Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34

Thread: Chuckers....

  1. #1
    International Vice-Captain open365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    4,066

    Chuckers....

    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.

  2. #2
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,747
    Quote 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.
    Last edited by greg; 01-10-2005 at 02:35 PM.

  3. #3
    International Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Sutton Coldfield
    Posts
    4,412
    I think one of the Aussie guys who played in the tied test was called for chucking shortly after and never played again.

  4. #4
    International Captain cameeel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,902
    Quote 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.
    Proud Member of the Melbourne Demons ,'97,'98,'99,'05-'13
    Supporter of Melbourne Demons FC, Aston Villa FC, and the Flyers

    "This tournament is a joke. Grass is for cows, I'm never coming back." - Marat Safin


  5. #5
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,747
    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.

  6. #6
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote 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.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  7. #7
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote 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.

  8. #8
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,276

    Kirtley Banned

    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.
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "I don't believe a word of Pietersen's book, but then I don't believe a word anyone else has said either."
    - Simon Barnes renders further comment on KP's autobiography superfluous in a sentence

  9. #9
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    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.
    Last edited by Mr Mxyzptlk; 17-10-2005 at 07:54 PM.
    Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."


  10. #10
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,276
    Quote 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"?

  11. #11
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Mr Mxyzptlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad)
    Posts
    36,795
    Quote 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.

  12. #12
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    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.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  13. #13
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,276
    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!

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    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.

  15. #15
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,276
    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. is 20/20 the new oneday Cricket
    By brett1989 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 22-02-2005, 12:05 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 18-08-2004, 03:10 PM
  3. Bowlers Reported As Chuckers in cricket history
    By JASON in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 17-05-2004, 07:52 PM
  4. Simpson slams proliferation of chuckers
    By Salamuddin in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 19-02-2004, 06:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •