Senanayake banned

[Migara]

Jesus wept.

Why don't we just no ball blokes who break the current regulations rather than needing a Maths PhD rather than an umpire to officiate the game?

The whole argument is based on two points.

1. What is a fair delivery? what is the range of elbow extension for a legal delivery? How often people go pass that? And how many of them have so called clean actions?
2. How do we measure them during play?

If the answer is umpire, then we are going back to megolithic eras.

 

[Migara]

You're kind of right. But let's not forget that the human eye CAN detect a 15 degree straightening. Therefore, Umpires can make some kind of objective ruling on a bowler chucking. It's not all incompetent subjectivity as you seem to make out;

But can they differentiate 13.5 from 16.5? Or can they differentiate the odd man in the series of 10,11, 9, 10, 8.5, 16? I am not convinced that the human eye is so skilled.

Perhaps for the good of the game in the long run we should leave Umpires alone to back themselves and yell "no ball" more often than they currently do. That way, bowlers might think more about cleaning up their action before they walk onto the pitch.

This will make the number of highest incorrect percentage of calls for a certain parameter. So no.

Or as Martin Crowe put it;

He has no idea about bio mechanics and talking BS. The same fella is for third umpire and DRS. I'm sick to death on his hypocrisy on the subject.

 

[watson]

But can they differentiate 13.5 from 16.5? Or can they differentiate the odd man in the series of 10,11, 9, 10, 8.5, 16? I am not convinced that the human eye is so skilled.


This will make the number of highest incorrect percentage of calls for a certain parameter. So no.

He has no idea about bio mechanics and talking BS. The same fella is for third umpire and DRS. I'm sick to death on his hypocrisy on the subject.

You have completely misunderstood Martin Crowe's point (and my point a few pages back).

So here's a clue - your theoretical ideal is currently impossible to implement during an actual cricket match, and even problematic in a laboratory setting because some bowlers can fudge the results by adjusting their action and cheating the scientist. In short, your theoretical ideal is as useless as a 'sky-hook' or can of 'polka dot paint'.

Therefore, until hightech equipment is installed and used to monitor every delivery during play, the only system that can be practically used on the field involves the opinion of the Umpire, whether you like that fact or not.

 

[Maximas]

You have completely misunderstood Martin Crowe's point (and my point a few pages back).

So here's a clue - your theoretical ideal is currently impossible to implement during an actual cricket match, and even problematic in a laboratory setting because some bowlers can fudge the results by adjusting their action and cheating the scientist. In short, your theoretical ideal is as useless as a 'sky-hook' or can of 'polka dot paint'.

Therefore, until hightech equipment is installed and used to monitor every delivery during play, the only system that can be practically used on the field involves the opinion of the Umpire, whether you like that fact or not.

You can't cheat the scientist, your lab action is analysed carefully against the action you used when reported.

It would appear that the only system that can be practically used on the field is too flawed to actually use, hence we use the current system (which is not perfect but certainly workable, particularly with more testing sites popping up to allow closer monitoring) until proper in-match monitoring is available

 

[Migara]

Therefore, until hightech equipment is installed and used to monitor every delivery during play, the only system that can be practically used on the field involves the opinion of the Umpire, whether you like that fact or not.

You've not got my point. Even with all these limitations lab testing and clearing a bowler is umpteen times accurate than calling on the subjective view point of a dodgy action. Crowe is a hypocrite given he's for DRS which has more flaws than the lab testing, but singing bajans for it.

 

[cnerd123]

I like the idea that all International bowlers should have their action tested by the ICC around a year before the World Cup, and a few months before the T20 WC If they can be tested during a match, even better. Anyone who fails the tests doesn't get to play in the World Cup.

This way the cricket boards have an incentive to get their bowlers with dodgy actions tested and cleared/fixed right away in they are to feature in the ODI/T20 WC plans.

It would also be cool if the IPL forced the franchises to get their players tested before a tournament too.

Really all we need is more frequent checks to spot the chuckers. The rules are fine as they are.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Kane Williamson also banned from bowling:
New Zealand Cricket News: Williamson banned from bowling due to illegal action | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[91Jmay]

Another one that anyone with eyes could tell needed testing.

ICC really needs to stop targetting sub-continent players like Williamson though.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

God, watson's still at it?

 

[watson]

God, watson's still at it?

Nope, I think that I've pretty much exhausted this thread.

 

[YorksLanka]

Sri Lanka Cricket News: Sachithra Senanayake to get help with correcting action | ESPN Cricinfo

Cricinfo saying Satchi is off to Aus to work on his action with a movement specialist...