Chris Broad: The rogue match referee

[chaminda_00]

Hey CC have you ever bowled the doosra cus if you have you know what im talking about.

 

[C_C]

No i havnt actually tried it though i've seen people try it...i am not and never was a spin bowler...
But like i said... all you are going by is optical illusion..there is a kink in every bowler's bowling action...whether visible to the naked eye or not.

 

[Top_Cat]

No it more down to the fact that you can't see the difference between bowling an off break to a doorsa until you bowl it urself. Nothing to do with a umpire's eye sight.

Of course it 'feels' different but in the chucking debates, that's completely irrelevant. What's important is the degree of flexion which is a quantity far more accurately measured by certain types of equipment other than umpires' eyes.

How about you read my whole post where i actually mention natural degree of flexion.

Where?

 

[Slow Love™]

I am confused by the shifting of the goalposts by some on the chucking issue, and I pretty much sit on the same side of the fence as C_C and T_C (this is surely a great title for a double-act) on it.

What the hell is all this "intentional/unintentional" nonsense? This to me is still the crux of the matter - a battle between discovering the truth about chucking (and enforcing reasonable laws) and a desire for expediency over truth. How on earth is an umpire going to interpret a 6 degree level of flexion (which they can't even friggin' see, anyway) as deliberate, and interpret a 16 degree level of flexion as acceptable, because it clearly isn't deliberate? That's an absolute joke, and ironic besides, given that many of the people arguing this consider the current path taken as "unworkable".

The fairest way of doing this is NOT to leave it to an umpire's discretion. A line in the sand needs to be drawn, as to what is a) controllable, and b) gives undue advantage. Arguments that imply that umpires can determine how intentional a throw is ARE unworkable - particularly when we've already seen such a difference in the way umpires interpret different bowlers' actions.

Let's have a clear definition laid out - like I've said before, ideally we'll have a situation where actions are monitored in real-time by third umpires. This should be our end-goal, and the definitions as to what's acceptable and what's not should be as clear, and we should minimize the "interpretation" factor as much as is possible, because it will create more problems than it will solve.

As to Broad - I don't have any difficulty with Ganguly being penalized, because he has pushed the envelope again and again (some may say the penalty was harsh, but Broad doesn't hand out the sentence anyway, as far as I know). But it's difficult to deny the obvious reality that Broad is the "hatchet-man" on the chucking issue. Whether this is on instruction of the ICC or of his own volition is not for us to know, but if he's operating on instructions, it's a nice counter to the conspiracy theory that rules are being changed to "protect" subcontinental chuckers.

 

[chaminda_00]

Where?

Not everything is down to science mate, some thing can only be seen by trying them in real life. The off break is a correct action as your arm stays straight through, when you take in natural straighting of the elbow. Whereas a doosra your elbow goes from being striaght to bent during the action, therefore not a correct action

Here is where i mentioned it

 

[chaminda_00]

Of course it 'feels' different but in the chucking debates, that's completely irrelevant. What's important is the degree of flexion which is a quantity far more accurately measured by certain types of equipment other than umpires' eyes.

When have i said that the umpire's eye is the best way to see if a ball chucks or not. All im saying is that who has bowled a doorsa, or tired to bowl one, know that they are throwing the ball. It all about honesty, i know that the ball is neally unplayable but im not goint to ball it in a game cus i know im chucking the ball. It is relevent when it comes to the chucking debate, cus by bowling a bowl that you know u chuck, you are intentially trying to get an advantage over other bowlers and batsmen.

 

[vvk]

I say screw the chucking rule and make it a free for all

 

[Scallywag]

I say screw the chucking rule and make it a free for all

They have.

 

[Scallywag]

Looks like Ganguly is the rogue captain

Sourav Ganguly Australia v India, 7th ODI
22nd January 2004 at Sydney Breach of Code C1 at Level 2 - Players and/or Team Officials shall at all times conduct play within the spirit of the game as well as within the Laws of Cricket and the captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that this is adhered to. Captain fined 50% of match fee. Clive Lloyd

Sourav Ganguly India v South Africa, 2nd Test
28 Nov - 2 Dec 2004 at Kolkata Breach of Code 1.3 - Showing dissent at an umpire’s decision by action or verbal abuse. Fined 30% of match fee. Jeff Crowe

Sourav Ganguly India v Pakistan , Only ODI
13th November 2004 at Kolkata Breach of Code C1 at Level 3 - Players and/or Team Officials shall at all times conduct play within the spirit of the game as well as within the Laws of Cricket and the captains are responsible at all times for ensuring that this is adhered to. Suspended for 2 Test matches (25 November 2004. Appeal upheld. Ban of 2 Test matches quashed) Clive Lloyd

Sourav Ganguly
India v Pakistan, 3rd ODI
9 April 2005 at Jamshedpur
Level 2 breach of Code C1 - unfair play due to his side bowling its overs too slowly, Fined 70% of match fee
Chris Broad

Sourav Ganguly
India v Pakistan, 4th ODI
12 April 2005 at Ahmedabad
Level 3 breach of Code C1 – Conduct contrary to the spirit of the game on the basis of time wasting in relation to India's over rate. Banned for 6 One-Day Internationals.
Chris Broad

 

[Top_Cat]

Here is where i mentioned it

Well that just makes your point moot then because when you take into account natural straightening/bending of the arm bowling an off-break, there's going to be a degree of flexion and subduction just like the doosera. They're one and the same, one just bends a little bit more than the other (in general) and both are legitimate as long as the degree of flexion doesn't exceed 15 degrees.

When have i said that the umpire's eye is the best way to see if a ball chucks or not.

Got news for you; that's effectively what you're advocating, indirectly speaking.

All im saying is that who has bowled a doorsa, or tired to bowl one, know that they are throwing the ball.

Maybe that's true for you but are you seriously saying that because you tried it and it felt like you were throwing that therefore all others who do the same are also throwing? That's one heck of a stretch. Maybe the solution is that you're simply not in possession of the sufficient skill to bowl it without exceeding the 15 degree limit. Let's face it, how many bowlers are? I mean we only have three Test off-spinners who can bowl it with any degree of consistency AND stay within the rules.

It is relevent when it comes to the chucking debate, cus by bowling a bowl that you know u chuck, you are intentially trying to get an advantage over other bowlers and batsmen.

That's IF you're throwing and since Murali and Harbi have been cleared, it's pretty obvious they're not.

 

[vvk]

Ganguly ain't the rogue captain mate.

Non-caucasian's are held accountable for incidents and actions that frankly, Aus/NZ/RSA/Eng players get off scott free for.

I've seen regular occassions where players from these nations cross the line but do not get penalized for it. Just an example of the top of my head is the verbal abuse the Aussie slip cordon gave Parthiv Patel in one of the tests in the series in India.

 

[Top_Cat]

Non-caucasian's are held accountable for incidents and actions that frankly, Aus/NZ/RSA/Eng players get off scott free for.

I've seen regular occassions where players from these nations cross the line but do not get penalized for it. Just an example of the top of my head is the verbal abuse the Aussie slip cordon gave Parthiv Patel in one of the tests in the series in India.

You are walking a VERY thin line. Imagine a white Australian complaning about preferential treatment given to non-white cricketers. We'd all be outraged by that, right? If you want to prove systemic and/or systematic racism by ICC officials, you'll have to do far better than one example and frankly, you'd be best off if you didn't try.

Aside from that, you weren't out in the middle in the incidents you mention so you've got no clue what actually happened. By the same token, you've got no clue if anything provoked it or if any of the Indian players say similar things to the Aussies. None at all.

I myself have a non-caucasian parent and as such take issues of race VERY seriously. So if you want to accuse anyone of racism, you'd better have some seriously water-tight reasons why or this thread and you are history on this forum. There is no place for racism on Cricket Web and the attitude on display is as discriminatory as if someone caucasian complained about the converse situation and will be dealt with accordingly.

 

[howardj]

Ganguly ain't the rogue captain mate.

Non-caucasian's are held accountable for incidents and actions that frankly, Aus/NZ/RSA/Eng players get off scott free for.

I've seen regular occassions where players from these nations cross the line but do not get penalized for it. Just an example of the top of my head is the verbal abuse the Aussie slip cordon gave Parthiv Patel in one of the tests in the series in India.

It's amazing the general hang up that many subcontiental supporters have. That's not necessarily a criticism, more an observation. Quite a few fans thinking that their players are victimised, while others escape punishment.

I must say, I've never looked at things through that prism, so I dont know if you have a point or not. I do disagree with people who claim that Murali was/is targetted because of where he comes from. But, as for other disciplinary matters over the years, you may have a point, and you may not. You should provide more examples though.

 

[vvk]

What was McGrath's penalty for his disgraceful abuse aimed at Sarwan in the Caribbean?

 

[vvk]

What was Slater's penalty for his angry reaction to the third umpire being called for a disputed catch off the bat of Rahul Dravid in the 2001 test series in India?

 

[marc71178]

What is the point in looking at events years ago when the entire code of conduct was far more lenient?

 

[Top_Cat]

Keep going. Really.

 

[vvk]

And in those very same years players such as Ganguly were regularly called up for comparitavely minor offences?

 

[Top_Cat]

Alright I've seen enough.

Vvk, you're posting such flamebait right now and you know it. I have about a dozen counter-examples in mind but it's pointless so this thread is now a dot. Great work.