angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Well what do you mean by corruption then? Because Hair didn't follow Murali around no-balling him for a decade.
Bowlers who do not bowl with a clean action...
- Thread starter macintosh
- Start date
In this day, and apparently we're banned from mentioning the past
, he couldn't call him for no balling because nobody chucks and anyone that does is sent off to get that fixed.Hair called what he saw, I agree with Hair that some actions are suspect and that's how people get sent to get their actions fixed - funny that. He wasn't "corrupt", that's just a ridiculous allegation. He was told he couldn't call Murali and so Murali, and others, gained any advantage there was to be had.
I think Malinga's action could gain him an unfair advantage, whether players can bowl properly, straighten their arm etc doesn't detract from what can be an advantage. AAA doesn't want Pistorius running with other athletes because they feel he gains an advantage, it isn't his fault he has blades and yet there is the objection. Are they wrong?
The ICC saw a big can of worms and decided not to open up, therefore Hair was 'scapegoated' and laws changed to make Murali's action legal. If there was nothing wrong with his action, or others, there'd have been no need to change the laws and bring in 15 degrees.
Hair was controversial, no doubt about that and I don't doubt he'd accept that and not take offence, but accusing him of bias and corruption is just
Failing to be impartial as an adjudicating official falls well within the definition of corruption, and this was what Hair was found guilty of.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
To be fair, even in the old days as I was saying with Meckiff, international umpires shied away from throwing the book at bowlers, pardon the pun. It's unsavoury business, not to mention inconsistent across multiple pairs of eyes. Meckiff had played 18 Tests and bowled a good 3000 'unchucked', without changing his action, mind you, when he was run out of town. Nobody really even knows why he was recalled to the side in '63 to 'throw' one over before Benaud showed decorum and removed him from his attack.
Tony Lock was a much more high profile example, except he was only called a couple of times in Tests and managed to survive it. Midway through his career, he witnessed his bowling on film for the first time and promptly changed his action, just in time to avoid the great purge. Nevertheless, he must have thrown tens of thousands of balls in first class matches, without an umpire giving so much as a hint.
Indeed a lot of bowlers particular to the Ashes of 58/59, including Lock, Meckiff, Gordon Rorke, Jimmy Burke, Keith Slater and Peter Loader, were either outright chuckers or at least worthy of discussion, and many of which clearly hadn't been called for throwing nearly enough at lower levels. With neither Australia nor England willing to concede any moral (or performance related) high ground, Bradman met with Gubby Allen and both boards agreed to a crackdown in the early 60s.
And of course the reactions were similar. Obviously Col Egar wasn't declared to be racist, but he was hated (well, he was an umpire, he certainly wasn't loved). He received death threats considered serious enough to warrant a police escort (or maybe the cops just wanted to go to the cricket).
Some went as far to say that Meckiff's unlikely Test recall was a machination by Bradman to have someone to take a fall for his crusade; although this was not to be the only time Egar called a player for throwing, given Bradman's gravitas, its not a possibility that can be easily dismissed. There was also sympathy for South African Geoff Griffin, of whom spectators could not determine the difference between the balls he was called for and the balls he wasn't called for. Perhaps the harshest penalty was reserved for Englishman Dusty Rhodes, who was cleared due to a finding of hyper-extension in 1968, when it was all too late for his Test career.
Tony Lock was a much more high profile example, except he was only called a couple of times in Tests and managed to survive it. Midway through his career, he witnessed his bowling on film for the first time and promptly changed his action, just in time to avoid the great purge. Nevertheless, he must have thrown tens of thousands of balls in first class matches, without an umpire giving so much as a hint.
Indeed a lot of bowlers particular to the Ashes of 58/59, including Lock, Meckiff, Gordon Rorke, Jimmy Burke, Keith Slater and Peter Loader, were either outright chuckers or at least worthy of discussion, and many of which clearly hadn't been called for throwing nearly enough at lower levels. With neither Australia nor England willing to concede any moral (or performance related) high ground, Bradman met with Gubby Allen and both boards agreed to a crackdown in the early 60s.
And of course the reactions were similar. Obviously Col Egar wasn't declared to be racist, but he was hated (well, he was an umpire, he certainly wasn't loved). He received death threats considered serious enough to warrant a police escort (or maybe the cops just wanted to go to the cricket).
Some went as far to say that Meckiff's unlikely Test recall was a machination by Bradman to have someone to take a fall for his crusade; although this was not to be the only time Egar called a player for throwing, given Bradman's gravitas, its not a possibility that can be easily dismissed. There was also sympathy for South African Geoff Griffin, of whom spectators could not determine the difference between the balls he was called for and the balls he wasn't called for. Perhaps the harshest penalty was reserved for Englishman Dusty Rhodes, who was cleared due to a finding of hyper-extension in 1968, when it was all too late for his Test career.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
I think the word "unfair" there is extremely contentious. it does give him an advantage in some respects, I think there was a cricinfo article written about bouncers and the author said malinga was the only bowler he was genuinely scared of facing as it was much harder to discern when he was bouncing you as the ball came in a lot flatter.
but unfair? it's just a different way of bowling. I think it's a bit like saying a legspinner has an "unfair" advantage over an offie because he moves the ball away from the batsman.
nicky083
School Cricketer
Even chris gayle's bowling action can be questioned.Sometimes he just throws it into batsmen's feet.
Someone says this thread should not exist. WHY ON EARTH? Its not about "chucking". Its about people who don't bowl with clean actions like the majority do. What's wrong in even discussing about it? And stop this bull s.h.i.t argument about us being jealous of rival spinners. Especially for us Indians, we have seen a big lineage of very good spinners.
I just hate bowlers who don't bowl with clean actions. I will always look down upon them, no matter what one says.
I just hate bowlers who don't bowl with clean actions. I will always look down upon them, no matter what one says.
If clean action doesn't mean legal action, it is a completely meaningless term, as I haven't heard anyone give an alternate definition for it. Also, you are the first to suggest this, so you may be the only one using it this way. Tell us what you mean.
Obscenity might be a good argument by your standards, but the fact is that no-one carries on like this about their own team's legal spinners. It is also a fact that Ajmal is objectively better than anyone you have currently, and that India-Pakistan rivalry sometimes gets heated and irrational.
BKB1991
Panel of Selectors
Lol no one said this about Indians whining about this and that. Think the English where the ones who pointed fingers at Ajmal in the TESTs, and I recall seeing youtube videos of their own contradictions (they were praising him when he was destroying other teams)
I personally hate Ashwins action, but that doesnt warrant me to claim its "unclean" in any way.
You could use this thread to point out that there are others who have dodgy actions, but theres no need to revisit the Ajmal issue when it has been cleared beyond any doubt..again and again.
I think you are misunderstanding it. It was pointed toward that English fan who revisited Ajmal bowling issue.
He is not talking about current spinners but the spinners we had in past.
spooony
Club Captain
Last edited:
One common thing amongst all the bowlers with a dodgy action are full sleeved T Shirts, it shows their total lack of confidence over their bowling action, if ICC has cleared them, then why would they want to hide something? Bowling with full sleeve T shirts isn't a crime, but there are very few bowlers who would actually be comfortable with it, especially in hot and humid conditions.
We cannot prove that X or Y bowler is clean or not in some cases, but at the same time, we cannot completely agree with the ICC. Don't think ICC is 100% right.
We cannot prove that X or Y bowler is clean or not in some cases, but at the same time, we cannot completely agree with the ICC. Don't think ICC is 100% right.
JD10
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
- Location
- North England/Melbourne
Maybe a little off topic but when I play club cricket there are 10+ blatent chuckers and never held up. Should the MCC doing anything about it ? Whereas in test and International they are alittle more disguised (if they do)
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
Similar threads
