Chuckers....

[Slow Love™]

Well, legitimate is the key point. Certainly, if umpires policed it, people might concievably be called for bowling with flexion under 15 degrees (although I doubt it personally), and if you believe that 15 degrees is the level at which someone is throwing the ball, then yes. However, we have no particular reason to believe that Ian Meckiff bowled with flexion of over 15 degrees. He might have, but maybe he bowled at 13 or 14 some of the time too, ot at least would have in lab conditions. That doesn't alter the fact that every major official of his time as well as most players believed that it was right to ban him and that he did indeed throw the ball.

If someone pitched it baseball style of course it would be a very different matter, although personally I would be rather pleased if it happened as it would simply show up how ridiculous the current system of combating throwing is. Either way, what is more likely and indeed more dangerous than someone pitching it in a test match is bowlers being encouraged to "throw it a bit" in order to gain some sort of advantage, and thereby completely altering what is considered "bowling" in the traditional sense. I'm not exactly a rabid traditionalist, but I am genuinely bothered by the idea of young cricketers being taught that instead of keeping your arm as straight as possible when bowling, they could straighten it a bit to get a bit of extra pace of turn it a bit more. There's already been plenty of talk from coaches and cricketers at various levels about encouraging bowlers to push the new limits and see how much advantage they could get from it, and I think it's a real problem.

I'm also a lot more annoyed with the ICC for losing the ability to handle this issue because of how sensitive it is than, say, giving Bangladesh test status too early.

Fair enough.

I won't speculate as to what Meckiff's degree of straightening was - but IMO, finding out that so many bowlers were breaking the previous rules meant that we had no choice but to find some degree at which we didn't have the majority of international bowlers transgressing.

And it's more than possible that there were already cases where legitimate deliveries were called for throws. We don't know for sure, because (to my knowledge at least), we haven't seen any of them analyzed. I'm really not confident in the umpire's ability to discern it, given the evidence we've seen - particularly considering bowlers that never get called that may well be perilously close to exceeding the limits (or actually exceeding them). And I still think there's a huge perceptual issue with regards to unorthodox actions and bent arms.

But I agree with the concept that we must at some stage have in-game calls possible for this issue to be handled properly. IMO what we have now is a choice between quite imperfect solutions, and in that context I take the "let's not punish an innocent" approach.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If you're suggesting that the degree of flexing be made smaller and more exact, that would surely eliminate half the world's bowlers from playing the game legally. It would be a mass exodus.

No, I'm suggesting that the very idea of having an exact degree of flexion doesn't work at this point in time, as it cannot be tested on the field, so it should be returned to more practical methods.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Kirtley has been banned because he has been found to be in breach of the 15 degree limit, not because he "looks bad".

Ultimately you're right, of course. My point is that he was only reported in the first place because it looks so awful. Others may be transgressing too, but because their actions look more quote-unquote acceptable they won't be submitted to such rigor as Kirtley.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ultimately you're right, of course. My point is that he was only reported in the first place because it looks so awful. Others may be transgressing too, but because their actions look more quote-unquote acceptable they won't be submitted to such rigor as Kirtley.

Seems like Gus Fraser agrees with me. From the Beeb's website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/counties/sussex/4352770.stm

Although after the super-sub rule in ODIs we should perhaps treat his ideas with a modicum of caution...

 

[open365]

In the mail it said 'Kirtley agreed to have his action analysed'.

i know that is probably a load of mail twaddle but if its not,why would you agree to risk your career by geting it checked?
seems very odd to me.

 

[marc71178]

Reported twice means I don't think he has a choice in the matter.

 

[C_C]

Yes, and until such a time as that technology is available, what we need is a set of rules which can be enforced by the umpires on the field at the time, like the ones we had until relatively recently. I'm not suggesting those accused of chucking sit on the sidelines for a few weeks and then have a test that is, frankly, completely irrelevant to how they actually bowl on the field of play. Rather, that the umpires, as they did for over a century, make a judgement call based on the intent of the bowler and the appearance of the action rather than a specific degree of flexion.

I think that is a bit like you or me being appointed to work as designers in NASA but now are asked to look after launch control.
Yes, i know those jobs once used to be one but with the evolution of science and technology and the increase in knowledge, jobs have become far more specialised depending on specific qualifications for the job.
As such, an umpire is neither trained nor qualified to judge a chuck and therefore, he is not qualified to call a chuck. Historicity is irrelevant here, because that is like fundamentally arguing 'its been going on for so long and therefore we need to keep this going for the sake of tradition'.

Yes, i know where i am going with this - the eventual irrelevance of human umpires, just like the eventual irrelevance of human controllers, replaced by automated systems.
Simply speaking, umpires are no longer the best possible candidates for many of the decisions relating to cricket and certainly not qualified to call or determine a chuck.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Simply speaking, umpires are no longer the best possible candidates for many of the decisions relating to cricket and certainly not qualified to call or determine a chuck.

I'm inclined to agree about certain calls: with no-balls (for foot infringements, not chucking!) & run outs telly has vastly improved the accuracy of decisions.

WRT chucking the problem I see with the current system is that it is umpires who will make the referrals of players with suspect actions, so there's an inbuilt bias against bowlers with more unconventional actions that draw attention. It may be (as in Kirtley's case) that they actually are transgressing, but there may be others whose actions look fine to the naked eye who are also in the red zone tolerance-wise.

 

[C_C]

I agree.
Which is why i think every single bowler should be chuck-tested and random tests should be done on it.

 

[GladiatrsInBlue]

ON the latest development, Shabbir Ahmad has been cleared by ICC to resume cricket after he once again modified his action, but ICC has warned that Shabbir can once again revert to what ICC's spokeman has called "bad habits".

I hope for cricket sake that Shabbir this time show some grace and doesn't revert back to his ill deeds.

 

[James]

ON the latest development, Shabbir Ahmad has been cleared by ICC to resume cricket after he once again modified his action, but ICC has warned that Shabbir can once again revert to what ICC's spokeman has called "bad habits".

I hope for cricket sake that Shabbir this time show some grace and doesn't revert back to his ill deeds.

You were banned for seven days for stiring up trouble on these forums, and this post continues along these lines.

I suggest you watch what you say...

 

[GladiatrsInBlue]

You were banned for seven days for stiring up trouble on these forums, and this post continues along these lines.

I suggest you watch what you say...

I didn't stirred up trouble last time around, the only mistake i did was to get into argument with a fellow member and am now not even responding to him.


Whatever i have said about Shabbir has been mentioned in ICC's official report, noone should get toucy about the subject now.

 

[James]

I didn't stirred up trouble last time around, the only mistake i did was to get into argument with a fellow member and am now not even responding to him.


Whatever i have said about Shabbir has been mentioned in ICC's official report, noone should get toucy about the subject now.

You were emailed an explanation as to why you were banned. If you choose to ignore that fine, but you'll find that it won't be long before you're banned again.

If you want to continue the discussion with me, do so through one of the contacts in my forum signature.

 

[GladiatrsInBlue]

You were emailed an explanation as to why you were banned. If you choose to ignore that fine, but you'll find that it won't be long before you're banned again.

If you want to continue the discussion with me, do so through one of the contacts in my forum signature.

I didn't get an email since my older email account wasn't in use.

Anyway i will avoid talking about illegeal bowling action .