TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nair as well. I still think they should be found earlier though. State selectors shouldn't pick someone as a bowler who is clearly throwing, and Nair was clearly over the limit.
This is incorrect
-
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.
Akila Dananjaya reported for suspect bowling action
- Thread starter slippy888
- Start date
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
No it is. UWA study has shown it. There was another study which shows higher the angular velocity of extension, worse it looks to the naked eye. So an extension of 5 degrees at 0.01s is going to look worse than 10 degrees at 0.03s.
the big bambino
International Captain
That isn't considered detrimental to change the current citing procedures.
cnerd123
likes this
Migara isn't wrong, but I disagree with his premise
From Day 1 a chuck has been defined by what looks like a throw to the naked eye. The science is just a guideline to help us determine borderline cases. The eye test takes precedence. If a bowler looks clean but science shows him to chuck, then what needs to change is our science, not our preconceived notions on what a 'clean' action is.
The only exceptions for dodgy looking actions should be made for cases where it's proven the appearance of a chuck is an optical illusion, or where the bowler has a physical impairment that prevents him from bowling with a clean-looking action.
But it's a valid point that the current testing system should be checked against clean-looking bowlers to prove it actually works. And TBF, for all we know, it has been, it's just that they haven't made the data public for some reason.
From Day 1 a chuck has been defined by what looks like a throw to the naked eye. The science is just a guideline to help us determine borderline cases. The eye test takes precedence. If a bowler looks clean but science shows him to chuck, then what needs to change is our science, not our preconceived notions on what a 'clean' action is.
The only exceptions for dodgy looking actions should be made for cases where it's proven the appearance of a chuck is an optical illusion, or where the bowler has a physical impairment that prevents him from bowling with a clean-looking action.
But it's a valid point that the current testing system should be checked against clean-looking bowlers to prove it actually works. And TBF, for all we know, it has been, it's just that they haven't made the data public for some reason.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nah. The naked eye may be a poor tool if you're trying to tell the difference between 14 degrees and 16 degrees, but it's pretty accurate if you're just trying to identify an action that is probably illegal. If someone looks like they chuck, chances are they chuck, or are at least close to the limit.
the big bambino
International Captain
Bloke doesn't understand that the rules for chucking were established well before the advent of technology and on evidence only available to the naked eye.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
He just has a selective understanding of concepts when something involves Sri Lankan cricket
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's no surprise a SL fan would be most interested in the primacy of the testing which differentiates between 14.8 degrees of flexion and 15.2. The Murali Standard (that's what it is, let's be honest here) provides certainty as a benchmark once a bowler is reported, but not until such time as the an action is ID'ed as dodgy by an umpire with the naked eye.
The Murali Standard has a lot to answer for. I understand the ICC wanted to bring it in so he could play, and help take SL from "Abject Minnow" to "50:50 at Home/ Barely Competitive Away" status, but they made a rod for their own backs because now there's a whole generation of these blokes who think it's ok to trundle up to the deck and pitch it baseball style at the batsman. And of course, none of them get picked up for testing until they've infested elite domestic-level cricket with their utter filth.
With the benefit of hindsight, through no fault of his own Murali's legacy is the second biggest blight on the game since underarm (the biggest being match-fixing, which of course is based slightly to the northwest of Sri Lanka itself).
The Murali Standard has a lot to answer for. I understand the ICC wanted to bring it in so he could play, and help take SL from "Abject Minnow" to "50:50 at Home/ Barely Competitive Away" status, but they made a rod for their own backs because now there's a whole generation of these blokes who think it's ok to trundle up to the deck and pitch it baseball style at the batsman. And of course, none of them get picked up for testing until they've infested elite domestic-level cricket with their utter filth.
With the benefit of hindsight, through no fault of his own Murali's legacy is the second biggest blight on the game since underarm (the biggest being match-fixing, which of course is based slightly to the northwest of Sri Lanka itself).
cnerd123
likes this
Burgey's wrong about why they brought the 15 degrees in, but has a point.
Taking the stance that there is now an acceptable limit of straightening does send the message that deliberate straightening of the arm is okay, provided you don't get caught and, when caught, can just pass a few tests.
It's why dodgy actions need to be weeded out before at club and junior cricket, and at that level you just go by the eye, nothing else.
Taking the stance that there is now an acceptable limit of straightening does send the message that deliberate straightening of the arm is okay, provided you don't get caught and, when caught, can just pass a few tests.
It's why dodgy actions need to be weeded out before at club and junior cricket, and at that level you just go by the eye, nothing else.
the big bambino
International Captain
Btw there have been players in Aus reported. But it usually happens before it gets to international level. I don't see why things should change simply bcos SL are too slack to identify problem actions domestically.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
This is where the premise of your post falls apart.
cnerd123
likes this
Your face is falling apart tbh
Maximas
Cricketer Of The Year
There have been instances lately where dodgy looking bowlers (T Kaushal comes to mind) whose stock delivery looked pretty sus but it got through the testing, however the doosra/other variation was consistently above the flex limit. Hard to imagine a clean looking action would breach 15 degrees, and from my reading of this subject a few years ago and as others have pointed out the 15 degree limit was specifically set to encompass anyone with a clean looking action
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don’t know if it’s either of those things specifically. Hair did exactly what was right. I don’t know if it’s the Warne rivalry either tbh, because when he toured here we’d have been happy to have Murali bowl from both ends - he averaged 70.
It may be that a lot of people thinks it’s over the odds for a bloke to be called under the rules then have those rules changed for him. It’s a very SC reaction to something - when something goes against you, spit the dummy and threaten to go home until you get your way. See also - Pakistan at Lord’s, SL in Adelaide vs England, India any time they don’t like an lbw decision.
It may be that a lot of people thinks it’s over the odds for a bloke to be called under the rules then have those rules changed for him. It’s a very SC reaction to something - when something goes against you, spit the dummy and threaten to go home until you get your way. See also - Pakistan at Lord’s, SL in Adelaide vs England, India any time they don’t like an lbw decision.
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
Sri Lanka against the West Indies earlier this year too
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Haha yes of course. There’s one every second series these days. What an appalling lot. Imagine Australia walking off the park when that umpire‘s hand went up before the home side had appealed when Harby got his hat trick in 01. It wouldn’t even cross the minds of any outfit with a decent sporting culture to contemplate it.