Bowlers who do not bowl with a clean action...

[macintosh]

Everyone has a different perspective when it comes to bowling actions,
some have complete trust on ICC and feel that if a bowler is cleared by ICC than he is fine, and some do not believe in ICC at all.
What do you guys think? are there bowlers who chuck and get an unfair advantage because of ICC's lenient approach? or is everything fair??

 

[sifter132]

Hmm, dangerous topic...

I'm not going to go pointing any fingers, but I will say that it will be great when umpires have the technology to review actions on the field rather than 6 months later. There was a story about it not long ago about a phone app that could measure the arm flex. More importantly though, make sure the devices are used at places like the U-19 World Cup to make sure that any players with suspect actions never even get to international cricket.

 

[macintosh]

Hmm, dangerous topic...

I'm not going to go pointing any fingers, but I will say that it will be great when umpires have the technology to review actions on the field rather than 6 months later. There was a story about it not long ago about a phone app that could measure the arm flex. More importantly though, make sure the devices are used at places like the U-19 World Cup to make sure that any players with suspect actions never even get to international cricket.

Its really difficult for the umpires to judge, I think scrutinizing a bowler's action in live matches(i mean in each and every single match) should be done, there should be a team of experts who would just observe each and every single ball bowled in the match, analyze it and report if they find something wrong. And a very strict approach is needed here, more than anyone else, the ICC is responsible for the whole mess. And yes, some steps should be taken to make sure that bowlers correct their action a lot earlier and do not enter international cricket if they are not completely clean .

 

[vorgaphe]

I have to say it but Saeed Ajmal's doosra is chucked! Just watch in slow mo, no one can justify that!

 

[6ry4nj]

Everyone has a different perspective when it comes to bowling actions

This is quite false. The fact is that a tiny but loud and annoying minority are ignorant of the rules and/or envious of their rivals' best spinners. Even when the accusations come from individual umpires (Darrell Hair wasn't it? Bringing the game into disrepute, wasn't it?), they amount to this.

The ICC is, if anything, already too strict on this. How long was Shillingford banned for, in which time he's supposed to have corrected some egregious action that he'd been doing all his life?

Frankly I'm surprised (or rather disappointed) this thread has lasted this long.

----------

I have to say it but Saeed Ajmal's doosra is chucked! Just watch in slow mo, no one can justify that!

Are you saying:
1) His elbow is bent more than 15 degrees; or
2) His elbow is straightened too much during delivery; or
3) You don't like it that rival teams, especially from countries you don't like very much, have spinners that are better than yours...

 

[cricket_icon]

This is quite false. The fact is that a tiny but loud and annoying minority are ignorant of the rules and/or envious of their rivals' best spinners. Even when the accusations come from individual umpires (Darrell Hair wasn't it? Bringing the game into disrepute, wasn't it?), they amount to this.

The ICC is, if anything, already too strict on this. How long was Shillingford banned for, in which time he's supposed to have corrected some egregious action that he'd been doing all his life?

Frankly I'm surprised (or rather disappointed) this thread has lasted this long.

----------


Are you saying:
1) His elbow is bent more than 15 degrees; or
2) His elbow is straightened too much during delivery; or
3) You don't like it that rival teams, especially from countries you don't like very much, have spinners that are better than yours...

I like your post, alot.

I also like Nasser's opinion on this. He always says, if the ICC has cleared a bowling action, whereby the arm is NOT bent more than 15 degrees and does not straighten significantly in the build up to the delivery then it should be allowed. And that's all that matters. I don't care how many arm chair scientists and umpires say "oh wow, look how much his arm bends" fact is he has been cleared. If he wasn't cleared, then he, the bowler, would not be allowed to ball that delivery, much like Malik or Botha. That is the end of the story and all the complaining seems to come from teams, fans or both who do not have players that can ball certain types of deliveries.

This is much like the reverse swing "controversy" because lets be honest, for much of the 80s and 90s it was only Pakistan who could deliver balls swinging in a particular way, they were called cheats for doing so. When England finally managed to learn the art (off who? yep those "cheats" Akram and Younis) all of a sudden reverse swing was an art, in the words of Willis and Botham, two of the biggest opponents of the "art" a decade earlier.

The hypocrisy by certain countries, their teams, their media and their fans really must stop.

 

[sifter132]

This is quite false. The fact is that a tiny but loud and annoying minority are ignorant of the rules and/or envious of their rivals' best spinners. Even when the accusations come from individual umpires (Darrell Hair wasn't it? Bringing the game into disrepute, wasn't it?), they amount to this.

Darrell Hair no-balled Murali back in 1995/96 when there were no SPECIFIC rules on throwing (and well before Murali started dominating). The law was that you couldn't straighten your arm, 15 degrees hadn't even been thought about. So Hair just called what he saw. In fact in hindsight that incident has been GOOD for the game, because now the law is much more specific.

 

[6ry4nj]

Darrell Hair no-balled Murali back in 1995/96 when there were no SPECIFIC rules on throwing (and well before Murali started dominating). The law was that you couldn't straighten your arm, 15 degrees hadn't even been thought about. So Hair just called what he saw. In fact in hindsight that incident has been GOOD for the game, because now the law is much more specific.

Hair was a biased umpire and was sanctioned for bringing the game into disrepute. If you have a "my country(man) right or wrong" attitude towards him, I won't waste my time debating it.

As for saying the incident was good for the game, that's like saying World War Two was good because now we know not to do that anymore. The game benefited from rooting out the wrongdoing, not from the wrongdoing itself.

 

[spooony]

Australians has a different perspective when it comes to bowling actions,
some have complete trust on ICC and feel that if a bowler is cleared by ICC than he is fine, and some do not believe in ICC at all.
What do you guys think? are there bowlers who chuck and get an unfair advantage because of ICC's lenient approach? or is everything fair??

Fixed

Hair was a biased umpire and was sanctioned for bringing the game into disrepute. If you have a "my country(man) right or wrong" attitude towards him, I won't waste my time debating it.

As for saying the incident was good for the game, that's like saying World War Two was good because now we know not to do that anymore. The game benefited from rooting out the wrongdoing, not from the wrongdoing itself.

Murali is double jointed and I think that was the straightest his elbow could go. Even after the ICC tested him and cleared him Darryl No balled him. Classic Aussie behavior try to unsettle opposition teams...

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

the thing I wonder about is, what would the real problem with just getting rid of the straight arm rule anyway, or at least making the bend something huge like 45 degrees, as long as you kept the bowling over arm rule would there be a huge significant difference to the things bowlers could do?

if it meant spinners could spin it a bit more and fast bowlers could bowl with more pace I think it might be quite good. it seems a bit unfair that a batsmens equipment can be modified and adjusted as technology improves, bringing in new materials or more innovative designs but a bowlers equipment, his arm, is subject to staying the same forever.

 

[angryangy]

Hair was a biased umpire and was sanctioned for bringing the game into disrepute. If you have a "my country(man) right or wrong" attitude towards him, I won't waste my time debating it.

As for saying the incident was good for the game, that's like saying World War Two was good because now we know not to do that anymore. The game benefited from rooting out the wrongdoing, not from the wrongdoing itself.

How on Earth you expect that anyone could be certain of Murali's action without biometric measurement, is my question. "Because it is" isn't justification, that's just as bad, if not worse than suggesting that Hair was without flaws.

Let's not forget that his doosra was found to be technically illegal for the time in which spinners were permitted no more than 5 degrees of extension. Now if everyone had just minced around the real issues, where exactly was the imperative to change the regulations?

What we got out of that saga was a good deal of knowledge. Knowledge about how far we can trust the naked eye or indeed the foreshortened image on a television. Knowledge that, going back, could probably have saved the career of players like Ian Meckiff, who was not only abused to be made an example of a crackdown on chuckers in Tests, but disgraced to the point he had to retire from first class cricket. And there wasn't, I might add, a single Asian person involved in that fiasco.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I think Hair was rather made a scapegoat by everyone for the sins involved in that fiasco and I don't think it's particularly healthy for either side to blame him too much.

he called what he saw, it was the scores of players and fans that exasperated the situation by with continual complaints, among other things, calling it an ICC cover up. which doesn't even make sense, there clearly was xenophobic attitudes creeping up into that debate and yet hair is taking the brunt of that despite almost being completely uninvolved.

if you ask me, John Howard calling him a chucker when he was prime minister was way worse than hair no balling him.

 

[spooony]

How on Earth you expect that anyone could be certain of Murali's action without biometric measurement, is my question. "Because it is" isn't justification, that's just as bad, if not worse than suggesting that Hair was without flaws.

Let's not forget that his doosra was found to be technically illegal for the time in which spinners were permitted no more than 5 degrees of extension. Now if everyone had just minced around the real issues, where exactly was the imperative to change the regulations?

What we got out of that saga was a good deal of knowledge. Knowledge about how far we can trust the naked eye or indeed the foreshortened image on a television. Knowledge that, going back, could probably have saved the career of players like Ian Meckiff, who was not only abused to be made an example of a crackdown on chuckers in Tests, but disgraced to the point he had to retire from first class cricket. And there wasn't, I might add, a single Asian person involved in that fiasco.

You should really stay with the times.

In 2004, he went to Perth, Australia, for extensive tests under laboratory conditions to determine if his action was legal. The eventual report contained meticulous analysis of the movement of his wrist, forearm, elbow and shoulder as he bowled.

The conclusion was that because of a congenital deformity of the elbow and Muralitharan's unusually quick arm speed, what looked like a throw, was in fact an optical illusion.

ICC making progress on tests for suspect bowling

 

[6ry4nj]

How on Earth you expect that anyone could be certain of Murali's action without biometric measurement, is my question. "Because it is" isn't justification, that's just as bad, if not worse than suggesting that Hair was without flaws.

You quoted what I said, and were apparently replying to it, so you can plainly see that I never mentioned Murali or his action, let alone 'expecting' or assuming anything regarding them.

As you said yourself, we got some good out of the 'saga' - out of the saga, as I said, not out of Hair's corruption, and he deserves no credit for it.

 

[angryangy]

You should really stay with the times.



ICC making progress on tests for suspect bowling

Yes, we're talking about things that happened in the past here. Get over it.