• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Migara said:
Ha ha, touched that raw nerve. Now what is the certainly that clean actions are in fact clean? The classic example of looks like Malaria, so should be Malaria stuff!

Using what ever scientific methods they showed McGrath and Pollock, two bowlers with most "purist friendly" actions gets borderline with extension. In fact some of the actions seems "clean" may be "dirtier" than seemingly dodgy ones. The resistance to checking the "clean" actions comes through the process that finding might shatter the fantasies of the purists.

Take this nugget: "If you think your eye is that great, why chicken out from testing?"
Click to expand...
This guy. He's a laugh riot.

On the off chance you're actually being serious, let's take those points slowly.

McGrath & Pollock were mentioned in the original report? Nope. McGrath & Pollock tested in a lab? Nope. Does the technology exist to accurately measure degrees of flexion in a match situation? Nope.

So where's your evidence anyone with a quote-unquote "clean" action throws? That's rhetorical, by the way: there's none. That being so why waste time, money and effort "proving" what is already apparent?

But thanks for playing.
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
BoyBrumby said:
This guy. He's a laugh riot.

On the off chance you're actually being serious, let's take those points slowly.

McGrath & Pollock were mentioned in the original report? Nope. McGrath & Pollock tested in a lab? Nope. Does the technology exist to accurately measure degrees of flexion in a match situation? Nope.

So where's your evidence anyone with a quote-unquote "clean" action throws? That's rhetorical, by the way: there's none. That being so why waste time, money and effort "proving" what is already apparent?

But thanks for playing.
Click to expand...
And the ICC panel reports just came out of their arses. What a joke!
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Migara said:
Now bringing expenses to it. LMAO.
Click to expand...
Do you really think that the expense isn't a serious consideration when you're proposing annual screening for every international player in the world?

Do you really not see it as a tiny bit wasteful to have an intensive global testing regime to see whether people who don't seem to chuck might in fact chuck?

Time and money well spent?

Anyhow to answer my own question, which you've chosen to ignore, perhaps the ICC could squeeze in some more mind numbing ODIs to raise the cash.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
It's ok, we live in candyland, where money is no object. And if all else fails, we can magically invent a new method of testing which doesn't cost anything!
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
sledger said:
Bad thread is bad. Wonder why it hasn't been locked tbh.
Click to expand...
I dunno, I was pretty proud of the part where uvelocity and I worked together to solve the mystery of how they measure revolutions from video footage.

We should be paid more though...
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Son Of Coco said:
I dunno, I was pretty proud of the part where uvelocity and I worked together to solve the mystery of how they measure revolutions from video footage.

We should be paid more though...
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was fine. But as Brumby and Zaremba have alluded to, certain posters aren't interested in responding to valid questions, and instead are determined to force their own agenda on everyone else and aren't willing to listen to logic/reason.
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
sledger said:
Yeah, that was fine. But as Brumby and Zaremba have alluded to, certain posters aren't interested in responding to valid questions, and instead are determined to force their own agenda on everyone else and aren't willing to listen to logic/reason.
Click to expand...
:laugh:
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
BoyBrumby said:
Yeah, it's hilarious. No actual responses to any of the points I raise tho. One wonders why?
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, you have not made a point. ICC panel has measured extension of elbows of bowlers using video footage - fact. Only bowler who did not extend the elbow was Sarwan - fact. McGarth and Pollock extended it up to 12 degrees - fact.

Please look up in cricinfo, the article is their. I am not bothered to find it.
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Son Of Coco said:
What...you mean like this?:detective
Click to expand...
Ha ha! we are discussing the basics of whether eye is a good screening method for dodgy actions. And you conviniently quote out of context what I responded to why it's not being done regularly. FFS we have 3rd umpire, Hawkeye, Hotspot, Speedgun and Superslowmo, all of which were new technology and costs monumental amounts. Why not the elbow extension?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top