So the ICC evidence is finally in - and apparently even Glen McGrath chucks...

[Black_Warrior]

This looks like Malaria, so we'll treat the damn thing because it looks like Malaria. If it turns out to be any other thing with investigations it doesn't matter because it looks like Malaria and hence should be Malaria.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Is there a better way? It is ******** but it is less ******** than the old "lets rely on the naked eye" rule..

Apparently there is...but only for 1 championship before it's shelved. Just long enough to tell us everyone apparently chucks it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Old system was not workable at all because it did not give any chance for a bowler to come back. It seems some are more concerned about the feelings of a their own than the truth.

Where's the chance for the batsman to come back if the bowler is found to be chucking in testing having dismissed him cheaply? Or the team for that matter if the bloke has run through them and they've lost the match? If they're going to test after the match then, as I said earlier, if the bowler in question is found to be throwing then the team he plays for should be credited with a loss in that game. If this was the case then I wouldn't have so much of a problem with bowlers only being able to be tested once the game is finished. This might also see teams take on a greater responsibility for ensuring their players are checked out if their actions look a bit funny.

I think your last sentence is reasonably ironic.

 

[Migara]

Where's the chance for the batsman to come back if the bowler is found to be chucking in testing having dismissed him cheaply? I think your last sentence is reasonably ironic.

Obviously, a possible next match, next opposition. But for a bowler called wrongly, there is not even a possible next match. Just a dead end.Irony begins and ends just there.

Or the team for that matter if the bloke has run through them and they've lost the match?

One match vs a career. I'd take the side of a career every time.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Obviously, a possible next match, next opposition. But for a bowler called wrongly, there is not even a possible next match. Just a dead end.Irony begins and ends just there.

Really? I could've sworn I watched Murali play after 1995. Must've been some other bloke who looked like him.

What if the batsman gets dropped after a series against a guy who we later find out is chucking it?

 

[Migara]

Really? I could've sworn I watched Murali play after 1995. Must've been some other bloke who looked like him.

What if the batsman gets dropped after a series against a guy who we later find out is chucking it?

Murali's problem was different and it included huge weight of BCCI behind it and the whole Asian block. But that was what happened good old day.

The second part is borderline stupid. Batsman has a chance to go back to FCC and score ****load of runs and select him self back. If a batsman cannot do it in FCC, he's better off being dropped from national side.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Murali's problem was different and it included huge weight of BCCI behind it and the whole Asian block. But that was what happened good old day.

The second part is borderline stupid. Batsman has a chance to go back to FCC and score ****load of runs and select him self back. If a batsman cannot do it in FCC, he's better off being dropped from national side.

Not really, what happens to him is not solely dependent on what he does in FCC. There's also the question of how being dropped impacts him mentally. Other factors come into play.

Murali got called for chucking...he went away and got tested and, when proven to be ok, came back and bowled again. If he'd have been over the limit in testing we wouldn't have seen him again until he could bowl to the set limits. No amount of help from the BCCI and Asian block would've helped him if he'd have been over the limit and couldn't rectify it. You guys have been fighting the good fight ever since Murali got called, and good luck to you. I don't think it does anything for the game of cricket though.

It's no dumber than suggesting that if a bowler is called his career is ruined.

 

[M0rphin3]

Besides, if the bowler can reproduce (without chucking) exactly what he does in a match, why would he suddenly start chucking in the game? He would know very well that once he starts to chuck and gets tested a second time, he's ****ed.

Wow seriously? Why, I dunno, because it's an added advantage? And if he can get away once, why wouldn't he get away again?

 

[BoyBrumby]

This looks like Malaria, so we'll treat the damn thing because it looks like Malaria. If it turns out to be any other thing with investigations it doesn't matter because it looks like Malaria and hence should be Malaria.

Better yet, we'll leave it untreated and hope the patient survives, eh? Sure all physicians are with you on that one.

Occam's Razor: the simpliest explanation is usually the right one.

Migara is in top form in this thread.

Bless.

Migara on chucking is like Scaly on New Zealand; initially annoying until you realise he's so hilariously biased it's funny when you just treat it as a massive piss-take.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Wow seriously? Why, I dunno, because it's an added advantage? And if he can get away once, why wouldn't he get away again?

You're misunderstanding him. For a bowler to be cleared, he has to be able to bowl the same as in a match WITHOUT chucking, which is fair evidence to assume that his he hasn't been chucking during games either.

 

[Burgey]

You're misunderstanding him. For a bowler to be cleared, he has to be able to bowl the same as in a match WITHOUT chucking, which is fair evidence to assume that his he hasn't been chucking during games either.

How do you know he's bowling the same as in a match though? We can't rely on videos presumably, as they're a "two dimensional representation of a three dimenstional yada yada yada..", what do we rely on to say he's bowling the same as he did in a match?

You can't tell me this bloke is chucking from the picture. Be unfair to suggest it.

Ajmal bowls in the nets ahead of the second test against England

Being serious for a moment though, how can you tell someone is bowling "the same as in a test" without video evidence? And if the video evidence is unreliable for the purposes of determining how much straightening there is, then how can you ever rely on it as a basis for throwing studies?

There are a whole heap of these little buggers coming through the system here. You see them trying to emulate these actions all the time. of course, there's no way of testing them at club level, so you just have to take to them, or call them out on it and belt them after the game because they're cheats.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

They judge whether he's bowling the same by the way the lab-tested deliveries behave across a large sample size compared to deliveries from various games. While they can't deduce whether the guy was chucking in a game, they CAN easily measure things such as ball revs, delivery speed and angle of deviation from game footage, which gives a fair idea of whether he's bowling properly or not in the lab.

 

[Daemon]

Wow seriously? Why, I dunno, because it's an added advantage? And if he can get away once, why wouldn't he get away again?

How do you know he's bowling the same as in a match though? We can't rely on videos presumably, as they're a "two dimensional representation of a three dimenstional yada yada yada..", what do we rely on to say he's bowling the same as he did in a match?

You can't tell me this bloke is chucking from the picture. Be unfair to suggest it.

Ajmal bowls in the nets ahead of the second test against England

Being serious for a moment though, how can you tell someone is bowling "the same as in a test" without video evidence? And if the video evidence is unreliable for the purposes of determining how much straightening there is, then how can you ever rely on it as a basis for throwing studies?

They don't compare it with video footage of his bowling action; they compare it with the accuracy, speed, number of revolutions on the ball, etc over a large sample size. If the guy can do all that without chucking in the lab, why the **** would he chuck in a match? For fun?

Welalbidarned's explained it better than I have, and so have SS as well as some ICC biomechanics hotshot, you might want to read up on that.

 

[Migara]

Not really, what happens to him is not solely dependent on what he does in FCC. There's also the question of how being dropped impacts him mentally. Other factors come into play.

Murali got called for chucking...he went away and got tested and, when proven to be ok, came back and bowled again. If he'd have been over the limit in testing we wouldn't have seen him again until he could bowl to the set limits. No amount of help from the BCCI and Asian block would've helped him if he'd have been over the limit and couldn't rectify it. You guys have been fighting the good fight ever since Murali got called, and good luck to you. I don't think it does anything for the game of cricket though.

It's no dumber than suggesting that if a bowler is called his career is ruined.

1. All these other factors you describe are not a certainty. They may exist, and they may not exists. But it's important to note that a player called in yesteryear never had a come back to have a career of note. Simply, for a batsman being a victim of a chuker there is quite a bright light at the end of the tunnel. But for a bowler who got called wrongly it's a bottomless pit. I am surprised that you are clutching to flimsy straws.

2. Murali's being tested itself was a breakthrough achievement in judging illegal actions. For Ian Mekiff it was umpire and only umpire as the adjudicator. Actually the age old purist mentality was that bowlers did not extend the elbows at all, which was challenged in mid 90s and tolerance limits for various bowlers were introduced. Once again this was a groundbreaking step in adjudicating illegal actions, taking out error-prone human eye out of the business

Hope you got the message. If you keep believing that one chuker could end batsmen's careers than an umpire wrongly calling a bowler, you are welcomed to live in your fantasy.

 

[Migara]

Better yet, we'll leave it untreated and hope the patient survives, eh? Sure all physicians are with you on that one.

Or treat a healthy fella and let him die of the drug complications. Duh!

 

[weldone]

They don't compare it with video footage of his bowling action; they compare it with the accuracy, speed, number of revolutions on the ball, etc over a large sample size. If the guy can do all that without chucking in the lab, why the **** would he chuck in a match? For fun?

...nailed it.

/thread

 

[Son Of Coco]

...nailed it.

/thread

You forgot your pom poms.

 

[Son Of Coco]

1. All these other factors you describe are not a certainty. They may exist, and they may not exists. But it's important to note that a player called in yesteryear never had a come back to have a career of note. Simply, for a batsman being a victim of a chuker there is quite a bright light at the end of the tunnel. But for a bowler who got called wrongly it's a bottomless pit. I am surprised that you are clutching to flimsy straws.

2. Murali's being tested itself was a breakthrough achievement in judging illegal actions. For Ian Mekiff it was umpire and only umpire as the adjudicator. Actually the age old purist mentality was that bowlers did not extend the elbows at all, which was challenged in mid 90s and tolerance limits for various bowlers were introduced. Once again this was a groundbreaking step in adjudicating illegal actions, taking out error-prone human eye out of the business

Hope you got the message. If you keep believing that one chuker could end batsmen's careers than an umpire wrongly calling a bowler, you are welcomed to live in your fantasy.

But you keep saying a bowler's career could be ended by them being called in a game...so are we playing the game in the yesteryear or now? Bowlers can be tested...so there's absolutely no threat of them being banned for life.

It would be interesting to note, Murali aside (and I know you'll be surprised to hear this topic can be broadened in such an astonishing way), how many bowlers have been sent for testing after being suspected (with the human eye) and actually needed remedial action.

Just so you know, I won't be taking messages from Murali's fan club and/or secretary. Especially when it seems to be operating under the idea that this whole conversation is about him.

 

[weldone]

You forgot your pom poms.

...care to answer Daemon's question?

 

[zaremba]

They don't compare it with video footage of his bowling action; they compare it with the accuracy, speed, number of revolutions on the ball, etc over a large sample size. If the guy can do all that without chucking in the lab, why the **** would he chuck in a match? For fun?

...care to answer Daemon's question?

However thorough the testing is, the bloke who's being tested in lab conditions is always going to be focussing very closely on not chucking. With every single ball he bowls he will be trying his very hardest not to chuck. That is his primary aim in the entire process. His career could depend on it.

That is not, however, going to be the case when bowling in a match. In a match he knows he won't get banned, or even no-balled, if he chucks it. So his focus quite rightly going to be on what he's doing with the ball, not what he's doing with his arm. He is intent on getting the batsman out. He may tend to strive for a little extra spin or (for a quickie) for a bit of extra pace. In doing so, or just through tiredness, he may unwittingly allow his action to slip a little bit.

Now I fully appreciate that the lab testing is rigorous, and they check (so far as they realistically can) that he's bowling in the lab as he does in a match, and do so over an extended period. But the bowler's mind-set in the two environments will be completely and utterly different.

I'm not accusing anyone of chucking, by the way. Just offering an answer to Daemon's question.