Why subcontinental bowlers get picked for chucking

[Deja moo]

It goes for everyone, not just Harby.

It does, but no one else has had to be called twice in one month.

 

[Sudeep]

Just call me Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Sir.

I wonder who's Pratyush, and who's me. :S

 

[marc71178]

Just call me Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

I think you can get ointment for that.

 

[username1234]

you are the lady in the background behind samual jackson.

 

[Neil Pickup]

you are the lady in the background behind samual jackson.

Looks more like Robbie Earle to me.

 

[Sanz]

So in response, Dalmiya lifts the ban on Shoaib. If this is true, he is no better than Richards.

I guess you need to know that Shoaib was cleared to play only in ODIs( his ban for test matches was still there) because the delivery identiified by the ICC as 'chucked' or 'Illegal' happened to be 'bouncer' which is not allowed in ODIs.

There is no comparison between Dalmiya and David Richards, Dalmiya banned Indian players whereas Richards sat on the report of Waugh & Warne. Dalmiya lifted the ban publicly, he didn't hide it from anyone, Richards concealed the report about LEE.

 

[SJS]

Q :Why subcontinental bowlers get picked for chucking

A :Simple. Because they chuck !

Hypothesis : Its because they have more variety !!

Answer : Thats bull. You should say, maybe, because they bowl the doosra .

Hypothesis 2. : Ok. They get picked up because they bowl the doosra which others cant.

Answer : Bull !! You mean to say, they are willing to "use" a delivery that just can not be bowled and willing to risk being called. That being the case, they do run the risk of their "bluff" being called.

 

[Scallywag]

I guess you need to know that Shoaib was cleared to play only in ODIs( his ban for test matches was still there) because the delivery identiified by the ICC as 'chucked' or 'Illegal' happened to be 'bouncer' which is not allowed in ODIs.

There is no comparison between Dalmiya and David Richards, Dalmiya banned Indian players whereas Richards sat on the report of Waugh & Warne. Dalmiya lifted the ban publicly, he didn't hide it from anyone, Richards concealed the report about LEE.

http://content.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/88787.html

Brett Lee bowling action under ICC review
Rick Eyre
July 11, 2000

Australian fast bowler Brett Lee is under investigation by the ICC's illegal deliveries committee following an adverse report about his bowling action. This was revealed by Australian Cricket Board chief executive Mal Speed at a press conference in Sydney this afternoon.

Lee, who is regarded as one of the two or three fastest bowlers in international cricket today, was reported during Australia's three-Test series against New Zealand in March by umpire S.Venkataraghavan in the First Test, and by umpire A.Jayaprakash in the Third. In both instances the umpires submitted reports to match referee Mike Denness, who referred them on to the ICC.

The ACB was only recently notified by the ICC yesterday that Lee's action was under review, more than three months after the last match in which he was reported. Speed, speaking at today's press conference, was critical of the ICC's delay in informing the ACB of the situation. Lee was informed by Speed yesterday after his return from overseas.

At today's press conference, both Speed and Australian captain Steve Waugh said that they believed there were no problems with Lee's action and this would be found to be the case following the ICC committee's review. Speed said that Lee would play for Australia in the coming one-day series against South Africa next month.

If the ICC's ten-person illegal deliveries committee does find that there are problems with Lee's bowling action then their findings will be referred to the ACB for whatever remedial action is considered necessary. The ICC committee's powers to suspend players from international cricket, which had been applied several times over the past few years, were revoked by the ICC Executive Board in February after the then-ICC president Jagmohan Dalmiya overturned the committee's decision to suspend Pakistani fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar in December
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

 

[Sanz]

The ICC committee's powers to suspend players from international cricket, which had been applied several times over the past few years, were revoked by the ICC Executive Board in February after the then-ICC president Jagmohan Dalmiya overturned the committee's decision to suspend Pakistani fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar in December
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Apparently you forgot to highlight one more part , Dalmiya was not the only one to have applied it and perhaps he was the first one to use it for an Asian player and the moment this rule was used for a subcontinet player, it was revoked.

This thread talks about events in post Dalmiya-Richards phase in ICC, what is your point ? Care to show some threads on David Richards also (on this issue)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Q :Why subcontinental bowlers get picked for chucking

A :Simple. Because they chuck !

 

[C_C]

Some of you guys are really hardheaded and thick.
Its frustrating really.

How can SIMPLE logic of 'if Murali/Harby chucks, so does Shane Warne/McGrath/Pedo Collins and if Shane Warne/McGrath/Collins doesnt chuck, neither doe Murali or Harby' be so mindbogglingly hard for some of you to get ?

The rule is simple - below 15 degrees, you are not a chucker. Above 15 degrees, you are a chucker.
Murali, Harby, Akhtar, etc. are all below 15 degrees. So are McGrath, Warne, Pollock, Flintoff, Collins etc etc etc.
So if the former group chucks, so does the latter group.
And medical science has PROVED that EVERY BOWLER IN HISTORY OF CRICKET has flexed his elbow before delivering the ball.

Whats so hard about this to understand and realise that saying 'murali is a chucker' when testing clerly proves him not to be is only a very blatent display of your ignorance and idocy ?

 

[C_C]

Answer : Bull !! You mean to say, they are willing to "use" a delivery that just can not be bowled and willing to risk being called. That being the case, they do run the risk of their "bluff" being called.

For the umpteenth time, grandpa, no delivery can be bowled without the presence of flexion at the elbow

Got it ? good. I know decades of holding a notion as gospel is hard to get rid of but please do try. Because those are the facts.
Anything else is pure, undaulterated rubbish.

 

[BoyBrumby]

For the umpteenth time, grandpa, no delivery can be bowled without the presence of flexion at the elbow

Got it ? good. I know decades of holding a notion as gospel is hard to get rid of but please do try. Because those are the facts.
Anything else is pure, undaulterated rubbish.

Far be it from me to demure, but I thought after the study at the Champions Trophy Sarwan's delivery was uniquely declared to be as pure as the driven snow?

 

[C_C]

Far be it from me to demure, but I thought after the study at the Champions Trophy Sarwan's delivery was uniquely declared to be as pure as the driven snow?

Closest to 'driven snow' as it gets- a 1.5 degree deviation for Sarwan, which is just .5 over the margin of error in the measurements.

This whole 'straight arm and bent arm' stuff is a bit like conductors and insulators.
There is no such thing as a perfect conductor or a perfect insulator. Everything is a conductor AND an insulator at the same time........its just a question of how much one aspect dominates the other that determines why we have copper for wire and ceramic for 'insulation'.
But in reality, copper insulates as well and ceramic conducts as well....just like this whole chucking crappola.
In reality, EVERYONE chucks.
End of story.
So either accept the 15 degree rule and make that a benchmark or screw bowling and get pitchers.
Because that is what is reality
There is NO SUCH THING as a perfectly legal delivery if legal is defined as 'utter absence of elbow flexion'.
Some people just cant seem to accept that and are stuck in their antiquated little bubbles of 'straight arm-kink arm' BULLSHYTE!!!!!!

This is like trying to educate a creationist in matters of evolution.
ARGGGGGGGGGGGGH.

PS: Brumbie boyo, this isnt directed at you. But more towards the hardheaded ones who refuse to listen to logic and reason.
They know who they are.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't have a problem with the 15 degree tolerance limit; it's no more or less arbitrary than 10 or 20. My big issue is with the system the ICC had lumbered us with. As I've said previously in another thread the current system can only ever be applied retrospectively. It sort of begs the question about what should happen if, after post-mortem examination, an action is proven to be over the tolerance limit?

 

[C_C]

after post-mortem examination, an action is proven to be over the tolerance limit?

Ban the player.

It is far more credible and consistent than 'going by the eye' where an illegal action can get away scot free because it looks sublime and a legal action can get cracked down upon because it looks dodgy.