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

[Son Of Coco]

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?

I thought we were discussing why the video technology used for saying everybody threw in the Champion's Trophy was only ever used once.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

The trouble is, and this is the crucial point, measuring from video footage isn't very accurate. If you read the original article (it's linked to in the very first post of the thread, so one doesn't have to look very hard) flexion was measured on a slow-mo camera taking 250 frames per second.

Now, a few years further down the line with technology, on some broadcasters' coverage we have hyper-motion cameras that record at 1000 frames per second. But, guess what? The measurements still aren't accurate enough for any conclusions to be drawn. If a player wears a long sleeved shirt (like, say, Ajmal always does) there's a large error margin. Why exactly do you think players are sent to be tested in a laboratory with motion capture sensors all over their delivery arms and torsos?

 

[Migara]

The trouble is, and this is the crucial point, measuring from video footage isn't very accurate. If you read the original article (it's linked to in the very first post of the thread, so one doesn't have to look very hard) flexion was measured on a slow-mo camera taking 250 frames per second.

Now, a few years further down the line with technology, on some broadcasters' coverage we have hyper-motion cameras that record at 1000 frames per second. But, guess what? The measurements still aren't accurate enough for any conclusions to be drawn. If a player wears a long sleeved shirt (like, say, Ajmal always does) there's a large error margin. Why exactly do you think players are sent to be tested in a laboratory with motion capture sensors all over their delivery arms and torsos?

Fine. Your point is totally accepted, and this methos do have flaws. But what is the alternative we have? Judge them with naked eye which has a bigger margin of error? It's choice of using less erroneous method till something better is developed.

 

[Migara]

I thought we were discussing why the video technology used for saying everybody threw in the Champion's Trophy was only ever used once.

It was used as a research tool and the results were jaw dropping for the traditionalists. Whether it will be developed or not is another matter. What it showed was that even so called clean actions were going pass the prescribed limits. The major finding of the study was this, nothing else.

 

[Migara]

Yeah but you don't. You're a waste of time.

Thanks. There's an ignore button to be used then.

 

[zaremba]

If a player wears a long sleeved shirt (like, say, Ajmal always does) there's a large error margin.

Andrew Hall was always one for the two thirds length sleeve. It looked ridiculous and there was one very obvious reason why he wore it...

 

[Migara]

More the two third sleeve which is baggy. But agree that wearing it is ridiculous by any point of view.

 

[Daemon]

Yeah that's a good point. They should be banned from wearing those. How are match officials supposed to report their actions if they start to become dodgy again after remedial when they can't even see the bowlers arm?

 

[Son Of Coco]

It was used as a research tool and the results were jaw dropping for the traditionalists. Whether it will be developed or not is another matter. What it showed was that even so called clean actions were going pass the prescribed limits. The major finding of the study was this, nothing else.

So it was a reference to the expenses of using this kind of video system daily in matches?

Ta.

 

[Migara]

So it was a reference to the expenses of using this kind of video system daily in matches?

Ta.

I think we are discussing two different facets of the same problem. I am questioning on the screening method, that only ones with dodgy actions are tested. You are questioning the way of measuring the extension and it's technicalities. Two different beasts TBH.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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?

They were largely brought about by TV companies who were looking to bolster their coverage. When the ICC brought it in as part of the mandatory, oh India wait, err, semi-mandatory UDRS there were problems with finances and it had to be scaled back in some series.

I don't think the TV companies are going to be that bothered about showing bowling actions in slow motion. So it is going to be something the ICC has to pay for. Having the camera(s) in place all for all of the major Tests may or may not be plausible, analysing everyone all of the time certainly isn't. It would have to involve some sort of reporting system.

 

[Burgey]

Now bringing expenses to it. LMAO.

If testing, test everybody. Otherwise allow everybody. Or better, find a screening test which is cheap. That screening method is not an set of old biased men who reject illusions, see hallucinations and form delusions in their minds.

The agenda laid bare at last.

 

[Uppercut]

It's all on the record in the Protocols of Burgey IIRC

 

[honestbharani]

Here we go, genius..

From that article:


International Cricket Council - News

ICC General Manager – Cricket, David Richardson, said: ''There is a big difference between the “elbow carry angle” (elbow abduction) and the degree of elbow extension. There is nothing preventing a bowler bowling with a bent arm, provided he does not straighten it beyond the permitted degrees of tolerance.''

 

[honestbharani]

It doesn't make any difference...if you're using two methods that are both supposedly flawed then it doesn't matter which one you choose. What people are asking is if we can't rely on video evidence to give us the answers we need in real time, how did we get this information about all bowlers supposedly throwing, complete with apparent degrees of flexion, from video footage taken during the Champion's Trophy?

Why was it good enough then, but it's never been used since?

So don''t hate on the BCCI about the DRS.

 

[honestbharani]

You don't lose a whole career though...you go and get tested and then back you come. You're not protecting the innocent, they're the guys playing against the guy who is chucking it. I understand you're coming it from Murali's angle (no pun intended)...but Murali isn't the whole throwing issue, even though he was made out to be.

Even suggesting umpires were biased is in itself biased - this is the Murali defence. He may have been wrong in then end given Murali was tested. But he wasn't wrong to call him if he thought he was throwing.

He was wrong if he thought he was throwing because of his bias.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If he was biased within the 15 degree limit then he was fine.

 

[honestbharani]

Apparently there is...but only for 1 championship before it's shelved. Just long enough to tell us everyone apparently chucks it.

You just have a hard time believing that everyone chucks, don't you?

Not really, what happens to him is not solely dependent on what he does in FCC. There's also the question of how being dropped impacts him mentally. Other factors come into play.

Murali got called for chucking...he went away and got tested and, when proven to be ok, came back and bowled again. If he'd have been over the limit in testing we wouldn't have seen him again until he could bowl to the set limits. No amount of help from the BCCI and Asian block would've helped him if he'd have been over the limit and couldn't rectify it. You guys have been fighting the good fight ever since Murali got called, and good luck to you. I don't think it does anything for the game of cricket though.

It's no dumber than suggesting that if a bowler is called his career is ruined.

Murali got called for chucking based on rules and laws that made zero sense and was unfair. It was left to the whims and fancies of the umpire who could not even figure out that other bowlers were flexing their elbow to much the same extent...

Quite so.

Testing in a lab is almost certainly flawed because of the Hawthorne Effect. Whereby subjects modify their behaviour simply by virtue of knowing they're being observed.

There it is. It's taken fifteen years, but I've finally found a practical application for something I studied for the Sociology half of my degree.

lol.. BB, you are as much the classic example of the "people having taken sides and not gonna change their opinions in this debate" that Z was referring to, as much as me or anyone else in this thread.

There is a also a sociological fact called bias. It exists with everyone and blocks out facts when they don't suit it and you have shown yours throughout this thread.

 

[honestbharani]

If he was biased within the 15 degree limit then he was fine.

so then clearly you must be banned.

 

[honestbharani]

No, I'm not. Being able to bowl without flexing the elbow more than 15 degrees doesn't mean any bowler will always do it. Using the elbow means more pace and spin.

Players do things in every sport to gain an advantage despite knowing what they're doing is illegal. Why else would anyone claim a catch that'd bounced?

you do understand that beyond a point, a bowling action is just reflex and muscle memory, right? If I can bend my arm by 3 degrees more than the allowed limit and know it will help me get 1 degree more turn or 0.6 degree more swing, I won't be human.


If you are bowling a ball with the same revolutions, same turn, same bounce and same speed, chances are, you are doing it with the same action, lab or ground. It is amazing how such basic things about the game are forgotten just because you don't want to accept facts.