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

[JD10]

Yeah

 

[vorgaphe]

Even though you'll all deny it until the cows come home this is not a clean action! His doosras are chucked. Also for people using Younis and Akram as an example of victims of western "racism" or "sour grapes". Remember this?
BBC SPORT | CRICKET | Waqar suspended for ball-tampering
This isn't a crusade against Saeed Ajmal or any other bowlers I just believe it's unfair for him to flout the rules.

 

[Aalay]

Even though you'll all deny it until the cows come home this is not a clean action! His doosras are chucked. Also for people using Younis and Akram as an example of victims of western "racism" or "sour grapes". Remember this?
BBC SPORT | CRICKET | Waqar suspended for ball-tampering
This isn't a crusade against Saeed Ajmal or any other bowlers I just believe it's unfair for him to flout the rules.

I agree. His doosras are very doubtful and sometimes it does like he is chuking but he has been cleared by ICC so can't debate much about it as its not gonna matter anymore.

P.S. I have never seen Ajmal wearing a half sleeve shirt in last couple of years. I remember when he played his first ODI against India, he was wearing a half sleeve shirt.

 

[vorgaphe]

Pakistan spinner Saeed Ajmal claims ICC issued special dispensation for his controversial bowling action - Telegraph
Not exactly cleared by the ICC more given special dispensation.

 

[puddleduck]

You obviously stopped reading half way through the article, as it quite clearly says he is cleared... and with room to spare

 

[spooony]

Percentage of legal bowlers according to MCC Law 24.3 (2000 code).

Fast 0.0%
Fast/med 0.0%
Medium 0.0%
Slow 0.0%
Spin 0.0%

That is every bowler included who ever played cricket.

At the University of Western Australia (Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science), three-dimensional kinematic measurements of Muttiah Muralitharan?s bowling arm were taken using high speed cameras while he bowled his doosra. Murali?s mean elbow extension angle for the doosra delivery was 14?, which was subsequently reduced to a mean of 10.2? with a modified action. Though Elliott et al. (2004) concluded that ?Mr. Muralitharan be permitted to continue bowling his doosra at least until a valid data base is collected on the various spin bowling disciplines?, the overwhelming response was that Murali?s doosra contravened the established ICC elbow extension limit of 5? for spinners.

The issue of throwing in this decade, however, does not stop with Murali. The two fastest bowlers in the world Shoaib Akhtar (Pakistan) and Brett Lee (Australia) have both been called for throwing. Shoaib was also required to undergo laboratory testing at the University of Western Australia, where it was concluded that he had a hyperextension abnormality which prevented him from bowling with a straight arm. Brett was subject to a hearing, which included a select panel of experts from each of the ICC test playing countries. At the end of the hearing it was concluded that according to the evidence presented there was no basis to find fault with his action. Unfortunately, the evidence did not include a three-dimensional kinematic analysis of his bowling, which Muttiah Muralitharan, Shoaib Akhtar, and more recently Shoaib Malik were all subject to.

CoachesInfo.com - information and education for coaches - The Biomechanics of Illegal Bowling Actions in Cricket

Hello!! I repeat

At the end of the hearing it was concluded that according to the evidence presented there was no basis to find fault with his action. Unfortunately, the evidence did not include a three-dimensional kinematic analysis of his bowling, which Muttiah Muralitharan, Shoaib Akhtar, and more recently Shoaib Malik were all subject to

 

[macintosh]

I would like to know the reason why most of the suspect bowlers wear full sleeve
t-shirts even in hot and humid conditions, if the ICC has cleared them, then why do they have to hide something?? Why do some bowlers try to hide the bend in their elbow??
There must be something that must be going wrong, otherwise they should be completely confident about their bowling action when they have ICC's clearance.

 

[JD10]

This isn't very clean in my opinion

 

[puddleduck]

Oh for christ sake, can people read the actual rules before posting in this thread

Taking stationary pictures of bent arms and then ignoring what designates a delivery legal is borderline retarded.

However, an interesting point is made about bowlers using long sleeves. I would imagine the arm probably looks a bit different depending on which delivery they are bowling, and as such masking it means batsman can't pick them based on the angle of the arm.

 

[spooony]

This isn't very clean in my opinion

Totally agree. Those pants are horribly dirty

Percentage of legal bowlers according to ICC elbow angle tolerance level: Fast (10?), Fast/Medium and Medium (7.5?), Slow and Spin (5?).

Fast 86.7%
Fast/med 87.5%
Medium 100.0%
Slow 35.7%
Spin 60.0%

 

[sifter132]

^Yes but that is the OLD angle tolerance levels...stop clouding the issue. 15 degrees is now the angle of tolerance, not 5.

I would like to know the reason why most of the suspect bowlers wear full sleeve
t-shirts even in hot and humid conditions, if the ICC has cleared them, then why do they have to hide something?? Why do some bowlers try to hide the bend in their elbow??
There must be something that must be going wrong, otherwise they should be completely confident about their bowling action when they have ICC's clearance.

Self defence I would say. Wearing a long sleeved shirt can help hide the issue from the public eye and stop people from looking at your arm and saying 'hey, that doesn't look right' eg. those pictures of Ajmal and Samuels. Doesn't mean you're guilty by wearing long sleeves, but I would be advising anyone with a suspicious looking arm kink to wear them for sure

 

[spooony]

^Yes but that is the OLD angle tolerance levels...stop clouding the issue. 15 degrees is now the angle of tolerance, not 5.

Clouding the issue or you not thinking outside the box. Yes we all know its old but the reason why I posted it is simple.

Firstly under the MCG 2000 laws every bowler actions were illegal. So they changed it to Fast (10?), Fast/Medium and Medium (7.5?), Slow and Spin (5?).

So data was collected and it was found that 0% turned into the following

Fast 86.7%
Fast/med 87.5%
Medium 100.0%
Slow 35.7%
Spin 60.0%

That meant the ICC was faced with a dillemma. Either change the tollerance level or start mass banning cricketers. That will be 14% of fast, 13 percent of fast/med, 65% of slow and 40% of spinners that would have gone under investigation leaving years of bannings, investigations, political debates, as well as costing millions of dollars.

But to get around it and avoid all that is to set the tolerance levels higher according to the gathered data.

So actually I am not clouding anything. I am actually doing the opposite and showing you how the ICC ended up at current levels and as well as the reasons.


Percentage of legal bowlers for range of acceptable mean elbow extension angle tolerances.

As you can see 30 40 percent now becomes 100 percent of bowlers with legal actions.

So the ICC chose the easy path. It is wrong for cricket and its wrong the way they change the laws to try and sweep a issue under the mat.

 

[sifter132]

You are providing good facts, but if you don't qualify them they are misleading. eg. on that post I replied to, you just posted a graph and a list of bowlers who were outside the OLD laws - without saying they were the old laws. If you came into this thread and didn't know the laws had changed to 15 degrees, then those numbers give you a misleading message, that it all I am trying to say.

And saying the ICC chose the wrong path...would you rather that 10-15% of fast bowlers were banned and about 50% of spinners?? But I do think 15 degrees might be too much, maybe 12 or 13 would have been better.

 

[spooony]

You are providing good facts, but if you don't qualify them they are misleading. eg. on that post I replied to, you just posted a graph and a list of bowlers who were outside the OLD laws - without saying they were the old laws. If you came into this thread and didn't know the laws had changed to 15 degrees, then those numbers give you a misleading message, that it all I am trying to say.

And saying the ICC chose the wrong path...would you rather that 10-15% of fast bowlers were banned and about 50% of spinners?? But I do think 15 degrees might be too much, maybe 12 or 13 would have been better.

Actually I posted a short intro with a link with the full details. All you had to do was click on it.

But they chose a nice round total because 15 degrees would be a bit easier to judge than a 13 or 14. Not saying one can spot a 15 degrees easily as it will take some gutsy umpiring to judge it with the naked eye. But most will be referrals where testing will be done to see if the 15 degrees were overstepped.

The flaw in the current law is a throw can be done with a elbow extension of 12.6? from shoulder height to ball release. Which is within the 15 degrees. So the ICC just made throwing legal.

I do advise all to read this article CoachesInfo.com - information and education for coaches - The Biomechanics of Illegal Bowling Actions in Cricket to understand what a mess the ICC created for themselves.

 

[macintosh]

Actually I posted a short intro with a link with the full details. All you had to do was click on it.

But they chose a nice round total because 15 degrees would be a bit easier to judge than a 13 or 14. Not saying one can spot a 15 degrees easily as it will take some gutsy umpiring to judge it with the naked eye. But most will be referrals where testing will be done to see if the 15 degrees were overstepped.

The flaw in the current law is a throw can be done with a elbow extension of 12.6? from shoulder height to ball release. Which is within the 15 degrees. So the ICC just made throwing legal.

I do advise all to read this article CoachesInfo.com - information and education for coaches - The Biomechanics of Illegal Bowling Actions in Cricket to understand what a mess the ICC created for themselves.

The ICC has taken a dumb step which cannot be reversed.
Instead of taking some tough decisions, they have taken an easier and non controversial route which has created long term damage for the game.
I agree with Sifter, 12 degrees should have been enough.