Page 1 of 31

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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:41 pm
by hopeforthebest
I see that the ICC committee have been exercising their mind about ways to evaluate bowlers arm flexing and now the NZ coach is wanting to know from the Match referee in the WI series how they will police the WI bowlers Shillingford and Samuels.

Coming on the back of the reporting of Senanayake's action one must hope that the ICC get to terms quickly with this situation. The fact that the ICC have licensed more testing centres in my mind simply complicates the problem, especially in countries where corruption is not unknown.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-indies ... 50789.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/cont ... 50565.html

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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:14 pm
by D/L
"Does he throw or not throw, that is the question."

The answer is "yes he does", but not with every delivery.

There can be no reasonable alternative view.

It's possible, however, that we may once again see a self-serving one from the ICC.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:49 pm
by hopeforthebest
D/L wrote:"Does he throw or not throw, that is the question."

The answer is "yes he does", but not with every delivery.

There can be no reasonable alternative view.

It's possible, however, that we may once again see a self-serving one from the ICC.


This was not intended to be aimed at Senanayake but at the whole problem of how in practice the question can be judged. I should have entitled this thread do THEY throw or not throw, they being any and all bowlers.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:04 pm
by D/L
hopeforthebest wrote:
D/L wrote:"Does he throw or not throw, that is the question."

The answer is "yes he does", but not with every delivery.

There can be no reasonable alternative view.

It's possible, however, that we may once again see a self-serving one from the ICC.


This was not intended to be aimed at Senanayake but at the whole problem of how in practice the question can be judged. I should have entitled this thread do THEY throw or not throw, they being any and all bowlers.

Having bowled for many years, man and boy, with an arm I know to have been straight when it should have been, according to the laws of the game (and I know many others who would say the same), I strongly suspect that the "research" carried out to bolster up the ICC decision that allowed Muralitharan to carry on "bowling" with an unchanged action was, based upon the premise that all bowlers flex their arm to a certain extent, incompetent at best. Many sincerely believe that other adjectives should apply to it.

Some throw but many don't. Unfortunately the ICC's obfuscation and spinelessness will bring about a change in that balance. Given the advantages that can be gained from chucking, the true "bowler" may become a rarity.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:19 pm
by SaintPowelly
The simple answer, is innocent until proven guilty.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:49 pm
by hopeforthebest
What I find remarkable is the admission that the angle of allowable flex is arbitrary based on someone deciding that this is the lowest angle above which the naked can detect that flexing of the arm is happening.
A piece on SKY showed Ian Ward getting an explanation of arm flex at the Perth UNI. The Woman explained that a bowler is allowed to bowl with a bent arm up 15 degrees but never the less cannot straighten it during delivery. That surprised me because I always understood that the flex limit was the the allowable straightening of the arm during delivery.
It seems that with every explanation the subject becomes more confusing.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:41 pm
by D/L
SaintPowelly wrote:The simple answer, is innocent until proven guilty.

I'd eschew such a simplistic approach and to be mindful of the impartiality of those who make the judgment (and benefit from decisions going a certain way).

Such apparent faith in the ICC is touching, though.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:46 pm
by D/L
hopeforthebest wrote:What I find remarkable is the admission that the angle of allowable flex is arbitrary based on someone deciding that this is the lowest angle above which the naked can detect that flexing of the arm is happening.
A piece on SKY showed Ian Ward getting an explanation of arm flex at the Perth UNI. The Woman explained that a bowler is allowed to bowl with a bent arm up 15 degrees but never the less cannot straighten it during delivery. That surprised me because I always understood that the flex limit was the the allowable straightening of the arm during delivery.
It seems that with every explanation the subject becomes more confusing.

Yes, the woman who said that would seem not to have had a clue what she was talking about.

Any road up, that was in discussion of the ICC "fudge" following the Muralitharan fiasco. The laws of the game have not been changed in generations and they permit no straightening of the arm.

I dare say Ozzie academia won't be overly concerned as to how much confusion they introduce into the argument, though. It's all grist to their rather lucrative mill.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:30 pm
by Arthur Crabtree
Doesn't give me much confidence Hope.

Weird the NZ camp prepping the officials here. Especially with them bowling Williamson. It feels like rather cynical conduct.

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

PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:03 am
by alfie
Ever since they took judgement of fair and unfair actions away from the umpire and introduced all this laboratory testing , we seem to have seen an increase in the number of spin bowlers with , shall we say , unusual actions. We haven't , however , seen a corresponding increase in controversial fast bowlers...
So I suspect the development of the doosra might have a bit to do with it too. Many would suggest that this deliverycannot be bowled with an action that is legal under the old laws. I am not a scientist so I won't comment ; but I do rather wish the wretched delivery had never been invented ; as it seems to me it is one of the factors that make policing unfair actions practically impossible. You can say a particular bowler isn't allowed to bowl the delivery : so do you then want the umpire to call no ball when he does? While another bowler in the same match might be free to experiment away...at least until he has been through the testing process. Bit messy.
Umpires aren't perfect. But I was happier with allowing them to make the call. Most cricketers will say they know when a bowler is throwing and don't need a stop motion camera ; and umpires - competent and experienced ones at least - should be just as confident in knowing when something isn't quite right. Surely better to stop the dodgy actions in the first place and have the player forced to change , rather than allow him to straddle the fine line of legality ? A few rather freakish individuals might be disadvantaged , perhaps. But might not the game as a whole benefit if a rather more robust approach were taken ?

Not commenting on the gentleman whose action kicked off this thread as I've not seen him bowl . But there seems to be enough "smoke" around to suggest his is one of those actions that would probably not have survived the scrutiny of the old fashioned umpires...

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

PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:20 am
by mikesiva
having watched Shilly, Samuels and Senanayake all bowl, I must say I do think there are times when their actions are questionable....

However, since the ICC ruled that Samuels cannot bowl his faster ball, and that Shilly can't bowl his doosra, their actions seem less questionable. The problem, for their point of view, is that their bowling has looked far less potent as a result. I watched Shilly bowl in the Caribbean regional four-day competition, and he looked a shadow of the bowler he once was.

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

PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:30 am
by Arthur Crabtree
Senanayake and Ajmal are the most obvious chuckers around. I don't know why they started on the WI players and left these two operating. Why not Narine- he throws some deliveries.

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

PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:36 pm
by m@tt
Arthur Crabtree wrote:Senanayake and Ajmal are the most obvious chuckers around. I don't know why they started on the WI players and left these two operating. Why not Narine- he throws some deliveries.

Havent noticed anything wrong with Narine, from what i have seen of him, but Shillington and NZ's Williamson are both suspect.

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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:52 pm
by Duncan1987
Sometimes I wish Murali had never picked up a cricket ball.

How exactly is this testing in any way conclusive, how on earth can you ensure that he is bowling the same way in a match as he does at the testing centre?

I also think that it's a total piece of nonsense that you can now bowl with a bent arm as long as you don't straighten as you deliver. How is the umpire going to tell that exactly. How can you tell if his arm has gone from 15 to 20 degrees and not just stayed at 15?

Simply put the fact that the bowlers arm flexes because of the moment of inertia of the ball when bowling fast has allowed a loop hole with which very dodgy spinners are getting away with total murder.

Spinners should not be allowed any flex at all, they don't have the excuse that fast bowlers do.

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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:38 pm
by shankycricket
Murali appointed Australian spin bowling coach. The irony of that is just............. :lmaoagain :lmaoagain :lmaoagain :lmaoagain :lmaoagain