Ajmal Action Reported

[Migara]

"The big 3" nations don't have the history or culture of off spin bowling on the scale that Sri Lanka does. Thus it's natural that because there's more (rather unorthodox) offies from SL; so more Sri Lankans are to be reported. To say it's a conspiracy of the top 3 nations is sheer nonsense.

I think there's a problem with people over reacting when they are reported as well. If you insist on bowling deliveries with a bent arm, then you should surely accept that you're putting yourself in the firing line to be reported. If we take the Senanayake example, when he was reported Angelo Mathews said:"I think when you travel to some parts of the world and people find a certain bowler difficult to handle they tend to report" source: BBC Sport - England's struggle led to Sachithra Senanayake report - Mathews . This sort of nonsense over reaction (of course Senanayake was found to have been chucking) can only put pressure on the umpires to not to report chuckers which defeats the object of their officiating.

Senanayake's ban I think is fair. But I have massive doubts on how the particular deliveries were selected to reproduce.

It's not only a matter of the average extension over a series of deliveries, but their variance as well. Currently neither we nor ICC has absolutely any idea on what is the average extension during bowling and the SD of it. Furthermore, on individual basis each bowler has a mean extension and a SD as well. Setting a limit of 15 will not solve the problem IMO. The tolerated percentage of deliveries above a certain limit has to be defined, and if someone breaches the limit, then they should be banned.

 

[zaremba]

It's not probable, but not possible. The process can be manipulated to target certain bowlers. That is why I ask for a universal transparent protocol on selection criteria on which of the deliveries to reproduce.

Bingo. Same applies to McGrath as well. Since McGrath don't have a fixed flexion deformity, his action will look less dodgier than that of Murali at the same level of extension. There is every chance that McGrath's effort balls did go over the limit, as you postulate about Murali.. And I think you are prepared to accept that McG have got away due to the inability of the human eye to detect extension correctly.

The role of the human eye in this is interesting.

The bowlers who are targetted are, of course, those who look as though they are, or might be, chucking.

Now the 15 degree limit was introduced precisely because it is at that level that a throw is meant to become visible to the human eye. The "human eye" threshold is therefore, paradoxically, the one which ultimately allowed Murali to continue to bowl. What the human eye can and cannot perceive is therefore hard-wired into the system.

Thus, the bowlers who look as though they throw are sent for testing.

 

[zaremba]

Never heard of James Kirtley then?

Also Maurice Holmes. Who isn't a household name because he was picked up, tested and banned before having the chance to become a household name. Which some might say is a better way of going about things than allowing him to progress through the ranks and to become a Test player, by which time (1) it may be too late for remedial action and (2) it creates a big fuss - which has regrettably been the way with one or two national systems over recent decades.

 

[GGG]

Also Maurice Holmes. Who isn't a household name because he was picked up, tested and banned before having the chance to become a household name. Which some might say is a better way of going about things than allowing him to progress through the ranks and to become a Test player, by which time (1) it may be too late for remedial action and (2) it creates a big fuss - which has regrettably been the way with one or two national systems over recent decades.

hmm I am sure I watched a interview with him a few weeks back, pretty much given up on cricket if I remember correctly.

 

[Maximas]

The role of the human eye in this is interesting.

The bowlers who are targetted are, of course, those who look as though they are, or might be, chucking.

Now the 15 degree limit was introduced precisely because it is at that level that a throw is meant to become visible to the human eye. The "human eye" threshold is therefore, paradoxically, the one which ultimately allowed Murali to continue to bowl. What the human eye can and cannot perceive is therefore hard-wired into the system.

Thus, the bowlers who look as though they throw are sent for testing.

The human eye becomes pretty useless in the case of someone like Murali whose elbow couldn't straighten properly, if we are going to assume that Murali (who on average flexed around the same amount as many other bowlers with 'clean' actions) occasionally blew the 15 degree limit then why do we not make the same assumptions about other bowlers?

 

[zaremba]

The human eye becomes pretty useless in the case of someone like Murali whose elbow couldn't straighten properly, if we are going to assume that Murali (who on average flexed around the same amount as many other bowlers with 'clean' actions) occasionally blew the 15 degree limit then why do we not make the same assumptions about other bowlers?

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I'm just saying that the human eye is (rightly or wrongly) built in to the system. And the end result is that people who look as though they chuck will get tested. Which seems reasonable to me.

 

[zaremba]

hmm I am sure I watched a interview with him a few weeks back, pretty much given up on cricket if I remember correctly.

He's seeking to become a barrister.

 

[Migara]

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I'm just saying that the human eye is (rightly or wrongly) built in to the system. And the end result is that people who look as though they chuck will get tested. Which seems reasonable to me.

Which is extremely unreasonable for me because
1. People with fixed flexion deformities will get tested repeatedly even when they don't chuck. Their teams will lose their services in the middle of an important series. Not to mention the stress that puts on the player and how it affects the performance as well.

2. Players with cleaner actions to the eye are getting away with chucking. Odd deliberate chuck and marginal extensions may not get picked especially at high arm speed of faster bowlers.

Solution is to test every one at least randomly.

 

[Maximas]

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I'm just saying that the human eye is (rightly or wrongly) built in to the system. And the end result is that people who look as though they chuck will get tested. Which seems reasonable to me.

Yeah same here, I just wanted to make the point that in 2004 the general finding out of those Champions Trophy tests was that Murali was pretty much the same as his 'clean' peers in terms of flex, even his doosra got down to 10 degrees on average or something like that after a bit of remedial work, so I don't think there's much weight to the argument others have made that he occasionally blew it or whatever. I quoted your post but I didn't particularly mean to direct my post at you so apologies there.

Which is extremely unreasonable for me because

2. Players with cleaner actions to the eye are getting away with chucking. Odd deliberate chuck and marginal extensions may not get picked especially at high arm speed of faster bowlers.

Solution is to test every one at least randomly.

My understanding of the reasoning behind the 15 degree law was that a 'clean' action would pretty much never blow it, or you would see the kink

 

[zorax]

Bent arms create an optical illusion of chucking even if below 15 degrees.

Straight arm bowlers look like chucking at around 15 degrees.

I believe this was set because anything above 15 would be pretty clear; it is possible for an action to look wrong with less than 15, but very unlikely for it to look clean if above 15.

So it's pretty safe to say that if it looks clean, it is clean.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Ian Meckiff would be rolling in his wheelchair (cos he might not be in a grave yet).
My point being, call the guy if he looks like he's chucking it. That is the umpires job, 15 degrees be damned. Send him off to the lab for testing, and if he looks dodgy after being cleared at said lab. Call him again!!
I get Migarararara's point, and if they have the means to test people randomly, I think it's warranted. May as well test everyone.

 

[91Jmay]

Migura trying to pretend this is a conspiracy against the smaller nations undermines any credibility he has.

 

[andmark]

Which is extremely unreasonable for me because
1. People with fixed flexion deformities will get tested repeatedly even when they don't chuck. Their teams will lose their services in the middle of an important series. Not to mention the stress that puts on the player and how it affects the performance as well.

2. Players with cleaner actions to the eye are getting away with chucking. Odd deliberate chuck and marginal extensions may not get picked especially at high arm speed of faster bowlers.

Solution is to test every one at least randomly.

In a perfect world we would be able to test everyone. The problem the though is that we simply don't have the resources as suspected chuckers usually end up having to go to universities with specialist equipment to get tested. I'm unsure how many universities have this specialist equipment but I doubt it's enough to be able to test every international bowler and so we have to draw a line as to who to test. Surely it's then fair to only test bowler who umpires aren't satisfied with their actions. As to it being unfair on people with fixed flexion deformities, it's unfortunate that they have these deformities of course, but if an umpire believes that person to be chucking, then just let the bowler be tested and hopefully prove they're innocent- whether or not they have such a deformity.

We must give an element of trust to umpires to only report those who they believe to have a serious issue with their actions and then people shouldn't get touchy when they are reported.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Migura trying to pretend this is a conspiracy against the smaller nations undermines any credibility he has.

Yeah that's a ridiculous argument. One would think Murali would've been banned back in the 90s if there was some conspiracy.

 

[Migara]

Migura trying to pretend this is a conspiracy against the smaller nations undermines any credibility he has.

You are hallucinating.

 

[Migara]

My understanding of the reasoning behind the 15 degree law was that a 'clean' action would pretty much never blow it, or you would see the kink

My understanding is that it becomes "apparent" around 15 degrees. I can rest assure that a elbow extending below the plane of humerus (hyper-extension proper in medical terms, what Shoaib akthar had was pathological abduction and adduction of the elbow joint which was wrongly termed hyper-extension. In fixed flaxtion deformity the arm is angled above the plane of humerus), will not look dodgy even at 20 degrees. Then there is no data on what % of deliveries are perceived as chucks by naked eye, when the bowler has a perfect straight arm (no deformities) and extending around 15. My understanding is that since there are bowlers who have FFDs, albeit not pronounced as Murali's, the limit would have come down.

Most importantly, when judging by naked eye, what bowler first bowls creates the impression and umpires will tend to relax on such bowlers. Once they get tired or looking for that odd ball that do extra, things will change in their action. And most of the time, umpires will be unaware of the delivery as they will be relaxing. On other hand, the effort balls are difficult to pick by human eye, especially when they are pitched up. Umpires will be caught napping in these instances.

 

[zaremba]

Which is extremely unreasonable for me because
1. People with fixed flexion deformities will get tested repeatedly even when they don't chuck. Their teams will lose their services in the middle of an important series. Not to mention the stress that puts on the player and how it affects the performance as well.

I realise it's a highly stressful thing for the bowler, and I feel sorry for those who have to go through the process. The blame lies at the door of the national systems that allow them to grow up and develop without anyone spotting the problem and doing the remedial work that's needed at an early enough stage.

I may have my head in the clouds (usually do) but I don't know of too many players who've been repeatedly tested and cleared. One obvious candidate is Murali. He's an unusual case because, whatever your view of whether he threw, we can all agree that he had a truly extraordinary action (at least, when bowling off spin - his leg spin action looked pretty orthodox) which took an awful lot of testing (and some would say Law-changing) to clear.

2. Players with cleaner actions to the eye are getting away with chucking.

Maybe. I can't think of any, but it's possible. If there was anyone who looked fine to the naked eye but whose action looked dodgy on slow-motion replay (and all international players will be subjected to that scrutiny) then they would be reported too.

The question is whether it is a good use of limited resources to test people for throwing who don't look as though they're throwing.

Odd deliberate chuck and marginal extensions may not get picked especially at high arm speed of faster bowlers.

I don't think that deliberate chucking is a problem. The problem is bowlers who've been allowed to get away with some horrendous actions for years and who I don't think for a moment are actually doing it deliberately.

 

[Maximas]

You don't have to test every international bowler to see if those with 'clean' actions are occasional in fact chcukers, grab about 10-15 or so from around the world and run a few tests against match footage for their bouncers or effort balls or whatever and see what you get.

 

[zaremba]

Why would you do that?

 

[Maximas]

Well if we wanted to see if 'clean' actions were actually what they seemed (not something that particularly concerns me but Migara for example seems to be suspicious) then I was simply offering a more practical solution than testing everybody