Martin Crowe attacks officials, chuckers & Bangladesh/Zimbabwe

[ohtani's jacket]

This just confirms what New Zealanders already know -- Martin Crowe is an idiot.

 

[Smudge]

An idiot who is in charge of Sky's cricket coverage.

 

[James]

He isn't anymore Matt, he resigned earlier this year I believe.

 

[Smudge]

Hallelujah.

 

[FRAZ]

Putting the issue in perspective

1. Martin Crowe is not the only one who is angry at the 'chucking' issue. There are zillions who are mad at this.

2. Its not about Murali or any one bowler, its about the law defining a legal/illegal delivery

3. Because someone has been doing something for years and has not been checked/corrected/caught-out/barred is not a valid reason for making it legal. If that is the case we are never going to get rid of illegal encroachers on public property in India, for example

4. The fact that the law allows certain type of bowling in matches is fine and reason enough to allow these bowlers to play. The argument is about the change in the law itself and there is nothing wrong in THAT being debated.

I dont know for sure that what you mean exactly but I guess Martin was definately pointing out Murali and one or two other bowlers . you know what funny thing is I will prove it tomorrow that the thing believed to be chuking is actually just a birth problem , As I have the same type of arms like Shoaib and Murali have . But any ways I will make a thread tomorrow and will discuss this thing chuking as I promised to Mr Pickup a long long time ago .

 

[SJS]

I dont know for sure that what you mean exactly but I guess Martin was definately pointing out Murali and one or two other bowlers . you know what funny thing is I will prove it tomorrow that the thing believed to be chuking is actually just a birth problem , As I have the same type of arms like Shoaib and Murali have . But any ways I will make a thread tomorrow and will discuss this thing chuking as I promised to Mr Pickup a long long time ago .

He did use Murali as an example but the issue is not Murali. The issue is chucking. If he had used another name in place of Murali it wouldnt have changed anything in the issue on the table.

 

[James]

He did use Murali as an example but the issue is not Murali. The issue is chucking. If he had used another name in place of Murali it wouldnt have changed anything in the issue on the table.

He is using Murali as an example

"Having been pinned in the head by chuckers over 15 years, having been bowled first ball in a Test by a certain Sri Lankan bowler, I've had more than enough of this aspect of the game."

 

[Dasa]

What I wonder is what do people think the chucking law should be changed to, when it has been proven that the old laws were unfair and it has been proven that technology can detect things the human eye can't?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What I wonder is what do people think the chucking law should be changed to, when it has been proven that the old laws were unfair and it has been proven that technology can detect things the human eye can't?

Most people who oppose the current laws (myself included) would prefer a system which could be implemented by the umpire on the field. The most serious problem with current chucking laws is that they simply have no relevance to the actual matches in which chucking might occur. If a bowler changes his action during a match and takes a match-winning haul of wickets, how does the current system respond? And even if a bowler chucks all the time and wins a game or a series and is banned afterwards, what is the recourse for the team that was the victim?

The old system, however flawed it may have been, was based on an umpire's perception of a bowling action rather than a specific degree of flexion, and could be implemented on both teams in any given match. The fact is, based on the original laws on the subject, a bowler who has a classical action with 12 degrees of flexion is not a chucker, while a bowler with an action that appears to be a throw and 10 degrees of flexion is. It might not be perfect, but at least it could be enforced.

 

[social]

Most people who oppose the current laws (myself included) would prefer a system which could be implemented by the umpire on the field. The most serious problem with current chucking laws is that they simply have no relevance to the actual matches in which chucking might occur. If a bowler changes his action during a match and takes a match-winning haul of wickets, how does the current system respond? And even if a bowler chucks all the time and wins a game or a series and is banned afterwards, what is the recourse for the team that was the victim?

The old system, however flawed it may have been, was based on an umpire's perception of a bowling action rather than a specific degree of flexion, and could be implemented on both teams in any given match. The fact is, based on the original laws on the subject, a bowler who has a classical action with 12 degrees of flexion is not a chucker, while a bowler with an action that appears to be a throw and 10 degrees of flexion is. It might not be perfect, but at least it could be enforced.[/QUOT

e.g. Shoaib Ahmed vs Eng

This is my problem as well

Transgress with the front foot rule - 1 run to the batting team and they cant be dismissed unless run out

Chuck and you are virtually free to do so until reported

Makes no sense

 

[honestbharani]

Most people who oppose the current laws (myself included) would prefer a system which could be implemented by the umpire on the field. The most serious problem with current chucking laws is that they simply have no relevance to the actual matches in which chucking might occur. If a bowler changes his action during a match and takes a match-winning haul of wickets, how does the current system respond? And even if a bowler chucks all the time and wins a game or a series and is banned afterwards, what is the recourse for the team that was the victim?

The old system, however flawed it may have been, was based on an umpire's perception of a bowling action rather than a specific degree of flexion, and could be implemented on both teams in any given match. The fact is, based on the original laws on the subject, a bowler who has a classical action with 12 degrees of flexion is not a chucker, while a bowler with an action that appears to be a throw and 10 degrees of flexion is. It might not be perfect, but at least it could be enforced.

Just because a certain law is easier to implement doesn't mean it should be followed, when it is so obvious that it is unfair to a select few. That is just plain stupid. Any rule brought in should have fairness as it is priority, not ease of implementation.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Just because a certain law is easier to implement doesn't mean it should be followed, when it is so obvious that it is unfair to a select few. That is just plain stupid. Any rule brought in should have fairness as it is priority, not ease of implementation.

It's not just ease of implementation, it's the outright possibility of implementation. The first priority should be protecting the game itself, not the careers of individual cricketers. The fact is, the current law does absolutely nothing to stop chuckers (doesn't matter who) from unfairly influencing or outright changing the result of cricket matches. A bowler could deliberately chuck the ball for a whole test or even a whole series without anything being done to them aside from a post-match "report" leading to a lab test six weeks later.

That is simply not good enough, and while the old situation may have made it more difficult for certain bowlers, the current system has the potential to totally warp the nature of the game, by removing barriers to chucking entirely. If they wish to implement a system by which chucking is determined by a precise measurement of elbow flexion, it must be enforcable on the field of play or it has no validity whatsoever. Until that's possible, it should be up to the umpire on the field.

 

[Goughy]

What people often forget about chuckers is that it is often said that being called or banned massively effects their careers and that it can be unfair. The flip side of this is even more unfair, every chucker that plays and isn't banned is taking appearances, money and a career away from a legitimate bowler.

Currently, those that play by the rules are being penalized rather than the other way round.

 

[Dasa]

It's not just ease of implementation, it's the outright possibility of implementation. The first priority should be protecting the game itself, not the careers of individual cricketers. The fact is, the current law does absolutely nothing to stop chuckers (doesn't matter who) from unfairly influencing or outright changing the result of cricket matches. A bowler could deliberately chuck the ball for a whole test or even a whole series without anything being done to them aside from a post-match "report" leading to a lab test six weeks later.

...and a bowler could get away with 'chucking' for years without anyone suspecting a thing because his action merely looks OK. The old law does nothing to rehabilitate or punish many who could in fact be 'chucking' deliberately. I honestly cannot see what that would do for protecting the game. If protecting the game means perpetuating untruths and refusing to acknowledge facts, then I just cannot see what the point of protecting the game is.

That is simply not good enough, and while the old situation may have made it more difficult for certain bowlers, the current system has the potential to totally warp the nature of the game, by removing barriers to chucking entirely. If they wish to implement a system by which chucking is determined by a precise measurement of elbow flexion, it must be enforcable on the field of play or it has no validity whatsoever. Until that's possible, it should be up to the umpire on the field.

Saying that the chucking law, which uses scientifically sound facts, shouldn't be used because the previously flawed law was more convenient to help remove these so-called cheats is ridiculous. If no-one can see a criminal committing a crime, does that mean it didn't happen or we shouldn't punish them for that crime? I see the old laws as being inherently unfair, and punishing bowlers for unorthodox actions while rewarding those who bowl 'classically'. The new laws at least try to address the problem, something the old laws didn't even take into account.

What people often forget about chuckers is that it is often said that being called or banned massively effects their careers and that it can be unfair. The flip side of this is even more unfair, every chucker that plays and isn't banned is taking appearances, money and a career away from a legitimate bowler.

Currently, those that play by the rules are being penalized rather than the other way round.

How many of your 'legitimate' bowlers are actually being left out because of these 'chuckers'? I dare say there would be very few, if any, since damn near all bowlers have been proven to 'chuck'.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

...and a bowler could get away with 'chucking' for years without anyone suspecting a thing because his action merely looks OK. The old law does nothing to rehabilitate or punish many who could in fact be 'chucking' deliberately. I honestly cannot see what that would do for protecting the game. If protecting the game means perpetuating untruths and refusing to acknowledge facts, then I just cannot see what the point of protecting the game is.

Saying that the chucking law, which uses scientifically sound facts, shouldn't be used because the previously flawed law was more convenient to help remove these so-called cheats is ridiculous. If no-one can see a criminal committing a crime, does that mean it didn't happen or we shouldn't punish them for that crime? I see the old laws as being inherently unfair, and punishing bowlers for unorthodox actions while rewarding those who bowl 'classically'. The new laws at least try to address the problem, something the old laws didn't even take into account.

The old laws were designed to protect those who bowled "classically". That was the whole point - to ensure that cricketers bowled in a particular manner (or one of a range of paticular manners), rather than a different manner which might be an unfair advantage. It's really missing the point to say "X bowler bowled inside 15 degrees flexion and was called for throwing, hence was treated unfairly", because that figure is only relevant after the goalposts had been moved. The original chucking laws were about the style in which you bowled, not the specific degree of elbow flexion you had in your action. There's no denying that, say, Glenn McGrath or Allan Donald had some degree of flexion in their elbows. Logic as well as the available video evidence suggests that they must have. However, that doesn't make them chuckers, because their actions are basically flawlessly classical.

And, furthermore, IF one is to accept that the chucking law should be based around a specific degree of elbow flexion in the bowling action, then it must be enforced in a practical fashion that has an impact on those who break the laws in game. Once again, it is not about what is "more convenient", it's about what is practical and what is not. The laws must be enforcable or they have no purpose whatsoever. Shabbir Ahmed and Johan Botha mark two recent examples of players who were involved in international fixtures and absolutely and blatantly chucking the ball and were allowed to do so for a period of weeks before they were eventually called into a lab and tested. What happens if a player doing this wins a World Cup or the Ashes? It turns the whole concept of chucking vs bowling into a farce, where players are allowed to do whatever they want when it actually matters. The umpires are there to enforce the laws, and designing a law that absolutely removes any chance for the umpires to enforce it is completely daft, for reasons which are, frankly, blatantly obvious.

One must either design a law which umpires can enforce, or institute a method of testing which can be done instantly at the need of the umpire. If you're going to pick 15 degrees, you have to be able to tell whether or not a bowler is flexing more than 15 degrees and call them for a no ball on the spot, and keep doing it until they bowl properly. Otherwise, it has to be based on something which the umpires can actually tell, which would most likely be whether or not they think that the elbow is being flexed more than 15 degrees. Or, alternatively, whether or not they think the bowler is deliberately straightening his arm in order to gain an advatage over conventional bowlers, which is what the original law was designed to prevent.

 

[Dasa]

The old laws were designed to protect those who bowled "classically". That was the whole point - to ensure that cricketers bowled in a particular manner (or one of a range of paticular manners), rather than a different manner which might be an unfair advantage. It's really missing the point to say "X bowler bowled inside 15 degrees flexion and was called for throwing, hence was treated unfairly", because that figure is only relevant after the goalposts had been moved. The original chucking laws were about the style in which you bowled, not the specific degree of elbow flexion you had in your action. There's no denying that, say, Glenn McGrath or Allan Donald had some degree of flexion in their elbows. Logic as well as the available video evidence suggests that they must have. However, that doesn't make them chuckers, because their actions are basically flawlessly classical.

...and isn't that unfair on bowlers who are equally as innocent, yet look perhaps a bit dodgy? Why discriminate on the basis of how the action looks when bowling since it has little to no bearing on the actual result.

And, furthermore, IF one is to accept that the chucking law should be based around a specific degree of elbow flexion in the bowling action, then it must be enforced in a practical fashion that has an impact on those who break the laws in game. Once again, it is not about what is "more convenient", it's about what is practical and what is not. The laws must be enforcable or they have no purpose whatsoever. Shabbir Ahmed and Johan Botha mark two recent examples of players who were involved in international fixtures and absolutely and blatantly chucking the ball and were allowed to do so for a period of weeks before they were eventually called into a lab and tested. What happens if a player doing this wins a World Cup or the Ashes? It turns the whole concept of chucking vs bowling into a farce, where players are allowed to do whatever they want when it actually matters. The umpires are there to enforce the laws, and designing a law that absolutely removes any chance for the umpires to enforce it is completely daft, for reasons which are, frankly, blatantly obvious.

Shabbir Ahmed and Johan Botha were both banned, and it seems evident now that the new 'chucking' laws have driven the various cricket boards to address the problem at a lower level. It seems that these new laws have prompted more rigorous and regular testing which helps to eliminate the problem before it reaches international cricekt. The problem I see with your argument here is that you're judging the laws without even giving them a chance to work.

One must either design a law which umpires can enforce, or institute a method of testing which can be done instantly at the need of the umpire. If you're going to pick 15 degrees, you have to be able to tell whether or not a bowler is flexing more than 15 degrees and call them for a no ball on the spot, and keep doing it until they bowl properly. Otherwise, it has to be based on something which the umpires can actually tell, which would most likely be whether or not they think that the elbow is being flexed more than 15 degrees. Or, alternatively, whether or not they think the bowler is deliberately straightening his arm in order to gain an advatage over conventional bowlers, which is what the original law was designed to prevent.

See what I've written above. With time, the new laws are likely to result in the problem becoming much less significant. Another problem I see with your argument is that you're basically rewarding those with 'classical' actions over others. What if a bowler should learn to perhaps add pace with a 'chuck' while making it indetectable to the on-field umpires. This is something that could very well happen, but with the old laws, such a bowler would continue to get away with cheating while other bowlers would be vilified for having an unorthodox action while bowling honestly.

The fact is the old laws were inherently unfair, and without giving the new laws any time to have a significant effect people seem ready to write them off. If anyone can come up with a system that isn't unfair on certain types of bowlers and can be detected by the on-field umpires, then there would be no problem. However, that isn't the case now and I cannot see the logic in continuing with old methods which have been scientifically proven to be unfair.

 

[silentstriker]

I think what we should do is create a cast of McGraths' arm when he's bowling, and make everyone wear that cast when they're bowling. And then you bring back the old rules, so that everyone will be chucking in a 'flawlessly classical' manner..

 

[Goughy]

I think what we should do is create a cast of McGraths' arm when he's bowling, and make everyone wear that cast when they're bowling. And then you bring back the old rules, so that everyone will be chucking in a 'flawlessly classical' manner..

and back to the same idea as Richards serious suggestion that bowlers should wear arm braces

 

[Legglancer]

I think what we should do is create a cast of McGraths' arm when he's bowling, and make everyone wear that cast when they're bowling. And then you bring back the old rules, so that everyone will be chucking in a 'flawlessly classical' manner..

I wholely agree with your Idea .... Then at least the implimentation of the law will be uniformaly fair, perhaps the cast should be of Sarwan !

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Shabbir Ahmed and Johan Botha were both banned, and it seems evident now that the new 'chucking' laws have driven the various cricket boards to address the problem at a lower level. It seems that these new laws have prompted more rigorous and regular testing which helps to eliminate the problem before it reaches international cricekt. The problem I see with your argument here is that you're judging the laws without even giving them a chance to work.

Actually, I'm judging them precisely on the way they have worked. Botha and Shabbir were banned after they played their matches, meaning that the results of every single match they played in prior to the ban were tainted by the fact that they were chucking unpunished. Luckily Botha also happened to not be especially good, but Shabbir took 4/54 and 1/25 in November against England, in a test which Pakistan won by 22 runs. How much difference did his bowling have on the result, and how much of a bearing would it have had on a series which Pakistan won 2-0 if he had been called for chucking during that game rather than reported after, and England had consequently won the test? What if Shane Warne was banned for chucking after he took 40 wickets in the Ashes? Or Andy Bichel after his big role in the 2003 WC (random names)? The laws as they exist are utterly unenforcable, and banning chuckers after the fact is pointless, as you can't take away the results they have influenced.

See what I've written above. With time, the new laws are likely to result in the problem becoming much less significant. Another problem I see with your argument is that you're basically rewarding those with 'classical' actions over others. What if a bowler should learn to perhaps add pace with a 'chuck' while making it indetectable to the on-field umpires. This is something that could very well happen, but with the old laws, such a bowler would continue to get away with cheating while other bowlers would be vilified for having an unorthodox action while bowling honestly.

The fact is the old laws were inherently unfair, and without giving the new laws any time to have a significant effect people seem ready to write them off. If anyone can come up with a system that isn't unfair on certain types of bowlers and can be detected by the on-field umpires, then there would be no problem. However, that isn't the case now and I cannot see the logic in continuing with old methods which have been scientifically proven to be unfair.

On the contrary, I would say the current laws are likely to result in more chuckers and more bowlers testing the limits of elbow flexion laws. What motivation is there for coaches or even bowlers themselves to corrent minor kinks in their actions if they get benefits such as pace or revolutions on the ball from them, when they can play without punishment at the highest level of the game? What stops a bowler from learning to adjust his action for a "special ball" where they put a bit more on it, pushing over the boundaries in the process, and yet passing the grade in the "lab test" a few weeks later? We've already seen speculation about the doosra in this sense, but it could indeed be a lot worse when you are talking about a less easily identifiable delivery in lab testing instead of on-field testing. The current rules are not only practically unenforcable, they also leave a great deal of room to manouvuer for those who want to bend or break the rules.

Anyway, I don't think the old system was "unfair on certain types of bowlers" at all, unless by that you mean bowlers who appeared to chuck. I'll offer another example though, in terms of favouring the view of the umpires over scientific methodology off-field in modern cricket. In an LBW decision, it doesn't actually matter in any technical sense whether or not, say, the ball pitches outside leg-stump, it only matters how the umpire views it. It might matter when it comes to assessing the performance of the umpire, and that's fair enough, but it doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not the batsman is out. When Katich was given out LBW during his crucial innings in the Old Trafford test last year, the ball pitched a foot or so outside leg, but he was out because the umpire didn't think it did. You can analyse the video footage however you like, but it doesn't change the fact of the situation, or the bearing that the umpire's decision had on the match or on Katich's career (which may well be still going in tests, had he scored a century that day and saved the game).

It's a situation we see a lot in modern cricket, where we can view an umpire's decision after the fact and comment on it, but the commentary has no bearing on the results. Umpires which incorrectly or unfairly make chucking calls will undoubtedly be vilified or downgraded from the top level, but their decisions should stand because that is their purpose in the game. It is idiotic to create a law that umpires cannot enforce and allow those that break the rules to have free reign simply to avoid controversial decisions. The correct move for the good of the sport would be to restore the rules to either the umpire's view of the actual level of elbow flexion (especially given that 15 degrees is meant to be the level at which it is visible to the human eye), in which case most of the bowlers who get reported would be called from time to time, or alternatively to a point where it is the judgement of the umpire as to the intent of the bowler, and whether or not he is attempting to gain an advantage by straigtening his arm in delivery. Simple and enforcable, and true to the basic principles of the game. Until a better method can be instituted, that's the way to go.