Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 20:55:11 GMT
And now the biomechanics experts who developed the ICC testing procedures for measuring flex etc. reckon the ICC have got it all wrong: www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/789267.htmlMeanwhile quality bowlers like Ajmal and Narine are being denied the right to make a living while scientists and administrators argue over the technical specifications. It's just wrong on every level. |
|
|
|
Post by grandavefan on Oct 15, 2014 7:53:54 GMT
Ban chuckers! It's not difficult.
I equate it with drugs cheats in athletics. Ban them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 8:50:56 GMT
Ban chuckers! It's not difficult. I equate it with drugs cheats in athletics. Ban them. I agree. But first you must define chucker. Was Murali a 'chucker' and should his 800 Test match wkts be taken away from him, like medals from drug cheats in atheltics (or cycling)? The ICC seems to have been having trouble with the definition for the last 20 years and is now in dispute with the experts it asked to set up the testing procedures. |
|
|
|
Post by grandavefan on Oct 15, 2014 13:05:06 GMT
Think you'll find all have a break at the elbow, understand it's natural. I'm sure someone knows more than me?
It's the amount of bend/break/flex and when it becomes a chuck. We all watch and can see the chuckers, from village cricket upwards. In 1st class cricket it's the advantage gained.
When Ajmal played in the SCL he was known then to be very suspect. It's having umpires brave enough to call it and get the support off the pitch.
Thank god for Ian Gould I say for bringing it out in the open.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2014 14:02:23 GMT
It's the amount of bend/break/flex and when it becomes a chuck. We all watch and can see the chuckers, from village cricket upwards. And where and how do you set this permissable amount of bend/flex, beyond which it becomes a "chuck"? Someone has decided 15 per cent. Others reckon it should be 18 per cent. Some, like Inside Edge, reckon it should be 0 per cent. How do you decide and on what criteria? And what confidence can we have in the testing methods when the science and the application of it are being openy disputed by those who devised it? And if you really can "see the chuckers from village green upwards" and measure with the naked eye the per centage flex, then you have better eysight than me (not hard, admittedly). I think I've said before that I watched Ajmal bowl 30 overs from sideways on back in May and could see nothing wrong with his action at all. I'm not saying definitively that he doesn't bend his arm more than 15 degrees; merely that it was not perceptible to the naked eye. |
|
wally
2nd XI player
Posts: 178
|
Post by wally on Oct 15, 2014 15:04:52 GMT
Reading the Western Australia testing centre report it also depends heavily on when you start to measure the flex....it's all very confusing and complicated. Poor james kirtley flexed in the opposite direction to that of a throw due to hyper extension and that was deemed illegal.
Now BCCI want to do the testing in Chennai
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Oct 21, 2014 12:38:49 GMT
A very different approach from either of the contrasting "scientific" measurements of permitted flexing is reported in cricinfo How India weeds out its suspect actions. Rather than setting any kind of arbitrary limit a committee of three, with considerable experience of the game encompassing play and umpiring at national and international levels has set out to find a workable way of confronting young bowlers with suspect actions and developing an environment in which they can see what they are doing. They found that players reported for suspect actions turned up at the testing centre and bowled with radically changed actions, conforming to the Laws. When they went back to competitive cricket they reverted to the suspect actions until they were reported again, at which time they were confronted with filmed action of both styles of delivery. After that the amount of recidivists reduced dramatically, and now after 5 years, the amount of reports nationally has reduced from 135 to 35. There is no attempt to set a standard for deviation; the old precepts of common sense and the judgment of the human eye are the triggers for referral. " We are not calling them chuckers, we say your action requires rehabilitation, you need help. If he is really confident about it he can go to those centres, measure himself with those machines, we will definitely do the recommendation but where he goes, what he does, is up to him."
It sounds as if it works for these younger, developing circketers (many of whom give as their reasons that Bowler A or B does it and doesn't get no-balled), so shouldn't this be pursued at International level? |
|
