Ajmal claims special concession to 15 degree rule allowed by ICC

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by a spambot

if this was coming from bitterness or whatever they would also be accusing rehman but no one has said a word about him. face it, they're calling him a chucker because he looks an awful lot like one.

Quite.

Rehman bowled beautifully and made our top order look like mugs. Classic finger spinner's action and a pleasure to watch him in action.

Speaking personally I've been banging the drum for Ajmal being a chucker ever since I've seen him.

Must be noted that no mention of his arm injury was made in the initial ICC report clearing him. From cricinfo.

Those who say his Doosra has been cleared and that those of us who reserve doubts should just get over it might also be interested to read what David Richardson (the then ICC General Manager) had to say,

"it is important to emphasise that no bowler is ever 'cleared' as it is impossible to predict how a player might deliver the ball in the future. All bowlers are subject to further reporting if the match officials are of the view that they have concerns about whether a delivery or deliveries conform to the Laws of Cricket when observed with the naked eye."

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Quite.

Rehman bowled beautifully and made our top order look like mugs. Classic finger spinner's action and a pleasure to watch him in action.

Speaking personally I've been banging the drum for Ajmal being a chucker ever since I've seen him.

Must be noted that no mention of his arm injury was made in the initial ICC report clearing him. From cricinfo.

Those who say his Doosra has been cleared and that those of us who reserve doubts should just get over it might also be interested to read what David Richardson (the then ICC General Manager) had to say,

"it is important to emphasise that no bowler is ever 'cleared' as it is impossible to predict how a player might deliver the ball in the future. All bowlers are subject to further reporting if the match officials are of the view that they have concerns about whether a delivery or deliveries conform to the Laws of Cricket when observed with the naked eye."

Yeah that's true, but do you think he's bowling the doosra differently now to how he was bowling it before he was cleared?

You can't say "that looks like a chuck", be proven wrong under the eyes of the ICC, and then say "well it still looks like a chuck" and keep sending him back for more testing straight away, then repeat ad infinitum. There has to be something new or different about the concerns to warrant re-testing him. I agree that the teesra - or whatever the **** he was bowling in the first Test if indeed it wasn't the teesra -is a new concern, but you can't just keep sending the same bowler for testing after every match if his action never changes.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Yeah that's true, but do you think he's bowling the doosra differently now to how he was bowling it before he was cleared?

You can't say "that looks like a chuck", be proven wrong under the eyes of the ICC, and then say "well it still looks like a chuck" and keep sending him back for more testing straight away, then repeat ad infinitum. There has to be something new or different about the concerns to warrant re-testing him. I agree that the teesra - or whatever the **** he was bowling in the first Test if indeed it wasn't the teesra -is a new concern, but you can't just keep sending the same bowler for testing after every match if his action never changes.

The clincher for me is that sometimes it looks far worse than others (as does his stock offie too, IMHO), which must suggest he's putting more work on/elbow into some deliveries.

Shabbir Ahmed the obvious precedent here. Cleared, came back, looked as filthy as ever, banned.

[Zinzan]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

He's pulling their chain, and fair play to him for doing so - stupid questions deserve stupid answers

This ^

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

again, it is obvious it was there to see for people who wanna see. And he has got no special allowance because of it. So why the hell should it be broadcasted around the world? The rule is the same for him as for anyone else. Just because he starts with a bent arm doesn't mean that is some special consideration.. You have always been allowed to bowl with a bent arm in cricket..

Yes, and if that had been disclosed when he was tested, there would be a lot less discussion and suspicion going on, making it better for everyone surely?

[Agent Nationaux]

Maybe...but this time the BBC asked Ajmal directly about his suspected action and he told them the truth. Nobody has asked him before. It's the ICC who did not tell anyone despite knowing about it. In fact, the ICC's response to the whole thing has been quite pathetic. Instead of nipping it in the bud and supporting Ajmal from the start, they have stayed at the sidelines and have allowed the media to run riot.

[Cevno]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Must be noted that no mention of his arm injury was made in the initial ICC report clearing him. From cricinfo.

Got a link to the actual full report by Professor Elliott? There doesn't seem one in that link.

Also would like to know how common is this phenomenon in bowlers of bending the arm before straightening, because Starc was also looking a bit suspect in certain deliveries against India the other day, if we are only going by looks.

[Prince EWS]

The reason there'd be no mention of his injury is because it's entirely irrelevant to the laws at all and, as I said, requires no special dispensation.

If you start your arm at 20 degrees and only straighten it back to 8 then you angle of flex is only 12 degrees and you're free to bowl. If you only can straighten it back to 8 then it theoretically gives you some sort of advantage when bowling certain balls but it's not dealt with differently within the laws.

It's entirely possible that this is why Ajmal appears to be throwing it to the naked eye - we could be seeing a bloke bend his arm to 20 odd degrees and then straighten it back as far as he can, creating the illusion of a chuck despite the fact that he's not straightening his arm the full way. It would have been nice for the ICC to come out and say that Ajmal appears to be throwing more than he is because he doesn't completely straighten his arm, I guess, but it's not something they really needed to do or something that was taken into special consideration.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Must be noted that no mention of his arm injury was made in the initial ICC report clearing him. From cricinfo.

I don't see a link to the actual report in that article. Could you link it? It would definitely be shady if it's not at all in the actual report, but I doubt everyone is just making it up right now on the spot.

[GingerFurball]

The more I read this, the more I'm convinced that Ajmal is just trolling the English media.

[Jono]

Ajmal seriously is the best bloke ever.

[amanuensis]

I'm pretty sure Botha can't fully straighten his arm either, but he was still caught out. Hmm..lots of interesting accidents & congenital defects about ().

[Agent Nationaux]

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Players aren't given special dispensations for not being able to straighten their arm all the way; it just allows them to bowl with an initially further bent arm, creating the illusion of more of a throw.

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

If you start your arm at 20 degrees and only straighten it back to 8 then you angle of flex is only 12 degrees and you're free to bowl. If you only can straighten it back to 8 then it theoretically gives you some sort of advantage when bowling certain balls but it's not dealt with differently within the laws.

Laws are faulty imo

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by uvelocity

Laws are faulty imo

I don't really know how much of an advantage it'd give you though, if any. I'm just kind of guessing there.

Is straightening your arm 12 degrees from a 20 degree original flex actually more advantageous than going from 12 to nothing?