to begin with anyway.

Your post smells of hypocrisy. A Chucker is a chucker whether he chucks once in an over, once in a day or once in his life time. To me an occasional chucker is more dangerous than a regular chucker and a much bigger threat. You never know when the occasional chucker is going to chuck.

Man, If I am Sourav Ganguly and I would be pretty mad IF I found out that the bouncers I was getting out to were actually illegal and it doesn't matter to me if the bowler bowled only one of those through an entire test match.

 

[Richard]

It is almost unheard of nowadays (Ruchira Perera was a big exception) to get a bowler whose action is blatantly and consistently illegal.
Almost all bowlers, as has been proven, throw the occasional ball, sometimes unintentionally. Such bowlers are never called by Umpires and are not exactly likely to be reported by Referees. Most of these are suspicions - yes, they are right to report them, but nonetheless they are more often illusions than they are genuine illegal actions.
Hate to repeat myself but about the only fair option would be to ensure no bowler could possibly break a very simple rule (no straightening at all - not x degrees for "fast" bowlers and y degrees for "medium" bowlers).
Doubt it'll happen, though - same way the simple all wicketkeeping gloves must be white will probably never be implemented either, even though it would improve the game enormously by making it easier to call on faraway-cameras whether catches have carried or not.

 

[Scaly piscine]

That's just plain silly saying someone who chucks once in his lifetime is as bad as a regular chucker. Are we gonna brand all bowlers chuckers because they threw a ball when they were playing with a tennis ball as a 7 year old kid?

The odd inadvertent 'throw' (ie uncalled no-ball) once in a blue moon could happen to anyone and isn't a problem really - you can count it as another umpiring blunder that'll even itself eventually if you wanted.

 

[Richard]

Except for everyone it's almost certainly more than the odd once-in-a-blue-moon thing.

 

[C_C]

Warne_Is_God,
your lack of knowledge of this world is shocking to say the least.
It has been a disadvantage to be a black for the last 400-500 years. Yea, before that the blacks/colored people were on even-keel or bossed around the fairer ones but TODAY, its not an advantage to be a black. Its not even even keel yet.
Why dont you look at your Aussie history and see the racism against Aboriginies that are existant to THIS DAY.
why dont you look at american or british history for that ?

As per discerning the degree of bend from old footages, its not hard at all.
I am an electronics engineer and i can tell you what is the angle of flexing of Lillee-Thommo-Marshall etc. with an error margin of few minutes (ya know-degrees-minutes-seconds?) if i had the proper equipment.
If video footage can be analysed to get an accuracy level of a few minutes, why was Murali tested with all those electrodes ? reason being its even more accurate.
The method used on murali probably has an error margin of a a few seconds or so....ie, more accurate.
And when more accurate measuring ways are available, thats whats used.
But thats does NOT mean video-analysis is invalid.
All you need is practically frame-splitters, resolution enhancers and a software datalink from -frame-by-frame photoprocessing to a software like Maple or MATlab.
If video evidence suggests that Lillee chucks by bending his arm 14 degrees, it means 14 degrees, 30 minutes with +/- 5 minutes error. Ie, his actual chuck angle is anywhere between 14 degrees 25 minutes and 14 degrees 35 minutes.
If murali chucks 14 degrees by the UWA testing, its something like 14 degrees, 33 minutes and 40 seconds with a +/- 10 seconds error rate.
Ie, his angle-bend is anywhere between 14 degrees, 33 minutes and 30 seconds to 14 degrees, 33 minutes and 50 seconds.

If you dont understand science(which you obviously dont), dont whine. Just ask and someone will explain!

 

[JASON]

Why dont you look at your Aussie history and see the racism against Aboriginies that are existant to THIS DAY.

That's totally uncalled for, Mate !! I know some of the idiots here are posting rubbish !! But get a hold of yourself !!

You shouldn't drop to their level by dropping the level of this discussion to what they are trying to turn it into !!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hate to repeat myself but about the only fair option would be to ensure no bowler could possibly break a very simple rule (no straightening at all - not x degrees for "fast" bowlers and y degrees for "medium" bowlers).

I think if you implemented measures to ensure the arm didn't hyperextend etc then you'd probably find an increase in related injuries. The body is flexing for a reason, to take that away would surely create greater stress on joints and muscles.