Sunil Narine's action reported (not to the ICC)

[Flem274*]

there is no point except the conspiracy you've concocted. there is no point and there is no debate. that's the point.

 

[Maximas]

i think ww has raised some valid questions. the timing of all these bans with the world cup just around the corner is very suspicious.

It's not suspicious - there was unanimous agreement among ICC members that something needed to be done about chucking, but it's a bit poor in terms of timing. Ultimately I blame the home boards for allowing these kinds of bowlers through the system in some cases and also failing to monitor them properly once they had gotten cleared, if you're going to build a bowling attack around a guy with a dodgy action go to any length to make sure he's legal.

 

[WindieWeathers]

If I ever saw WW admit he was wrong just once he'd be a fair poster. But no, why be wrong when you can just endlessly shift the goalposts. Or blatantly change facts. You just can't have reasonable debate with people like that.

Sigh...where have i "shifted the posts" now?

The wicb were told in confidence that the umpires in India PLANNED to call Narine...therefore in my book they targetted him before a ball had even been bowled...why not give him the benefit of the doubt UNTIL he does something wrong? i wonder if the umpires for the tests "plan" to call Ohja or Ashwin? nah, i wouldn't bet on it either!!..

 

[WindieWeathers]

there is no point except the conspiracy you've concocted. there is no point and there is no debate. that's the point.

Ok you don't think there's a point? you're welcome to move on then.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Sigh...where have i "shifted the posts" now?

The wicb were told in confidence that the umpires in India PLANNED to call Narine...therefore in my book they targetted him before a ball had even been bowled...why not give him the benefit of the doubt UNTIL he does something wrong? i wonder if the umpires for the tests "plan" to call Ohja or Ashwin? nah, i wouldn't bet on it either!!..

You shift the goalposts to whatever makes your far fetched claim most plausible. FFS, you're completely ignoring that both Williamson and Ajmal have recently been reported and banned, one high profile frontline bowler and one part-timer yet still claim that the umpires have some sort of vendetta against WI. In the tests against NZ again and again you would completely ignore the times decisions went clearly in your favour yet still jump on every minor 50/50 that didn't go your way.

As for Narine, the umpires have observed him in action for many games and are clearly suspicious of the legality of his action. Now the proper course of action would be to immediately send him for testing, and I too am confused as to why this hasn't happened. It's mostly down the champions league system being ****.

 

[hendrix]

You shift the goalposts to whatever makes your far fetched claim most plausible. FFS, you're completely ignoring that both Williamson and Ajmal have recently been reported and banned, one high profile frontline bowler and one part-timer yet still claim that the umpires have some sort of vendetta against WI. In the tests against NZ again and again you would completely ignore the times decisions went clearly in your favour yet still jump on every minor 50/50 that didn't go your way.

As for Narine, the umpires have observed him in action for many games and are clearly suspicious of the legality of his action. Now the proper course of action would be to immediately send him for testing, and I too am confused as to why this hasn't happened. It's mostly down the champions league system being ****.

It's simply that the ICC rules require for him to be reported after an international match, rather a domestic/franchise match. Stupid, silly rules but that's what they require before they can force him to be tested.

 

[Dan]

What i'm saying Dan is IF people are going around saying "Narine has been chucking from day one"..and then Ashwin went and COPIED Narine's action to "prove a point" doesn't that mean that Ashwin threw in that game? yet still people are making excuses for him!!..

Bottom line is if Narine "has been chucking from the start" then why wasn't Ashwin called when he copied him? now if people say Narine hasn't been throwing then fair enough..but you can't have it both ways as you say..either Ashwin blatantly threw and somehow got away with it (which would lend credibility to the "big three players" theory).. or he didn't and Narine wasn't throwing either..those are the two options imo.

If Narine's action is found to be illegal and Ashwin was using a slightly exaggerated version of Narine's action to prove a point then, yes, Ashwin was throwing. But given he did so for a) a very short period of time (literally one meaningless ODI to make a point) and b) before the ICC started to crack down on dodgy actions (remember, Narine, Ajmal, Senenayake, Williamson, Shillingford, Samuels, Al-Amin, Gazi et al were all bowling with actions later reported or found illegal at this point), it's hardly evidence of a 'Big 3' conspiracy.

If Ashwin started using the exaggerated Narine in every match and was never cited while Narine was, you'd have a point. But he imitated the action for one game, and the umpires are probably chilling there going "umm what the heck is going on here?" while not having any form of directive to report actions (and their powers to call suspicious actions have been significantly reduced; you can only call no ball for chucking if it is blatant and intentional -- not just a dodgy action).

That's not to say he wasn't chucking; he probably was, especially if his version of the Narine action involved even more straightening like Maximas is saying above. But given that occurred before the crackdown, and it only lasted for a single match, it was never likely to get picked up. You don't report a guy on a whim when it can ruin his career -- which is why I don't like this treatment of Narine whatsoever -- especially if you feel like the deliveries in question aren't representative of his actual bowling style. I suspect that if the umpires saw Ashwin's exaggerated Narine impersonation becoming an actual thing, they'd have reported him very quickly indeed.

They came to the conclusion to report Senanayake after 4 ODIs in England, Narine after most of a tournament, Ajmal after years of questions being raised about the legality of his action etc.

I wouldn't say Ashwin 'blatantly threw' either. He used a suspicious and potentially-illegal action. Ajmal didn't 'blatantly throw', nor does Narine if his action is found to be illegal at some point in the future.

If we really wanted to see if the 'Big Three' theory played out in reality, then you'd need a spinner from one of the countries showing up at the international level and regularly using an action that looks to be of questionable legality. If Ojha came back into the side, I suspect he would be reported. But it's simple -- Australia and England haven't picked spinners with questionable actions. Moeen may have to be tested if his doosra looks a bit dodgy, but he hasn't bowled it in international cricket enough times for umpires to get a clear read on its legality. Meanwhile, the Australian system involves clearing this **** out before the international level -- the domestic umpires are empowered to go "hey, this bloke's action looks dodgy, test him so he doesn't get cited if he hits the ODI squad" or "hey, your follow through hits the danger zone, better fix that before you debut for Australia". Generally (Kane Richardson aside), that has worked quite well. England, I suspect, has similarly-good infrastructure to deal with these types of things. The other countries around the world don't really have that strength of infrastructure in place, from what I can tell.


At present, the international system is good enough to pick up intentional, blatant chucks unrelated to action (e.g. getting pissed off and pegging it at the batsman's head from the bowling crease) and to pick up questionable actions when they're used consistently (i.e. medium-term monitoring of action to look for deterioration and get a decent enough sample size from which to make a judgement). This Ashwin case is an outlier that doesn't fit into either category -- unless we have in-game monitoring, that kind of thing is bound to slip through the cracks.

 

[hendrix]

West Indies Cricket News: Narine withdrawn by WICB from India tour | ESPN Cricinfo

I don't know what to make of this. I'm tempted to say that they won't let him play international cricket until the world cup so that he doesn't have to be tested.

 

[Zinzan]

At least there is one impartial West Indian actually telling it like it is as opposed to slinging conspiracies around.

Well done Colin

News and Analysis : Chennai Super Kings v Kolkata Knight Riders, Bangalore | 'I'm not surprised about Narine' - Croft | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[hendrix]

Narine doesn't bowl a doosra though. He bowls a carrom ball.

 

[WindieWeathers]

You shift the goalposts to whatever makes your far fetched claim most plausible. FFS, you're completely ignoring that both Williamson and Ajmal have recently been reported and banned, one high profile frontline bowler and one part-timer yet still claim that the umpires have some sort of vendetta against WI. In the tests against NZ again and again you would completely ignore the times decisions went clearly in your favour yet still jump on every minor 50/50 that didn't go your way.

As for Narine, the umpires have observed him in action for many games and are clearly suspicious of the legality of his action. Now the proper course of action would be to immediately send him for testing, and I too am confused as to why this hasn't happened. It's mostly down the champions league system being ****.

Excuse me did i complain about Shillingford being called last year? NO..so please do not give me this "WI" stuff. When i see chucking i call it how i see it..i just find it weird how a man can be allowed to be for FOUR GAMES STRIGHT in the same competition...then suddenly the last two "he's suspect"..the first one their excuse was "faster ball", so i take it the rest of his action was clean right? so now all of a sudden "it's everything" in the last game? doesn't add up to me and i shall continue to hold that notion until the Champions league officials set the record straight.

 

[WindieWeathers]

If Narine's action is found to be illegal and Ashwin was using a slightly exaggerated version of Narine's action to prove a point then, yes, Ashwin was throwing. But given he did so for a) a very short period of time (literally one meaningless ODI to make a point) and b) before the ICC started to crack down on dodgy actions (remember, Narine, Ajmal, Senenayake, Williamson, Shillingford, Samuels, Al-Amin, Gazi et al were all bowling with actions later reported or found illegal at this point), it's hardly evidence of a 'Big 3' conspiracy.

If Ashwin started using the exaggerated Narine in every match and was never cited while Narine was, you'd have a point. But he imitated the action for one game, and the umpires are probably chilling there going "umm what the heck is going on here?" while not having any form of directive to report actions (and their powers to call suspicious actions have been significantly reduced; you can only call no ball for chucking if it is blatant and intentional -- not just a dodgy action).

That's not to say he wasn't chucking; he probably was, especially if his version of the Narine action involved even more straightening like Maximas is saying above. But given that occurred before the crackdown, and it only lasted for a single match, it was never likely to get picked up. You don't report a guy on a whim when it can ruin his career -- which is why I don't like this treatment of Narine whatsoever -- especially if you feel like the deliveries in question aren't representative of his actual bowling style. I suspect that if the umpires saw Ashwin's exaggerated Narine impersonation becoming an actual thing, they'd have reported him very quickly indeed.

They came to the conclusion to report Senanayake after 4 ODIs in England, Narine after most of a tournament, Ajmal after years of questions being raised about the legality of his action etc.

I wouldn't say Ashwin 'blatantly threw' either. He used a suspicious and potentially-illegal action. Ajmal didn't 'blatantly throw', nor does Narine if his action is found to be illegal at some point in the future.

If we really wanted to see if the 'Big Three' theory played out in reality, then you'd need a spinner from one of the countries showing up at the international level and regularly using an action that looks to be of questionable legality. If Ojha came back into the side, I suspect he would be reported. But it's simple -- Australia and England haven't picked spinners with questionable actions. Moeen may have to be tested if his doosra looks a bit dodgy, but he hasn't bowled it in international cricket enough times for umpires to get a clear read on its legality. Meanwhile, the Australian system involves clearing this **** out before the international level -- the domestic umpires are empowered to go "hey, this bloke's action looks dodgy, test him so he doesn't get cited if he hits the ODI squad" or "hey, your follow through hits the danger zone, better fix that before you debut for Australia". Generally (Kane Richardson aside), that has worked quite well. England, I suspect, has similarly-good infrastructure to deal with these types of things. The other countries around the world don't really have that strength of infrastructure in place, from what I can tell.


At present, the international system is good enough to pick up intentional, blatant chucks unrelated to action (e.g. getting pissed off and pegging it at the batsman's head from the bowling crease) and to pick up questionable actions when they're used consistently (i.e. medium-term monitoring of action to look for deterioration and get a decent enough sample size from which to make a judgement). This Ashwin case is an outlier that doesn't fit into either category -- unless we have in-game monitoring, that kind of thing is bound to slip through the cracks.

Good post Dan but i would counter your claim about Ashwin "doing it before the crackdown" with the fact that Shillingford and Samuels were both called not long before Ashwin did what he did..and the funny thing is where were Shilly and Marlon called? IN INDIA!!..yet Ashwin may have been allowed to throw around the same time to "prove a point"? is that fair?

 

[WindieWeathers]

Narine doesn't bowl a doosra though. He bowls a carrom ball.

LOL exactly..Colin doesn't have a damn clue

 

[WindieWeathers]

West Indies Cricket News: Narine withdrawn by WICB from India tour | ESPN Cricinfo

I don't know what to make of this. I'm tempted to say that they won't let him play international cricket until the world cup so that he doesn't have to be tested.

What would be the point in that when he could get called at the world cup? i personally hope he goes to Australia and gets things sorted, if there's a problem then spend the rest of the year working on it, if cleared then come back to the Caribbean, play for Trinidad during the first class season and prepare to go to South Africa.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Can anyone explain to me how Narine not bring called in 4 cl t20 games is somehow proof of a conspiracy? There would've been the same shouts of a conspiracy even if he had been called earlier.

 

[cnerd123]

Can anyone explain to me how Narine not bring called in 4 cl t20 games is somehow proof of a conspiracy? There would've been the same shouts of a conspiracy even if he had been called earlier.

"The umpires told the WICB they would call him for chucking before they called him. They didn't give him a fair chance. CONSPIRACY!!"
He bowled four games before he called...
"He bowled four games and they called him now, just before the finals? Why not earlier? CONSPIRACY!!!"

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Best case scenario:
Narine fails the BCCI testing, gets reassessed by the ICC and passes, the BCCI raises a fuss, leaving him banned from all IPl/CPL, but free to persue a test career, finishing with 200 wickets @36

 

[karan316]

Excuse me did i complain about Shillingford being called last year? NO..so please do not give me this "WI" stuff. When i see chucking i call it how i see it..i just find it weird how a man can be allowed to be for FOUR GAMES STRIGHT in the same competition...then suddenly the last two "he's suspect"..the first one their excuse was "faster ball", so i take it the rest of his action was clean right? so now all of a sudden "it's everything" in the last game? doesn't add up to me and i shall continue to hold that notion until the Champions league officials set the record straight.

I agree with it, Narine wasn't reported in the earlier games, and even in the game in which he was reported, it was his quicker deliveries which were an issue. In the semi finals, he didn't use those quicker deliveries at all and was rather cautious about his action, and even Gambhir didn't bowl him at the death(where he uses his quicker deliveries), maybe he did that to make sure Narine gets to play the finals. But still he got banned. This is totally weird stuff. Out of all the bowlers who were reported, only Narine gets banned, and in fact Narine's action looks a lot cleaner than the others.

 

[YorksLanka]

Among the banned ones so far, only Ajmal's a better "bowler"

nah, only in terms of having a legal action.otherwise ajmal, narine, senanayake then ashwin..

 

[OverratedSanity]

How in the world are Narine and Senanayake better than Ashwin? I mean, they're all pretty **** imo, but Ashwin atleast has bullied teams at home and actually has had something that can be called a test career.