Ajmal Action Reported

[Maximas]

It's not about 'defending' certain bowlers either - not sure where that idea comes from

 

[Burgey]

Because if he or others don't see any major flaws in the procedure then he can back the results of the testing more confidently.

Sorry, but what does a supporter here or anywhere else "backing" the procedure have to do with anything? Is this some sort of thing which gets put to a vote? Is it somehow important that punters like us can say to other people "I know the ins and outs of the ICC chucking protocols, and even though I'm in no way an expert in that field of endeavour because they're worked out by biomechanics, believe me they're ****ing tops"? And the bloke at the pub says "Ok mate, ta. I've gone back to loving cricket now."

 

[Burgey]

It's not about 'defending' certain bowlers either - not sure where that idea comes from

Of course it is.

 

[cnerd123]

The idea for me is that if the ICC are open and transparent about the new methods, we can then get independent experts and journalists from the outside discussing and analysing the methods. I myself am no expert but I have played alongside biomechanists (Murali has actually visited my Uni to be tested and measured). I would love to know their views on this but I can't since we don't really know the details of the testing methodology. The idea is that the experts will study the methods and translate it into layman terms to help us, the uneducated masses, understand it and the differences between the UWA method and the current ones.

If we understood more about these methods, we will also know whether or not the believe people like Ajmal when they come out and claim that 99% of bowlers would fail the 15 degree test" under current methods.

And that ties in to a bigger question - which method is better? Or are they both just measuring different things? Which is more accurate? Which one should we be using? Was Ajmal still chucking back in 2009 and we just didn't catch him? Were there other bowlers who were cleared who were actually chuckers? Or is it the other way around and we are currently falsely suspending bowlers?

If the two methods are vastly different...then we should begin to ask why. How many different ways can we measure 15 degrees of straightening? Which is the most appropriate method? How do we define chucking? Is 15 degrees still the right number?

Not to mention being so secretive about the methods used to stigmatise professional cricketers and potentially ruining their careers just feels so wrong.

I can see no benefit to be gained from this lack of transparency. If anything it is holding back cricket.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Hafeez illegal too. Just ban all spinners who aren't fat and don't bowl SLA imo.

 

[Burgey]

What about people who bowl slow left arm but don't spin it? I coulda been a contender.

 

[viriya]

You calling Ashwin fat? He just likes mum's paneer on the daily - can't blame him.

 

[TNT]

***** you are familiar with the methods used by UWA, I don't have a clue so could you please inform me and others on their protocols and how they measure the degree of bend in the elbow.

 

[cnerd123]

***** you are familiar with the methods used by UWA, I don't have a clue so could you please inform me and others on their protocols and how they measure the degree of bend in the elbow.

You can have a read through yourself:


An upper limb kinematic model for the examination of cricket bowling: A case study of Mutiah Muralitharan
Laboratory versus field testing in cricket bowling: A review of current and past practice in modelling techniques
Field Versus Laboratory Testing in Sports Biomechanics System and Modelling Errors

 

[TNT]

You can have a read through yourself:


An upper limb kinematic model for the examination of cricket bowling: A case study of Mutiah Muralitharan
Laboratory versus field testing in cricket bowling: A review of current and past practice in modelling techniques
Field Versus Laboratory Testing in Sports Biomechanics System and Modelling Errors

Interesting reading *****, so the only difference from the ICC's new protocol is the placement of the sensors, how do you see this effecting the outcomes or if in fact it will have an effect.

 

[cnerd123]

I don't know. The ICC hasn't told us where they are placing these new sensors. Nor have they told us which point of the delivery have they decided is the point of the ball being released, or which frames in the footage are being used for analysis.

Get back to me with that info and I'll forward it over to UWA and get you an answer

 

[TNT]

I don't know. The ICC hasn't told us where they are placing these new sensors. Nor have they told us which point of the delivery have they decided is the point of the ball being released, or which frames in the footage are being used for analysis.

Get back to me with that info and I'll forward it over to UWA and get you an answer

The ICC are placing the sensors on the joints, UWA place the sensors on soft flesh. The ICC are using more cameras that give them more images so they can identify the release point more accurately.

 

[cnerd123]

The ICC are placing the sensors on the joints, UWA place the sensors on soft flesh. The ICC are using more cameras that give them more images so they can identify the release point more accurately.

Source?

I feel it meaningless to ask you this given you have failed to provide any in the last 10 pages or so. It's reaching the point where I cbf discussing this with you anymore.

 

[TNT]

Source?

I feel it meaningless to ask you this given you have failed to provide any in the last 10 pages or so. It's reaching the point where I cbf discussing this with you anymore.

What is meaningless is to claim that the new testing protocols are secretive and not peer reviewed.

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.
"In the old procedures, we'd come into the lab and we'd test the player and compare their action to what they did in the game and we would make a comment and say we don't think it's the same," Wayne Spratford, a biomechanist who worked with Cricket Australia and is familiar with both protocols, told me. UWA's report on Ajmal's action in 2009 corroborates Spratford's point, contending that it is not possible "to say conclusively that bowling actions in the laboratory testing are identical to that displayed on the playing field, the comparison in this instance is significantly hampered by the limitations in the provided match footage". Under the new procedures, says Spratford, bowlers bowl until it is clearer that the lab action and match action are the same. If the end product of the testing protocols - the reports they produce - is any gauge, then there is a difference. The report on Ajmal's action by the UWA in 2009 is eight pages long; the ICC's report from the Brisbane lab is 23 pages. It is a superficial measure, of course - length is no judge of quality - but the difference was noted by several board officials. More cameras have been used for the newer testing and more images have been made available. Ultimately, however, the ICC and Alderson both acknowledge that in the instances of the current bowlers and their relatively large ranges of extension, the differences in testing methods make little difference. This clampdown hasn't arisen so much from a variance in testing methodology as from an administrative correction of the laxness of the last decade. "It is arguable that we should've taken this action earlier," David Richardson, the ICC's chief executive, conceded at the Dubai press conference when asked why now.
Later that year, the ICC held a kind of academic face-off between two labs: the ones at Loughborough and the University of Western Australia (UWA) in Perth - which, by arrangement, had been the ICC's exclusive lab for testing actions since 1999. Their methods differed subtly but significantly. For example, Loughborough calibrated its sensors with the arm above the shoulder, while UWA did it with the arm by the side of the body. The positioning of the sensors on the arm was also slightly different, according to Dr King. "At UWA they place the sensors over soft tissue, while we place them over the joints." A group of independent experts was asked to decide between the testing protocols: for the sake of consistency and because UWA had published more research on actions, UWA's was chosen.

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

 

[cnerd123]

Read what you quoted again real closely please.

Later that year, the ICC held a kind of academic face-off between two labs: the ones at Loughborough and the University of Western Australia (UWA) in Perth - which, by arrangement, had been the ICC's exclusive lab for testing actions since 1999. Their methods differed subtly but significantly. For example, Loughborough calibrated its sensors with the arm above the shoulder, while UWA did it with the arm by the side of the body. The positioning of the sensors on the arm was also slightly different, according to Dr King. "At UWA they place the sensors over soft tissue, while we place them over the joints."

Where is your proof that this is the ICC's current method

 

[TNT]

Read what you quoted again real closely please.



Where is your proof that this is the ICC's current method

At UWA they place the sensors over soft tissue, while we place them over the joints.

OK I read it again.

 

[cnerd123]

We in this case refers to the Loughborough uni...

 

[TNT]

We in this case refers to the Loughborough uni...

Yes it does, did you know that the ICC has standardized its protocols so that all its testing labs use exactly the methods.

 

[cnerd123]

Yes I did.

Do you know you haven't provided any proof yet that this is the method being used by the ICC currently?

 

[TNT]

Yes I did.

Do you know you haven't provided any proof yet that this is the method being used by the ICC currently?

So now you are saying that UWA are lying about the ICC having differences in sensor placements.

Either UWA were correct and the ICC placed the sensors differently, or UWA were wrong and the ICC didn't place the sensors differently. You seem to want to claim both.