Chuckers....

[open365]

Is there any bowler in world FC or international cricket that has been called for a chuck and stopped playing?

there seems to be a lot of people being called nowadays but as yet, i've they all seem to have been cleared.

[greg]

Originally Posted by open365

Is there any bowler in world FC or international cricket that has been called for a chuck and stopped playing?

there seems to be a lot of people being called nowadays but as yet, i've they all seem to have been cleared.

What happened to that Perera bloke who played against England at Lords in 2002?

Technically I think, Shabbir wasn't "cleared". He had his action remodelled and it is the remodelled action that was cleared. IMO it would make more sense (allow would probably be challenged in the courts) if the criteria were made a lot stricter for remodelled actions.

[The Baconator]

I think one of the Aussie guys who played in the tied test was called for chucking shortly after and never played again.

[cameeel]

Originally Posted by open365

Is there any bowler in world FC or international cricket that has been called for a chuck and stopped playing?

there seems to be a lot of people being called nowadays but as yet, i've they all seem to have been cleared.

Ian Meckiff was called out of the game in the 60's, He was a left arm fast bowler with a very suspect action, although it'd probably pass now since the ICC changed the rules.

[greg]

I don't think open365 was really talking about bowlers from the past, but in recent years. Back then of course an accusation of chucking was clearly enough to end a player' s career.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by greg

What happened to that Perera bloke who played against England at Lords in 2002?

Ruchira Perera has had a somewhat disjointed international career since his 1998\99 debut, with a perfectly legal action in all games bar Lord's 2002.
He is, however, a little on the rubbish side of average and hasn't played much lately with the cooing over Maharoof, Malinga and the like.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by greg

I don't think open365 was really talking about bowlers from the past, but in recent years. Back then of course an accusation of chucking was clearly enough to end a player' s career.

Mercifully times have changed. The procedures these days are far more appropriate - private reports, sparing bowlers of on-field humiliation and all emphasis on correcting the problems.
Which, happily, means more bowlers are corrected and less forced-out.
Amazing that Tony Lock became a chucker in 1954 and thought nothing of it for 5 years until repenting upon seeing film of himself in 1959.

[BoyBrumby]

From cricinfo:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engla...ry/222380.html

It's funny, isn't it? Despite the new tolerance limits it still seems to be the bowlers with the unconventional looking actions who get reported...

Kirtley's looks horrible (always has), but with the new regs he's probably no more guilty than many other seamers. Unfortunately (for him) he'll come under more scrutiny because of his action's look to the naked eye; which, as the bio-mec studies have shown us, is a v unreliable tool.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not entirely to the point, but I'll mention it anyway. I dislike the way the ICC handles the whole issue. By allowing a grace period between the time a bowler is reported and the time assessment and adjustments of his action are made, it basically gives license for that bowler to throw. As the bowler is allowed to continue playing within that time, and can't be reported again, he could technically run in and throw the ball every delivery. The ruling tells bowlers, "you're a chucker, but for now, chuck away".

I dislike the term "chucker" too.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

Not entirely to the point, but I'll mention it anyway. I dislike the way the ICC handles the whole issue. By allowing a grace period between the time a bowler is reported and the time assessment and adjustments of his action are made, it basically gives license for that bowler to throw. As the bowler is allowed to continue playing within that time, and can't be reported again, he could technicalled run in and throw the ball every delivery. The ruling tells bowlers, "you're a chucker, but for now, chuck away".

I dislike the term "chucker" too.

It's an interesting point, but I guess it's the old "innocent until proven guilty" thing. If a player was banned straight away & his action was shown to be within the tolerance range after inspection he's been taken out of the game for no reason.

It's a v thorny topic, no doubt...

& what would you prefer as a synonym for "chucker"? "Thrower"? "Elbow flexionly challenged"?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

It's an interesting point, but I guess it's the old "innocent until proven guilty" thing. If a player was banned straight away & his action was shown to be within the tolerance range after inspection he's been taken out of the game for no reason.

It's a v thorny topic, no doubt...

& what would you prefer as a synonym for "chucker"? "Thrower"? "Elbow flexionly challenged"?

I like any term which contains "flexionly" actually. I use it in all my pickup lines.

I think it's fairer to have a bowler sit on the sidelines until proven innocent than to be allowed to act guilty for weeks whether or not he's innocent.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Liam's point is a very good one.

To take an example (and it's just one of many), look at Harbhajan Singh in the series against Pakistan fairly recently. That was a big series... India vs Pakistan is as big as they come. Harbhajan was reported for throwing, made a date with the bio-mechanists, and yet continued to bowl. Say he had taken 8/50 in the fourth innings of a deciding test and won the series for India, then a few weeks later gone to UWA, had the tests done and it was determined that his doosra (with which he took, say, four wickets) had a flexion level of 22 degrees.

What happens to the test in which he threw the ball, the umpires knew he was throwing the ball, HE possibily knew he was throwing the ball, the batsmen suspected he was throwing the ball, and in which he took 8 wickets and won the match? A few years ago, the umpires would have no balled him and his wickets wouldn't have counted, but now surely they would have to count.

[BoyBrumby]

The system we have is a nonsense, no doubt.

To use Faaip's scenario tho, I guess one could also imagine the reverse coming to pass: Harbhajan is reported, sits out the series which Pakistan narrowly win with Kaneria & Afridi spinning India to defeat on bunsens & the tests show a flexion of 13 degrees?

It's lose-lose, really. What is needed is technology that can tell the standing umps during a game that a bowler is outside the tolerance range. Until that's readily available, frankly I'm stumped!

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

[BoyBrumby]

Hmm. Can open, worms everywhere!

I'll just say that such a system would be practically impossible to enforce without bringing down an absolutely massive schisse storm down on any ump brave enough to call someone.