Narine banned from CL final

Yes, but one of the points I was making was that the ICC makes the rules and keeps changing them.  Why was it decided that the permissable 'bend' is 15 per cent rather than say, 14 or 16 per cent, or  10 per cent  or 20 per cent?

Can I put it to you that the 15 per cent is an arbitrary decision and your theoretically admirable notion  that 'them's the rules'  is  not quite as straightforward as you suggest?

(sadly the matches don't seem to be on UK TV?)
I think the games are and have been live here on Eurosport.

Narine withdrawn from India tour. Clive Lloyd indicates they learned he was to be targeted by the umpires.

So, someone is doing something illegal. Solution -  easy, just make it legal!

This is the slipperiest slope, the thinnest end of the wedge, but who cares. We might even apply this 'principle' to the law outside cricket.

The real problem here is that umpires have been soft on chuckers for too long, and the authorities are only just catching up with them.

sounds as if you're now agreeing with the proposition that the law shouldn't be changed at the whim of the lawmakers?

so, back on track, how would you amend the 15 degree rule?   

Fascinating debate but I think borderman's last-mentioned issue for his expert tribunal to consider gives the game away about the way he conceives the problem: that it isn't how the ball is delivered that matters but whether the batsman could come to harm because of that delivery style. That of course would be the most inconsistent ruling of the lot, since at what point would umpires determine that a fastish chuck from a bowler was his seam up ball, not intended to turn, and what was his entirely legal delivery of a rather pacy doosra? Would it also matter that a keeper totally misread the line of the spun delivery and lost an eye a la Boucher?

I think there is merit in looking at how the game has evolved and deciding if we are ready for a further change in bowling styles. Since the round-arm style that came in in the middle-years of the 19th century, replacing the underarm lobs, and that in turn evolved by the 1870s into the fully-developed overarm style there has been no real evolution. On the generally poor and underprepared wickets of that day there was obviously sense in restricting players from throwing, since the much greater accuracy likely to be gained from a throw completely changes the balance between bat and ball, and because, especially at speed, there is a much greater danger of phsical harm caused by faster shooters and lifters. Now, with the complete abandonment of covered wickets and with every influence of Chief Executives and marketeers being brought to bear to ensure that games last as long as possible with runs aplenty, the oddds are very much against the bowlers. Something needs to be done about this, but is it time to think about the game changing towards the baseball principle of a pitcher who can deliver stylised throws?

I think that all of borderman's experts, and a few umpires, would need to be very clear about what they think is best for the development of the game in framing new regulations of that kind, and they would have to be very sure that the new rules were transparent for the television public to understand, and that compelling arguments could be made to the ruling bodies about the effects on match duration, entertainment value, and overall marketing benefits. Otherwise, I'm afraid that 15, 16,17 degrees won't matter much at all; those who think that any degree of bend is a throw will continue to do so, and the ICC, ECB and all the other alpabhets will continue to have their witch hunts every few years when someone gets too successful too often, and those who haven't got that type of bowler will complain.