Akila Dananjaya reported for suspect bowling action

[Victor Ian]

The ICC changed labs in 2014 and there are concerns that their current methodology doesn't match the ones used to establish the existing rules

I linked to an article about this earlier

Sorry - easy enough to ignore one of your posts I'll go and have a look.

 

[cnerd123]

Sorry - easy enough to ignore one of your posts I'll go and have a look.

WAC. My posts are the literal highlights (one way or another) of this forum and you know it

The concern here is that these new testing locations and possibly testing methods have been brought in without due scientific diligence - IE, they were introduced and only dodgy looking bowlers were tested.

Which is why I think the data of % of reported bowlers found guilty of chucking and to what extent would be interesting. I had a quick look but couldn't find somewhere where this was tracked. Gotta look harder or maybe just calculate it myself (but whose got the time...)

 

[Burgey]

Sorry - easy enough to ignore one of your posts I'll go and have a look.

Owned.

And boned.

 

[Victor Ian]

WAC. My posts are the literal highlights (one way or another) of this forum and you know it

The concern here is that these new testing locations and possibly testing methods have been brought in without due scientific diligence - IE, they were introduced and only dodgy looking bowlers were tested.

Which is why I think the data of % of reported bowlers found guilty of chucking and to what extent would be interesting. I had a quick look but couldn't find somewhere where this was tracked. Gotta look harder or maybe just calculate it myself (but whose got the time...)

I just read that article. I'll agree with your summary.

However, there is nothing that has changed in the reporting aspect. If you look chucky, you get reported. Stop looking chucky and enjoy a long fruitful career like Lyon is about the best advice I could offer Sri Lankan spinners.

You are also right in that we don't need international bowlers to be tested for comparative analysis. Grade cricketers would suffice.

 

[Bolo]

Nicaea, you’re gong too hard here and only proving the senitivity this issue carries for SL supporters, who in their hearts know their champion was literally bent.

Accusing someone of being too sensitive over Mural and mocking him for being disabled in a single sentence is bold.

That's like looking someone in the eye and accusing him of anger management issues while you are railing his wife and sister. A little anger might be expected.

 

[cnerd123]

I just read that article. I'll agree with your summary.

However, there is nothing that has changed in the reporting aspect. If you look chucky, you get reported. Stop looking chucky and enjoy a long fruitful career like Lyon is about the best advice I could offer Sri Lankan spinners.

You are also right in that we don't need international bowlers to be tested for comparative analysis. Grade cricketers would suffice.

And I'd like to give these Universities the benefit of the doubt and say they've actually done the control tests, but unlike UWA, they just haven't actually published any papers for peer review. Why that is, idk. I'm not an academic. I don't understand the obstacles involved. But I'll always support Migara and others advocating for more transparency. No harm could come of it, unless they've done things incorrectly. Right?

 

[trundler]

It's definitely a conspiracy. The Chucking Files.

 

[Borges]

And I'd like to give these Universities the benefit of the doubt and say they've actually done the control tests, but unlike UWA, they just haven't actually published any papers for peer review.

Even if they publish the results of their own independent research, the information would be quite irrelevant for reviewing ICC accredited testing.
The testing protocol, specification of testing equipment as well as the actual software to be used for testing is provided by the ICC.

I suppose this is reasonable: if each testing centre was to determine on its own how these tests are to be conducted and hoe the results are to be evaluated, there would be no consistency in testing across the different testing centres.

 

[Migara]

I'd imagine 1 delivery in 125 overs is not a problem. I'd guess you would too, if you could see past your wahing. I'd also suggest that you do not get sent to testing based on one or two bad deliveries every innings - though it would be nice to know for sure. I'm going out on a limb and going to say that you are probably bowling enough chucky deliveries to make someone think - 'this is a problem'.

Under current system, the umpires select the worst looking deliveries and ask the bowlers to reproduce THAT delivery at testing. As you see it is a problem. If every one agrees on the move on consensus, once again, even if a player has a single delivery over 15 degrees, he will be banned. So you see that under these circumstances, no one can be legal, because how ever minute, everyone has a chance of bowling a delivery >15 degrees, and it only needs one delivery for the ban. This is why I call the definition of chucking has to change.

Playing the victim card, do you really think that they would not jump all over Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood and Lyon and send them to remedial class, if they had any reasonable chance of showing the world how Australia are still at this cheating thing? This is proof enough they do not need testing, because, you know, the world has a hard on for showing Australian's cheat.

I think you are talking trash. Random testing is not for remedial action. It is to keep the process honest. If at all they are illegal, it will ive a chance for them to correct themselves.

Face it - chucking is cheating, but for things that Australia do not do, we do not call it cheating.

Without a proper definition of chucking, everyone is a cheat.

Take yourself back to the days the new rule was brought in. They changed them because, on testing, they realised that ALL bowlers are bending their arm beyond what was currently acceptable, only it was too hard to notice. So they changed the rule to what IS noticeable and also what is fairly achievable to bowl. So players who are being tested have obviously chucky actions. That is all that matters.

No it is not. The issue is a player with unconventional action has higher chance of being reported, despite having the same extension as a classical action. Some one argued that random testing is unfair on players, and if it is the case this is also downright unfair. Problem is we don't know is it only the guys with dodgy actions go beyond 15. There is no scientific evidence to prove all clean looking actions stay within 15 degrees of extension. If such evidence is there, random testing is not needed at all, and I will retract my argument.

You want the ICC to create a regulation to make everyone comply with testing. I'd prefer the ICC make every Sri Lankan fan comply with not being a sook.

Only puss ies will resort to this kind of tactics.

 

[Borges]

Yeah, I agree that the the standards (if any) that are used for determining if someone is a chucker, and the complete test results should be in public domain.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Under current system, the umpires select the worst looking deliveries and ask the bowlers to reproduce THAT delivery at testing. As you see it is a problem. If every one agrees on the move on consensus, once again, even if a player has a single delivery over 15 degrees, he will be banned. So you see that under these circumstances, no one can be legal, because how ever minute, everyone has a chance of bowling a delivery >15 degrees, and it only needs one delivery for the ban. This is why I call the definition of chucking has to change.

I think you are talking trash. Random testing is not for remedial action. It is to keep the process honest. If at all they are illegal, it will ive a chance for them to correct themselves.

Without a proper definition of chucking, everyone is a cheat.

No it is not. The issue is a player with unconventional action has higher chance of being reported, despite having the same extension as a classical action. Some one argued that random testing is unfair on players, and if it is the case this is also downright unfair. Problem is we don't know is it only the guys with dodgy actions go beyond 15. There is no scientific evidence to prove all clean looking actions stay within 15 degrees of extension. If such evidence is there, random testing is not needed at all, and I will retract my argument.


Only puss ies will resort to this kind of tactics.

I still haven't figured out what your actual point is. Obviously the system isn't perfect, obviously it's not scientifically sound, no one is going to disagree with that.

It seems like you have an issue with bowlers with dodgy actions being reported & banned, but you vehemently deny that so what exactly is your contention?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

he's got this weird thing about using how a bowlers action looks as grounds for testing them. In the Migarian utopia, all actions would be tested regardless of their visual bent-ness.

 

[marc71178]

Which is all well and good but what's to say individual boards aren't already doing it but nothing is reported about it?

In face I'm confident that the ECB do it and hence dodgy actions aren't allowed to progress to international level.

 

[Borges]

In theory, Migara's idea is sound. WADA's testing has more credibility because it does random testing of everyone; not just those few whose performance looks suspicious to a judge.

With bowling actions, the problem is that testing is time consuming and expensive, and unlike WADA, there are only a handful of accredited testing centres.
May be, a much smaller sample for random testing could be feasible; say one randomly picked bowler at the end of every series, with the ICC or the board compensating the player for the time invested..

 

[StephenZA]

Can somebody please explain to me what is meant by 'scientifically sound' ?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Can somebody please explain to me what is meant by 'scientifically sound' ?

I'd say no anomalies in the process?

 

[Migara]

I still haven't figured out what your actual point is. Obviously the system isn't perfect, obviously it's not scientifically sound, no one is going to disagree with that.

It seems like you have an issue with bowlers with dodgy actions being reported & banned, but you vehemently deny that so what exactly is your contention?

I rest my case.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I rest my case.

What is your case? All you've done is make obvious but largely irrelevant statements

 

[Starfighter]

Can somebody please explain to me what is meant by 'scientifically sound' ?

Fits within preconceptions and biases.

 

[Migara]

Can somebody please explain to me what is meant by 'scientifically sound' ?

You don't believe that the earth is flat and being held on the shoulders of Atlas.