Taskin Ahmed and Arafat Sunny suspended from bowling

[Pratters]

Fully agree, this is all a joke tbh, only make high profile bans while a WC is going on and let chuckers like finn, harbajan roam free, I mean how is harbajan not been tested yet under these new testing protocols not that he has any cricket left in him. I'd certainly say Bumrah is a bit suspect as well.

I am not sure what you are agreeing with there. As far as the conspiracy against BCCI goes, they did get Ojha out of international cricket for chucking, so your theory doesn't hold good here.

 

[DriveClub]

I am not sure what you are agreeing with there. As far as the conspiracy against BCCI goes, they did get Ojha out of international cricket for chucking, so your theory doesn't hold good here.

Don't have a conspiracy theory, just that this reporting and testing seem to be extremely incompetent operating with the same efficiency and transparency of some amateurish school system not befitting a professional organization. That's my opinion, deal with it.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea, calling it a conspiracy is a bit far, but fair enough to say the ICCs entire approach to suspect bowling actions has been erratic, inconsistent, and at times bizarre. Highly unprofessional.

 

[honestbharani]

How the hell is Bumrah's action looking dodgy? BOTH his arms are dead straight at delivery point... Ur theories are more bizarre than the ICC suspect bowling action reporting process, DC...

 

[Daemon]

I made the same mistake, Bumrah does straighten it a bit if you look closer. It's not as clean as it seems on initial viewing.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It's a Pig 3 conspiracy

 

[Kirkut]

This video shows short pitch bowling by Taskin, you guys can go ahead and judge whether the action is legitimate or not ?

 

[cnerd123]

Honestly looks no worse than Steyn's effort balls. Finn and Al-Amin's actions look as bad as that, if not worse, no matter what length they bowl.


And his action looks cleaner on slow-mo replay.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Guys stop bringing up Al Amin over and over again. The same system that found the likes of Narine, Ajmal and Taskin to be chucking has cleared him.

ICC clears Al-Amin's action | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[cnerd123]

Nah; the fact he got cleared and Taskin didn't is kinda my point. There is something off with the testing procedures if a bowler with a visibly filthier action gets off clear. It's not even an optical illusion thing like Murali.

There is visible straightening.

I understand the folly of using 2-D images and footage to judge a 3-D motion, but given how the ICC's current testing methodology are hidden from public view, have been criticised by the original researchers and developers of the methodologies, and continues to throw up weirdly inconsistent results like this, it's hard to not be agitated.

On top of it all, the umpires and officials have been so inconsistent with whom they report and when, and the ICC's punishment methods seem to lack any logical consistency. Some bowlers get months before testing, some get 7 days. Some get to keep bowling as long as they don't repeat the offending delivery, some get banned outright. Each bowler seems to be tested by a different centre; we have not received any evidence to make us believe that the test results of a bowler would be consistent across centres, let alone accurate. No test results using a control group of clean looking bowlers have been made public; in fact, we don't even know if any such data exists to begin with.

It's just a shambles at every level. I laud the intent, but the execution has been so, so poor.

 

[Pratters]

There is a video on YouTube where it is shown hyper extension doesn't mean it is not chucking. Holding explains it quite well with Akhtar as the example.

 

[Pratters]

While there are flaws with the system, it is because people are allowed in who chuck as long as it is within 15 degrees. However, if some one is found to be chucking by the system, there is no case for that person not having chucked it.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Meh, if found guilty of chucking, teams can suffer (for all logistical reasons).

Exactly. If a player's action is dubious me they insist on picking him then it's their choice. Personally I'd argue against them being allowed to replace the players anyway, they're not injured.

Don't think team management, selectors, people involved etc thought there's such a problem exist with Taskin that he could get banned. Streak said,

He (Taskin) and I are 100 percent confident that he will be cleared. I have looked at footages from when I had started till now, and there is no change in his action. The coaching staffs and few others have also looked into it and we believe he is fine," Streak said.

Generally everyone accepted the fate about Sunny.

Mashrafe said the moral of the team is low now as they can't accept what happened with Taskin. I would not blame the team here for going through this. But as they are professional cricketers they have to get on the field and perform.

 

[honestbharani]

I do agree that the thing with Taskin seems much more complicated. I can understand the anger of the BD fans on that one. There has to be better clarity and better communication of what is wrong and how it can be corrected, at the very least.

 

[Stefan9]

Yeah but there are far too many factors here beyond ICC or any governing body's control. There is a lot of gray in this whole chucking issue than most people realize.

1)The officials during the Asia Cup or during Bangaldesh's home series throughout 2015 are not necessarily the same as the officials during the Netherlands game. The action might have been problematic to some, and fine to others.

2) The human bowling action itself is not a constant. It changes. It is quite possible that even if the officials were the same, Taskin's action was fine before, and during that game, he might have done something different, or had a niggle or a host of different factors. So it's possible they didn't have concerns before, but they do now. What do you do about that?

Yes, if someone is reported before the tournament, then we can by all means have them disqualified before the tournament.


The other problem now for Bangladesh is that they have to find 2 replacement bowlers in a very short span of time. This is why I feel that if a bowler has been reported during the tournament, he should be allowed to complete the tournament, simply because of logistical factors. Bangladesh now have to find two replacement bowlers, make visa and travel arrangements, and have them ready before a crucial game within a day or two. And this time, the travel between Bangladesh and India is short. But what if this tournament was taking place in a different continent? What about long flights? Jet lags? This puts the team in an unfairly vulnerable position before a crucial match.

Personally don't feel teams should be allowed to get replacements for chuckers and dopers to start with so that shouldn't even come into. You do the crime you pay the piper. Bangladesh coach see them in training, they should know there is a risk...

If only his bouncers are illegal, is there a situation where can be allowed to bowl his normal stock deliveries, but banned from bowling the bouncer?

In the past johan botha was allowed to come back and bowl as long as he avoided bowling the doosra so there is a precedent.

 

[Athlai]

They also banned Marlon Samuels from his quicker ball. It's strange they didn't ban Taskin from bouncers only till he gets his action remedied considering how much easier it is to police a bowler going short than it is bowling fast.

 

[Black_Warrior]

The problem with the criticism towards the ICC or this process is that people are assuming that there's a very easy, clear way of detecting who chucks and all officials have the same level of skill and detection ability.

This is not the case. The officials that I saw during the Asia Cup earlier were very poor. I am not surprised they failed to find anything wrong with Taskin's bowling. It's quite possible that what appears to be problematic to some officials, is not problematic to others.

Plus, this whole thing about clearing it before the tournament, what if someone is making his debut during such a tournament?

I am not a fan of the ICC but some of the criticism they are getting are for things that is beyond the control of a governing body. This is not about who we 'think' chucks because that is usually a result of our own biases. The teams we don't like, they obviously chuck, the teams we like, they are squeaky clean. There is a system in place and hopefully it is a fair system and if it clears a bowler like Al Amin, then we should respect the decision. If we question that credibility, then we should also question the credibility of the bowlers who have already been banned, because then we are alluding that the system is not fair.

 

[Dan]

...and that's what we're saying, that the process is ****ing **** insofar as it throws up wildly inconsistent results (and is met by wildly inconsistent punishments), with absolutely no explanation of why the results appear inconsistent or any publicly available data. The system is not beyond reproach, and it damn well should be criticised.

If Taskin's a chucker, Taskin's a chucker. Whatever, I don't give a ****. But this is a system which clears Al-Amin, who looks infinitely worse, doesn't test bowlers who look worse than Taskin, and then arbitrarily chooses whether a bowler will be banned entirely or banned from a single type of delivery. If Taskin bowling full was cleared, why not ban his bouncer only? As Athlai said, that's a hell of a lot easier to police than telling Marlon Samuels not to bowl his quicker ball. And then Marlon ended up getting banned entirely anyway a few months later.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, Marlon is a filthy chucker and always has been. But I am guessing the issue with banning one type of delivery and banning one particular length itself is a bit different. At the very least, that is how I hope the ICC looked at it and banned him fully. At the same time, if he can get cleared on some sort of second testing, then it should be arranged as soon as possible. It does seem like Taskin's case is more of an one-off than of the others we have seen recently.

 

[Black_Warrior]

..and that's what we're saying, that the process is ****ing **** insofar as it throws up wildly inconsistent results (and is met by wildly inconsistent punishments), with absolutely no explanation of why the results appear inconsistent or any publicly available data. The system is not beyond reproach, and it damn well should be criticised.

If Taskin's a chucker, Taskin's a chucker. Whatever, I don't give a ****. But this is a system which clears Al-Amin, who looks infinitely worse, doesn't test bowlers who look worse than Taskin, and then arbitrarily chooses whether a bowler will be banned entirely or banned from a single type of delivery. If Taskin bowling full was cleared, why not ban his bouncer only? As Athlai said, that's a hell of a lot easier to police than telling Marlon Samuels not to bowl his quicker ball. And then Marlon ended up getting banned entirely anyway a few months later.

Well that's fine then, as long as we are able to question all the decisions then, which would include the bowlers we don't like who have been banned.

What I am saying is, we can't support the system when it bans the ones we don't like, and then criticise it when it bans the ones we like, and then again criticise it when it clears the one we don't like. It's the same system. That's just personal bias.


Personally I have a problem with the way the whole thing plays out, which includes as you said, no publicly available data. Plus I also have a problem with the whole 15 degree thing. Why 15? Why not 14? or 16? 15 is as arbitrary a figure as any other.

There's a lot of gray in the chucking issue which is not apparent to most of us. It has very little to do with what looks 'bad' to the naked eye. That's not an objective way of looking at it.


This is a piece that asks the right questions

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/139581.html