Jonbrooks chucking Megathread

[Burgey]

Isn't it more likely there will be video technology which allows an accurate reconstruction of a bowler's onfield action which then allows accurate comparison with the action they use when tested off field?

 

[Prince EWS]

Isn't it more likely there will be video technology which allows an accurate reconstruction of a bowler's onfield action which then allows accurate comparison with the action they use when tested off field?

Given what HawkEye can do, I struggle to believe this doesn't already exist.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

What I'd like to understand is what controls there are over testing to ensure that the bowling action displayed during testing is similar enough to the one used in match conditions to enable the test to be fair. I'd imagine it's all to easy to tweak your action to reduce your flexion whilst undergoing testing to sneak under the radar; if one was so inclined.

The whole thing seems unsatisfactory to me. Too arbitrary. Some hawkeye type device needs to be invented to test actions during matches so we can avoid the feelings of unfairness around reporting of suspect actions and to ensure that suspect actions are reported on a timely basis.

I remember reading an article in cricinfo on this when Ajmal was accused back in 2012 when England toured UAE.

The article mentioned lab testing and that they test actual game footage in the lab using some sophisticated machinery. This is why the ICC isn't too concerned with players changing their actions in the lab compared to in the field because they test for both. One of the things they test for is to ensure that lab action is same as game action, as well as lab revolutions to the ball and game footage revolution to the ball being the same.

"Furthermore, contrary to widespread conjecture, Ajmal's off-break and quicker ball actually cause his arm to straighten more - though only a fraction more - than his doosra. The 2009 tests also obliged Ajmal to demonstrate his quicker ball - a delivery that approaches 100kph - and found that, in terms of flex and abduction, it did not differ from his stock delivery."

Pakistan v England, 2011-12 : Pakistan v England, 2011-12: Unravelling the mystery of Saeed Ajmal | Cricket Features | Pakistan v England | ESPN Cricinfo

This is the only article I could find but it doesn't mention how the conduct their tests. Maybe someone else could find that article.

 

[hendrix]

Isn't it more likely there will be video technology which allows an accurate reconstruction of a bowler's onfield action which then allows accurate comparison with the action they use when tested off field?

Given what HawkEye can do, I struggle to believe this doesn't already exist.

Well, the shape of the ball is pretty consistent, whereas people's arms are all different.

But yeah, video technology should be able to accomplish the same thing with a bit of effort.

It needs to happen, really. There have been quite a few games in the past few years where bowlers have had their actions deemed illegal after they've played a crucial part in a match. Knockout matches in world cups, too. Samuels, Botha, Shillinford etc have all taken wickets with deliveries deemed illegal after the fact. That's unacceptable going forward.

 

[hendrix]

This is the only article I could find but it doesn't mention how the conduct their tests. Maybe someone else could find that article.

Honestly, all the results of testing and processes should be published and freely available. These guys are supposedly scientists. It's not science if it can't be peer-reviewed.

 

[OverratedSanity]

No, this would mean players couldn't field.

The solution is for lightweight, stick-on monitors to be placed above and below the flexion points of the elbow, and to have software that monitors the change in flexion through the bowling action. Once a ball is bowled, the software gives a green light, or a red light - in which case it's a no ball.

of course, that would require a lot of investment, so it's not going to happen.

Struggle to believe it'll be 100% accurate so it won't happen, at least not in series where we play

 

[Daemon]

Struggle to believe it'll be 100% accurate so it won't happen, at least not in series where we play

- BCCI call foul when we lose an important game to someone with a suspect action
- ICC begins investing in the lightweight monitor thingy and introduces it as mandatory for all bowlers
- In a match involving India, Ashwin is found to be extending his arm beyond the limit and repeatedly no balled
- BCCI rage and say the technology isn't 100% accurate

 

[Prince EWS]

- BCCI call foul when we lose an important game to someone with a suspect action
- ICC begins investing in the lightweight monitor thingy and introduces it as mandatory for all bowlers
- In a match involving India, Ashwin is found to be extending his arm beyond the limit and repeatedly no balled
- BCCI rage and say the technology isn't 100% accurate

yesss

 

[OverratedSanity]

I was just looking at that Vaughan tweet where he posted that pic of Ajmal again and it just looks so bad. And before you say I don't understand the rule, I do. He's going from bent to bent and the camera angle can be misleading, but it's obvious there is a ridiculous amount of bend in his elbow. That in itself isn't chucking but if he is bending his elbow that far, I just feel it's going to be difficult for him to deliver it legally. He's clearly bending it more than even he normally does and I fail to see how people can be so sure he's not chucking it. More bend of the elbow than normal means he has to release the ball in a very unnatural position (ie) much earlier than he normally does Wish iI could see some footage of that, but it looks unlikely to me

 

[Jono]

- BCCI call foul when we lose an important game to someone with a suspect action
- ICC begins investing in the lightweight monitor thingy and introduces it as mandatory for all bowlers
- In a match involving India, Ashwin is found to be extending his arm beyond the limit and repeatedly no balled
- BCCI rage and say the technology isn't 100% accurate

so good

 

[Maximas]

I was just looking at that Vaughan tweet where he posted that pic of Ajmal again and it just looks so bad. And before you say I don't understand the rule, I do. He's going from bent to bent and the camera angle can be misleading, but it's obvious there is a ridiculous amount of bend in his elbow. That in itself isn't chucking but if he is bending his elbow that far, I just feel it's going to be difficult for him to deliver it legally. He's clearly bending it more than even he normally does and I fail to see how people can be so sure he's not chucking it. More bend of the elbow than normal means he has to release the ball in a very unnatural position (ie) much earlier than he normally does Wish iI could see some footage of that, but it looks unlikely to me

Ajmal usually bends about 8 degrees apparently, the misleading thing about his bend is that his elbow rotates sideways about 15 degrees, making front-on/from behind shots look bad and creates the illusion of extra straightening.

George Dobell wrote a big thing about it a while ago (edit: which AN just posted on the last page)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ajmal usually bends about 8 degrees apparently, the misleading thing about his bend is that his elbow rotates sideways about 15 degrees, making front-on/from behind shots look bad and creates the illusion of extra straightening.

George Dobell wrote a big thing about it a while ago (edit: which AN just posted on the last page)

Yeah I get that. But it just feels that in that pic which Vaughan posted,the action looks even worse than it usually does. The illusion makes it seem worse than it actually is, I know, but I'm positive I've seen stills of Ajmal fronton in that same pposition, and it didn't look this bad. Can't see why this would be the case unless Ajmal puts more flex into the delivery on certain occasions, his own version of the Walsh effort ball.

 

[karan316]

What's that, another bowler from the subcontinent that has a questionable action you say? This is incredibly surprising information!

 

[Burgey]

Ajmal usually bends about 8 degrees apparently, the misleading thing about his bend is that his elbow rotates sideways about 15 degrees, making front-on/from behind shots look bad and creates the illusion of extra straightening.

George Dobell wrote a big thing about it a while ago (edit: which AN just posted on the last page)

Mate of mine has a significant bend. We used to say he could **** around corners.

 

[hendrix]

That George Dobell article raises an interesting question.

Abducting your arm when it's bent causes considerably more torque than when it's straight. Look at the top right picture - abducting your arm when it's straight isn't going to put very much force on the ball, but it will when it's bent:

Therefore, there could be legitimate grounds for limiting abduction for those players who bowl with a bent arm.

 

[jonbrooks]

You have got your arse handed back to you very recently on mankading? Don't you? It was sick to see what English commentators were doing. FFS this guy has been tested yearly in last three years, and all the time came up with flying colors.

Cricket is not played in a lab.

 

[Riggins]

what even is abducting

 

[uvelocity]

All the bowlers. The extension does not depend on how clean the action looks. McGrath and Pollock extended more than murali's off break.

****en bull**** once again. wish moderation of this site extended to repeated posting of lies as fact

 

[Maximas]

****en bull**** once again. wish moderation of this site extended to repeated posting of lies as fact

'Unproven' rather than '****en bull****' would be a better description, however from what we know certinaly Murali's doosra and presumably his off-break were around 10 degrees after some remedial work, we also know that many fast bowlers were above 10 degrees (hence the rule change) but not necessarily McGrath and Pollock, although they were mentioned by a few articles of the time to the effect of their actions not being as clean as they appeared (or something like that, can't remember exactly). So while naming McGrath and Pollock may be inaccurate the point stands that 'clean' looking actions can in fact be worse or as bad as the dodgy looking ones.

 

[Migara]

Cricket is not played in a lab.

Yeah, get rid of DRS and third umpire which involved a lab in their inception.