Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

the ICC have suspended shane shillingford for an illegal action and marlon samuels is not allowed to bowl quicker deliveries

ajmal is still fine to "bowl" though

It's a bit odd.

Is there any reason to think that players get tested more after big tours, like England, Australia and especially India, where the noise from the press is everpresent, and the wheels of the media never slow down?

I had a theory that Murali was allowed to bowl because he was from an emerging cricket nation, and success for them would help broaden the appeal of international cricket. Similarly Ajmal keeps Pakistan buoyant in troubled times. But then, the WI really don't need to lose any of their players either.

The concern was always there with Shillingford, and to be fair one has to credit whoever cited the action if it is dodgy. More of this should be done, if anything to be a final answer to questions about actions

Arthur Crabtree wrote:...I had a theory that Murali was allowed to bowl because he was from an emerging cricket nation, and success for them would help broaden the appeal of international cricket...

Or, put another way, the threat of a schism in world cricket and lots of people at the ICC losing their phoney-baloney jobs.

I can't comment on Shillingford. I don't think I've ever seen him bowl (or whatever it is he does).

Leave Shilly aside for a second, how on earth is Marlon Samuels still allowed to bowl? Surely you are either allowed to bowl or not? Surely you can't be telling a bowler what kind of deliveries he can and what he can't? And how exactly do you define a "faster one"? Are the umpires supposed to check the speed gun every delivery?

It happened in the past with Botha's doosra. It is a bit strange though.

shankycricket wrote:Leave Shilly aside for a second, how on earth is Marlon Samuels still allowed to bowl? Surely you are either allowed to bowl or not? Surely you can't be telling a bowler what kind of deliveries he can and what he can't? And how exactly do you define a "faster one"? Are the umpires supposed to check the speed gun every delivery?

Simply put, the investigation finds that his quicker ball is a chuck but his stock ball isnt. So the ICC panel basically tell him that, should he bowl that illegal delivery and the panel report on it, he is banned instantly for a year without further comment.... and even players who go through the remedial process generally never play international cricket again, to have the full ban is basically a career death sentence at the top level.

So the umpire does not have to do a thing. He will just be asked to report if Samuels bowls a quicker ball, and if it is the type he chucks on investigation, he does not pass go and collect his £200 pounds.

I have no problem with that. if he didnt know the difference between 14/15 degrees then I cant see without testing why he should be banned or blamed

shilly does chuck the ball and its right that he's called, however Samuels sholdnt be able to bowl full stop, if a delivery is illegal..also Ajmal chucks it more than anyone!

cricketfan90 wrote:shilly does chuck the ball and its right that he's called, however Samuels sholdnt be able to bowl full stop, if a delivery is illegal..also Ajmal chucks it more than anyone!

It's a batsmen's game --- never a truer saying. Why should batsmen worry about a man who "throws" at 55 mph.?????

Albondiga wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:shilly does chuck the ball and its right that he's called, however Samuels sholdnt be able to bowl full stop, if a delivery is illegal..also Ajmal chucks it more than anyone!

It's a batsmen's game --- never a truer saying. Why should batsmen worry about a man who "throws" at 55 mph.?????

the same reason a batsmen cant use a bat that is two inches wider, its against the rules

backfootpunch wrote:the ICC have suspended shane shillingford for an illegal action and marlon samuels is not allowed to bowl quicker deliveries

ajmal is still fine to "bowl" though

This comparison is what's stirring discontent in WI management circles....

mikesiva wrote:

backfootpunch wrote:the ICC have suspended shane shillingford for an illegal action and marlon samuels is not allowed to bowl quicker deliveries

ajmal is still fine to "bowl" though

This comparison is what's stirring discontent in WI management circles....

anybody who has watched them bowl would suggest that ajmal's action is by far the most suspect of the two, i cant see him being less than 25 degrees let alone 15

When you see people saying Samuels or Shilly throws but Ajmal doesn't you can only laugh.

backfootpunch wrote:

Albondiga wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:shilly does chuck the ball and its right that he's called, however Samuels sholdnt be able to bowl full stop, if a delivery is illegal..also Ajmal chucks it more than anyone!

It's a batsmen's game --- never a truer saying. Why should batsmen worry about a man who "throws" at 55 mph.?????

the same reason a batsmen cant use a bat that is two inches wider, its against the rules

Players are always breaking the laws of the game ------- 'batsmen not being ready when the bowler wants to bowl ---- ball tampering in forms ----- using a runner when you're not injured --------- leaving the field for a change of shirt or a shower ------- not taking the field after a long innings etc etc Batsmen and officials are being petty about Shillingford when they have ignored bowling actions like Tait who ""bowled"" at 90 mph plus.

Not throwing is pretty integral to the laws of cricket though.

It looks like Ajmal bends his arm to about 40degrees. The fact he can't straighten his arm is irrelevant, as everyone lets go of the ball with a still bent arm, when they throw. The ICC subtract the 'normal' bend of Ajmal's arm from his beginning angle when working out his flex.