Does he throw or not throw, that is the question.

[D/L]

Seeing as though Yorkshire have fielded a person who has taken wickets in matches illegally, should there be any punishment for the team?

In my view, he has contributed to their net team output, so surely this has created an unfair advantage, even if most times he is bowling to give others a rest!!

Would a relay team who fielded a drugged up athlete be able to keep their medals if the other three are clean?

Surely Yorkshire should be docked some points?

All sorts of throwing cause problems in cricket...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/m ... ussex-kent

Not sure how Sussex could be seen to benefit from someone running themselves out, or intentional bowling wides.

Who said they benefitted?

It seems a little silly, though, to penalise a team for the action of a bowler before it was found to be "illegal" (and when it may not have been) and how on earth would anyone decide on how many points to deduct? Should we also, for example, deduct points gained by Sri Lanka in ODIs where Senanayake played or should any punishment be limited to teams playing in unfinished competitions?

[SaintPowelly]

Seeing as though Yorkshire have fielded a person who has taken wickets in matches illegally, should there be any punishment for the team?

In my view, he has contributed to their net team output, so surely this has created an unfair advantage, even if most times he is bowling to give others a rest!!

Would a relay team who fielded a drugged up athlete be able to keep their medals if the other three are clean?

Surely Yorkshire should be docked some points?

All sorts of throwing cause problems in cricket...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/m ... ussex-kent

Not sure how Sussex could be seen to benefit from someone running themselves out, or intentional bowling wides.

Who said they benefitted?

It seems a little silly, though, to penalise a team for the action of a bowler before it was found to be "illegal" (and when it may not have been) and how on earth would anyone decide on how many points to deduct? Should we also, for example, deduct points gained by Sri Lanka in ODIs where Senanayake played or should any punishment be limited to teams playing in unfinished competitions?

You are defending Yorkshire bowling a guy whilst under going testing yet you constantly moan about Ajmals action, despite it never being called.

[D/L]

Seeing as though Yorkshire have fielded a person who has taken wickets in matches illegally, should there be any punishment for the team?

In my view, he has contributed to their net team output, so surely this has created an unfair advantage, even if most times he is bowling to give others a rest!!

Would a relay team who fielded a drugged up athlete be able to keep their medals if the other three are clean?

Surely Yorkshire should be docked some points?

All sorts of throwing cause problems in cricket...

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/m ... ussex-kent

Not sure how Sussex could be seen to benefit from someone running themselves out, or intentional bowling wides.

Who said they benefitted?

It seems a little silly, though, to penalise a team for the action of a bowler before it was found to be "illegal" (and when it may not have been) and how on earth would anyone decide on how many points to deduct? Should we also, for example, deduct points gained by Sri Lanka in ODIs where Senanayake played or should any punishment be limited to teams playing in unfinished competitions?

You are defending Yorkshire bowling a guy whilst under going testing yet you constantly moan about Ajmals action, despite it never being called.

All teams may bowl a player until he is found to be chucking. There is the principle of being presumed innocent until found otherwise, so there is no need to defend what Yorkshire have done at all. Action against Ajmal, on the other hand, as we saw in the Muralitharan case, would create too many issues for the authorities were he to be "called", let alone banned.

Sometimes, it helps to see things in context.

[rich1uk]

All teams may bowl a player until he is found to be chucking. There is the principle of being presumed innocent until found otherwise, so there is no need to defend what Yorkshire have done at all. Action against Ajmal, on the other hand, as we saw in the Muralitharan case, would create too many issues for the authorities were he to be "called", let alone banned.

Sometimes, it helps to see things in context.

ajmal has had his action reported after the first test against sri lanka

[hopeforthebest]

All teams may bowl a player until he is found to be chucking. There is the principle of being presumed innocent until found otherwise, so there is no need to defend what Yorkshire have done at all. Action against Ajmal, on the other hand, as we saw in the Muralitharan case, would create too many issues for the authorities were he to be "called", let alone banned.

Sometimes, it helps to see things in context.

ajmal has had his action reported after the first test against sri lanka

Really, that's great news and not before time. Sadly he'll get away with it as he usually does. Until they find a way to check these actions during match conditions bowlers can fool the lab testers rather easily.

[ddb]

Is this related to Srini being the head of the ICC maybe?

It's like we've seen a clampdown on actions recently?

[SaintPowelly]

Ajmal being called won't make a difference.

[dan08]

All teams may bowl a player until he is found to be chucking. There is the principle of being presumed innocent until found otherwise, so there is no need to defend what Yorkshire have done at all. Action against Ajmal, on the other hand, as we saw in the Muralitharan case, would create too many issues for the authorities were he to be "called", let alone banned.

Sometimes, it helps to see things in context.

ajmal has had his action reported after the first test against sri lanka

Really, that's great news and not before time. Sadly he'll get away with it as he usually does. Until they find a way to check these actions during match conditions bowlers can fool the lab testers rather easily.

Technology is already used to see if they bowl the same way in the lab as they do in a match.

[Arthur Crabtree]

This is good news. Wonder why these players are suddenly being retested though. Does this mean they have found a problem with previous testing.

Is Murali still playing anywhere?

[hopeforthebest]

A few weeks ago Simon Hughes had a good take on Ajmal, that being that he most often bowls the Doosra legally but almost certainly occasionally bowls it illegally. That's the problem for the testing system and on field umpires.

It's ironic that he should be called in SL, home of Sananayake who was defended up to the hilt by his team here in England.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Incredible that he's not been sent for testing before. So how was David Richardson able to talk about the number of degrees he bowls/throws at?

[Arthur Crabtree]

Cricinfo says he was tested in 09.

[hopeforthebest]

Cricinfo says he was tested in 09.

He's had a good run for his money then.

[D/L]

All teams may bowl a player until he is found to be chucking. There is the principle of being presumed innocent until found otherwise, so there is no need to defend what Yorkshire have done at all. Action against Ajmal, on the other hand, as we saw in the Muralitharan case, would create too many issues for the authorities were he to be "called", let alone banned.

Sometimes, it helps to see things in context.

ajmal has had his action reported after the first test against sri lanka

Really, that's great news and not before time. Sadly he'll get away with it as he usually does. Until they find a way to check these actions during match conditions bowlers can fool the lab testers rather easily.

Technology is already used to see if they bowl the same way in the lab as they do in a match.

That must be a clever piece of technology.

Must say, I'm surprised to see such a big name player as Ajmal (I won't call him a "bowler") being "called".

[hopeforthebest]

I see Ian Gould is one of the umpires who reported Ajmal, I can just imagine the comments flying around in the sub continent after this. SL mentioned him specifically after Sananayake was reported. Bruce Oxenford was the other umpire so two non Asian umpires?