• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Ajmal Action Reported

TNT

Banned
Namely? And where are the review reports?none of them available to public and we have massive doubts over credentials of so called un named biomechanical experts. ICC is just away from a single law suit which challenges there method and UWA experts I am sure will rip them open. Hafeez is the sort of guy who could do it as well.
Who are "we" and what doubts do "we" have. Are you suggesting that the ICC should have provided you with these reports, it was not enough that the ICC had leading bio mechanics throughout the world review their protocols and the boards are happy with the outcome and support the process.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Who are "we" and what doubts do "we" have. Are you suggesting that the ICC should have provided you with these reports, it was not enough that the ICC had leading bio mechanics throughout the world review their protocols and the boards are happy with the outcome and support the process.
Names plz.

And no it's not enough that the boards have approved. FFS the ICC is made up of the boards' members. If the ICC approves then the boards are going to approve. It's not like any boards outside of the BCCI have the power to challenge the ICC anyways.
 

TNT

Banned
Names plz.And no it's not enough that the boards have approved. FFS the ICC is made up of the boards' members. If the ICC approves then the boards are going to approve. It's not like any boards outside of the BCCI have the power to challenge the ICC anyways.
That's the point, it is only a few forum posters that seem put out that the ICC didn't include them in the mailing list for the reports, but the boards are supporting the process, the bio mechanics support the process. Who is the "we" that want these reports to be made public, which wont be because they contain protected information. So who apart from a few forum posters are the "we".
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
Just a bit of information to soothe the sour grapes here, the ICC tested dozens of bowlers using their new protocols. People that want all players or random players to be tested need to know that dozens were tested to develop the protocols. Bio mechanics around the world have reviewed the ICC's protocols. People complaining about the ICC's protocols and methods are just uninformed.
Yeah we are uninformed - because the ICC won't tell us anything, and since when does "the ICC approves it" mean that everyone should stfu and simply have faith?
 

TNT

Banned
Yeah we are uninformed - because the ICC won't tell us anything, and since when does "the ICC approves it" mean that everyone should stfu and simply have faith?
Bio mechanics around the world have reviewed the testing protocols and dozens of bowlers have been tested using the protocols. The boards have had access to everything and understand the system and have no problems, that includes the PCB who normally have trouble understanding basic concepts. You don't have to STFU, you can do your research and find out this information, have you approached the ICC and asked for this information?.What steps have you taken to get this information and how have the ICC impeded your attempts to get this information?.
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
I have no reason to believe a single thing you say, give us some sources.

I'm just a cricket fan, I don't have the time, patience or interest level to do my own research into this, but it concerns me when people in the media complain that they can't get a hold of the information
 

TNT

Banned
I have no reason to believe a single thing you say, give us some sources.I'm just a cricket fan, I don't have the time, patience or interest level to do my own research into this, but it concerns me when people in the media complain that they can't get a hold of the information
Not one person has complained in the media that they cant get the information, the only story was that the UWA were not included in the information because they were in legal proceedings with the ICC. Not one board, player, or anyone associated with cricket have complained.I have only read in the media that the boards are happy with the protocols, who are these people that are complaining?.
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
Yeah my mistake I re-read some articles, was only UWA, memory wasn't spot on there. Still don't see why for example the ICC didn't name the institutions who peer reviewed the processes though
 
Last edited:

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
UWA's retention was premised on three broad steps of action. The first was to implement a number of technical recommendations specific to the testing protocol. The next step was to standardise these protocols, before finally executing them across a number of testing centres (with UWA driving the expansion).

The ICC says it did not get past the first step, and from that point the rift turned into an outright dispute. In March this year UWA officially withdrew their services. To them it had become an intellectual-rights dispute, centred on the usage of the testing protocols. "One testing centre was never going to be sufficient and we at UWA agreed with the need for expansion but not the handing over of our intellectual property (developed from 1995 onwards) to the ICC to use in the new centres without some recognition of such," Daryl Foster, a former coach and biomechanics expert at the lab, said to me in an email.

The ICC disagrees, claiming to have used a combination of existing public research and expert views from within to develop a different protocol. It suggests that UWA was attempting to exploit its testing monopoly by planning to charge licence and training fees to the new centres, and that they approached one such centre with a quote without telling the ICC.

In mid-October, Alderson of UWA complained to ESPNcricinfo about the "lack of transparency surrounding the current [ICC] testing". At a press conference in Dubai in late October, Geoff Allardice, the ICC's General Manager-Cricket and the man overseeing the current drive, had an ice-cold retort. "The accusations by UWA were based on the fact that they hadn't seen [the protocols]. We haven't got a relationship with them so weren't going to give it to them." Allardice said that several biomechanists were providing the ICC with regular feedback on their protocols, and these were also the subject of an external review. "All the results we have seen so far are very encouraging with the testing system."

The protocols are different because, as one official familiar with both says, "there is no right way or wrong way of measuring 15 degrees". UWA's Alderson has publicly expressed her concerns, for example, about how the ICC identifies the moment of ball release, especially for spinners, and where markers are placed. On the other hand, in the new protocols there seems to be a significant advance in matching the bowler's action in a lab to that in the game he or she was reported in.
From a really brilliant article available on The Cricket Monthly.

Cover story | Let's talk about flex | The Cricket Monthly | ESPN Cricinfo
 

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
It would be quite strange if Ajmal never makes it back to below 15 degrees. Does that mean something was wrong with the first test that cleared him back in 2009, or that he is just incapable of bowling how he used to back then?

Or maybe the current methods are flawed?
I think "they've gotten better at it" is a fairly logical conclusion
 

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
Marlon Samuels is another player whose action has been an issue. He was cleared by the ICC to bowl deliveries falling under a certain speed, a decision the UWA now presents as flawed. As one academic told ESPNcricinfo, "We did not think his report was valid as he, in our view, appeared to not replicate his match action in the lab testing. But the ICC didn't act. We found it ridiculous that he was cleared to bowl deliveries under a particular speed given the error associated with measuring speed via speed guns during a match."
Chucking controversy : ICC falls out with long-serving bowlers' testing centre | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

hmm
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Who are "we" and what doubts do "we" have. Are you suggesting that the ICC should have provided you with these reports, it was not enough that the ICC had leading bio mechanics throughout the world review their protocols and the boards are happy with the outcome and support the process.
we here are the scientific community who have the bare minimum capability to critically appraise a paper. Fools in the boards are only administrators they are not scientists or fans. If some thing is reviewed it should be done according to the methods accepted. open and objective. if all of these sound rubbish to you then good luck because you are one of those who has zero scientific literacy and any further discussion will be like a discussion with a tree.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
we here are the scientific community who have the bare minimum capability to critically appraise a paper. Fools in the boards are only administrators they are not scientists or fans. If some thing is reviewed it should be done according to the methods accepted. open and objective. if all of these sound rubbish to you then good luck because you are one of those who has zero scientific literacy and any further discussion will be like a discussion with a tree.
Better that than with a poisonous tree with a massive chip on its shoulder.
 

cnerd123

likes this

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
we here are the scientific community who have the bare minimum capability to critically appraise a paper. Fools in the boards are only administrators they are not scientists or fans. If some thing is reviewed it should be done according to the methods accepted. open and objective. if all of these sound rubbish to you then good luck because you are one of those who has zero scientific literacy and any further discussion will be like a discussion with a tree.
Ironic of you to make that comparison.
 

TNT

Banned
we here are the scientific community who have the bare minimum capability to critically appraise a paper. Fools in the boards are only administrators they are not scientists or fans. If some thing is reviewed it should be done according to the methods accepted. open and objective. if all of these sound rubbish to you then good luck because you are one of those who has zero scientific literacy and any further discussion will be like a discussion with a tree.
That's the thing Migara, it has been reviewed and done according to accepted methods in the scientific community. It has been open and objective and everyone is satisfied. I can only assume that you have not made any effort to look at the reports.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Once again TNT; can you provide any sources to back up your claims? Cause lots of articles that claim differently have been posted in this thread already...
 

brockley

International Captain
I think the thing is Ajmal is the poster child for throwing,over 40,i am sure their are lesser cases,like that Bangladeshi who was cleared.No one can defend Ajmal with his figures,altho the Pakistan thinktank propaganda unit thinks he is all but clear cept the doosra.But i find it hard for him to change within the limits,its a big call,and if he does make it,what happens in the world cup if he bowls a lot of overs and gets tired,ZZZZing.
 

TNT

Banned
Once again TNT; can you provide any sources to back up your claims? Cause lots of articles that claim differently have been posted in this thread already...
The only article you can point to is the UWA who had no access to the protocols and were making assumptions. Your whole argument is based on a brain fart from UWA who have since kept their mouths shut once they realised that slinging mud only made them look stupid.What efforts have you made to access the reports *****, what efforts have you made to get information from the ICC and what was their response?.
 

Top