Taskin Ahmed and Arafat Sunny suspended from bowling

[indiaholic]

No issues with the 15 number. Sports is entirely built on an arbitrary set of rules. Huge problems with the secrecy.

 

[Dan]

Why is the crease 1.2m from the stumps, not 1.25? Why are stumps 78cm high, not 80cm? Why is a ball 156g, not 160g? Why is an over 6 balls, not 7? Why is driving at 71km/h a crime, but 70km/h is fine? Why is 0.050 ok, but 0.051 isn't?

"It's arbitrary" is such a **** argument against something. Every figure is as arbitrary as any other, but you need a benchmark to measure this kind of thing by.

And I've never said that we shouldn't be concerned by the bowlers who have been banned. I mean, guys like SenanananananananananaBATMANyake and Ajmal were so far above the degree threshold that I doubt they'd pass with any methodology, but of course we should be concerned that guys who have been banned have been banned unfairly. Especially when the stakes for these blokes are huge.

The process needs to be transparent, above reproach, and scientifically accurate. It is neither of the former two, and we can't tell anything about the latter because of the lack of transparency.

 

[Black_Warrior]

That's fine but it was not originally 15 though. All the arbitrary figures you mentioned have not changed to suit us. This figure was changed to suit us at a certain point. So that's what begs the question, why not now.

Anyway, that isn't the argument though. If we have decided that it is 15, I accept it. I just pointed out what problem I have personally with the system. But I accept the system decided by everyone else even if I personally might not agree with some of it's principles.

The difference is that I accept all the decisions now..so the decision to clear Al Amin is just as valid as the decision to ban Hafeez and ban Taskin.

We can't pick and choose which bowlers we think were unfairly banned and which bowlers weren't based on our personal preferences (biases). That's what I am saying. If the system is unfair, it is unfair for everyone and if it is fair, then it is fair for everyone. If a legal system is found to have a problem, then that questions the credibility of every decision made by that legal system, not just the ones that suit us.

 

[Bahnz]

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.

Easy in principle, but it strikes me as a bit tricky in practice. One does a ball become a bouncer? Shoulder height? Chest height? And that's setting aside the fact that a bouncer for someone like Kane Williamson is going to be very different to a lanky prick like Mitch Marsh.

 

[Black_Warrior]

BCB lodges appeal with ICC regarding Taskin Ahmed's bowling action | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Dan]

The difference is that I accept all the decisions now..so the decision to clear Al Amin is just as valid as the decision to ban Hafeez and ban Taskin.

We can't pick and choose which bowlers we think were unfairly banned and which bowlers weren't based on our personal preferences (biases). That's what I am saying. If the system is unfair, it is unfair for everyone and if it is fair, then it is fair for everyone.

I've literally never suggested anything different to what you're saying here. Of course it goes both ways.

The. Process. Is. ****.

 

[Athlai]

Easy in principle, but it strikes me as a bit tricky in practice. One does a ball become a bouncer? Shoulder height? Chest height? And that's setting aside the fact that a bouncer for someone like Kane Williamson is going to be very different to a lanky prick like Mitch Marsh.

Well they set the precedent by determining only that kind of delivery was a problem. If it notably changes his action then there must be perimeters that it fits they can identify.

I'm fine with them not allowing the Samuels sort of situation occur, and banning them until they pass the tests. But the precedent is there.

 

[Dan]

Easy in principle, but it strikes me as a bit tricky in practice. One does a ball become a bouncer? Shoulder height? Chest height? And that's setting aside the fact that a bouncer for someone like Kane Williamson is going to be very different to a lanky prick like Mitch Marsh.

Yeah, of course it's tricky in practice. But I think the point Athlai is making is that it's significantly less tricky to define 'bouncer' for a quick bowler in real-time on the field, than it is to define 'quicker ball' for Marlon Samuels in real-time on the field. I mean, for the latter, is the standing umpire getting bowling speeds fed to him via the earpiece ("Look Nigel, that last ball was 101.9km/h, which is above the agreed limit for Marlon's normal speed. Retroactively call it no-ball, please.")?

If they claimed to be able to adequately police the latter, I see no reason why they wouldn't similarly claim to be able to police the former.

 

[hendrix]

No issues with the 15 number. Sports is entirely built on an arbitrary set of rules. Huge problems with the secrecy.

The secrecy is indeed frustrating.

The Marlon Samuels situation was terrible, quite frankly. He still chucks whenever his team is under the pump.

 

[Prince EWS]

Easy in principle, but it strikes me as a bit tricky in practice. One does a ball become a bouncer? Shoulder height? Chest height? And that's setting aside the fact that a bouncer for someone like Kane Williamson is going to be very different to a lanky prick like Mitch Marsh.

Yeah; the Samuels quicker ball was actually an entirely different delivery. A bouncer is just a ball delivered at a different length, however this fact in itself makes me really doubt the entire process when it came to Taskin's testing. I don't think they were out to get him or that there was some grand conspiracy, but I think it's shown up that the process isn't always very good and should be looked at.

 

[Prince EWS]

The secrecy is indeed frustrating.

The Marlon Samuels situation was terrible, quite frankly. He still chucks whenever his team is under the pump.

Samuels has been banned from bowling entirely since the original issue with the quicker ball.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I've literally never suggested anything different to what you're saying here. Of course it goes both ways.

The. Process. Is. ****.

I wasn't exactly arguing with you. Sometimes thoughts come across as more argumentative in written form than you intend to.

My original point was, that if Al Amin has been cleared, we should respect the decision and stop calling him a filthy chucker.

 

[weldone]

Samuels has been banned from being entirely...

sounds like Shane Warne was on the panel

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Degrees of guilt | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

That article is over a decade old. Virtually none of it is true any more.

And the 15 degree wasn't wholly arbitrary. It was a pragmatic decision, based on lab testing, that the the advantages gained by most players below that tolerance were negligible. The line had to be set somewhere.

I've made my thoughts on the current regime of secrecy and, frankly, misappropriation of the available research clear in other threads.

EDIT: on that, it's actually a fair question whether the 15 degree threshold remains appropriate. Bruce Elliott himself said it was a step in the right direction, the implication being that it's not an entirely settled issue and required more research. But hey, now the ICC have locked up the whole process and taken the research out of the public realm (assuming they're even doing any at all, let alone anything worth ****-all), guess we'll never know. Honestly, a cricketer in a position of being reported and maybe not subsequently cleared, first thing I'd be doing afterward is looking for a lawyer to sue the ICC because they'd probably win.

 

[Migara]

It's not as easy as saying he chucks the bouncer, is it? He probably chucks a few of the shorter balls which he puts more effort into. How to determine which short balls he puts more effort into and which short balls he puts less effort into. It is far easier to outlaw a bowler from bowling a doosra. I do hope the ICC didn't state that it is only the bouncers which he chucks because that would be just weird and wrong.

Apparently his fater bouncers were OK. The three slowest bouncers were illegal.

 

[Migara]

Al amin and Bumrah has hyperextension.

 

[Black_Warrior]

So now that India are not scheduled to play Bangladesh in a World Cup game any time soon... BCCI lifts the ban

Bowling actions of Bangladesh?s Arafat and Taskin found to be legal - ICC Cricket

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Great news. Taskin has been playing domestic cricket in between and performing good so dont see a problem if hes been included straight away for Afghanistan and England series. About Sunny I think he needs to play and perform in domestic with remodelled action beforebeing considered

 

[Burgey]

Be so good if the Big Two can get back to bowling.