That conclusion could only be made by someone with sub-continent bias.King_Ponting said:^^^ your an idiot.
I hereby appoint you as Chairman of the ICC.
That conclusion could only be made by someone with sub-continent bias.King_Ponting said:^^^ your an idiot.
King_Ponting said:Hahaha sub continetal bias???? Have u read my posts on Muralitiran??? or the like. If anything im a biast Aussie... lol
No, meaning that it isn't under suspicion. You can still be guilty even if you're not suspected of it. McGrath and others are as guilty as Murali and co.FaaipDeOiad said:Right... meaning that it isn't suspect.
sus·pect ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-spkt)
v. sus·pect·ed, sus·pect·ing, sus·pects
v. tr.
To surmise to be true or probable; imagine: I suspect they are very disappointed.
To have doubts about; distrust: I suspect his motives.
To think (a person) guilty without proof: The police suspect her of murder.
Only difference being is Murali chucks and McGrath bowls, other than that they are the same.Dasa said:No, meaning that it isn't under suspicion. You can still be guilty even if you're not suspected of it. McGrath and others are as guilty as Murali and co.
According to the ICC, Both Chuck, Sarwan probably is the only one among current bowlers who doesn't chuck.Scallywag said:Only difference being is Murali chucks and McGrath bowls, other than that they are the same.
they both chuck mate. they may not have the same degree of flex, but they both chuck (includeing 99% other bowlers).Scallywag said:Only difference being is Murali chucks and McGrath bowls, other than that they are the same.
He is annoyed at the delay by the ICC in constituting the panel which will evaluate him, thus denying him the chance of signing a contract with a county. The rules spoke of 21 days for the panel to be put in place from the date of the bowler being called. IIRC, its been more than a month.Pratyush said:The law is damn clear now and I dont know why Harbhajan is crying over it
Not necessarily. If the bowler changes his action from the earlier tested and the action is found suspect ten it has to be very much verified again.Deja moo said:In that case, its not his complaining thats ridiculous, but rather the system itself. Its obvious that a system that forces a bowler to undergo tests every month is a stupid one. Harbhajans claims are justified.
He could be called even if his action hasnt been changed. The umpire who called him the second time wasnt present while the biomechanics were evaluating his action the first time around. So what prevents him from falling prey to the same illusion that the bowler chucks as the first umpire who called him previously did? This basically means that any x number of umpires could keep calling him again and again just because his action might only look like a throw.Pratyush said:Not necessarily. If the bowler changes his action from the earlier tested and the action is found suspect ten it has to be very much verified again.
Scallywag said:Only difference being is Murali chucks and McGrath bowls, other than that they are the same.
You misunderstand. What I'm trying to say is, the reason Shoaib was reported and McGrath wasn't had nothing to do with variation, but because Shoaib has a suspect action (ie: one which appears to have a noticable degree of flexion), and McGrath does not.Dasa said:No, meaning that it isn't under suspicion. You can still be guilty even if you're not suspected of it. McGrath and others are as guilty as Murali and co.
You're right, my misunderstanding.FaaipDeOiad said:You misunderstand. What I'm trying to say is, the reason Shoaib was reported and McGrath wasn't had nothing to do with variation, but because Shoaib has a suspect action (ie: one which appears to have a noticable degree of flexion), and McGrath does not.
Which is why Brett Lee, despite having a very suspect-looking action has never actually had to take a biomechaics test, right ?Sub continental players are not picked on for chucking, its just any time a subcontinental player is scrutinised for any reason the lame old "its because he is from the subcontinent" excuse is trotted out.
Lee was reported to the ICC, his action was reivewed by a panel of appointed judges and was cleared. This has happened to many other bowlers. As far as I am aware, Shoaib never underwent a "biomechanics test" in the same way that Harbhajan or Murali did either, his action was reviewed, he did some remedial work and he was cleared.C_C said:Which is why Brett Lee, despite having a very suspect-looking action has never actually had to take a biomechaics test, right ?