You don't want a cricket match where someone maybe playing for their career being played purely as an experiment.Was waiting to bring this up till some one comes between 15-20.
Ideally should have let him play as an experiment and see how the process goes. His worst was 19 degrees only, so very good study material for the task in hand.
But what if he got a wicket with everyone knowing there's a genuine chance that the bowl was a chuck- or worst case scenario he gets someone out who's playing for their career? Is the batsman immediately reprieved, but even then it would be in selectors' minds. it would be ridiculously controversial. And why can't it just be a thing of an umpire and cameras watching him bowl instead of a match?But lit's lot better than not playing at all.
I'd agree in a "just to be sure" way that other bowlers who seem fine should be tested to see the results. Steyn would be a huge target for it@andmark, but don't you think it would be seem more transparent if other bowlers are tested under the new regime. Hafeez's flex is 16 degree over the wicket. A fair number of hafeez deliveries seemed quite legal (at least to me. Of course a fair few seemed bad too). There should be some testing of a control group to see the results for the new testing regime.
This is a really good point and one of the main reasons I am so anti chucking.But what if he got a wicket with everyone knowing there's a genuine chance that the bowl was a chuck- or worst case scenario he gets someone out who's playing for their career? Is the batsman immediately reprieved, but even then it would be in selectors' minds. it would be ridiculously controversial. And why can't it just be a thing of an umpire and cameras watching him bowl instead of a match?
Don't the umpires first report suspect actions to the third umpire and match referee who then check the replays to decide if his action needs testing. The umpires make the initial call but it must be checked on the replays before the played is required to be tested.Average extension of 16 degrees. huh! Let's ask umpires to call which is illegal / dodgy and which is not by looking at films. Then we can have a good idea on how "useful" is the reporting procedure. My guess is prurist will be in for a rude shock.
All the bowlers who have been reported to date looked like baseball pitchers when they reached the crease. Senanayake looked atrocious, Ajmal had deteriorated to a ludicrous extent, KW's action was a parody of itself etc etc etc. It's no surprise they were all >25 degrees.The 15 degree limit is highly arbitary given that the limit was set using a different technology compared to current one. So letting few of those fring bowlers to bowl and figure out the results or test randomly and to establish new cutoff levels (which may be identical, but we don't know) would be the way forward. It is hihly debious since all the bowlers who are reported have extensions >25degrees. No one is below 25 when tested. The chances are that some normal looking actions may be going over 15 degrees. If that is the case a new level of tolerance has to be defined, or everybody has to be tested randomly.
In that case, fine, let him go back and continue the remedial work till he can pass the prescribed tests and then he can play.I am sure if Hafeez was able to improve his action so much to get it to around 16 to 19 degrees, he can easily bring it to less than 15 with more sustained remedial work on it.