2014 prospects

county and domestic cricket around the world

Re: 2014 prospects

Postby Making_Splinters » Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:05 pm

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Umpires aren't allowed to call bowlers any more Splinters. At professional level anyway. They have to include it in their report.

For me, your view of what constitutes fair play is too narrow. I'm not really claiming he has broken any rules.


Forgot about that, any road up he wasn't reported and neither was Ajmal. That is the clear issue here.

Yorkshire are within their rights to bowl him, I don't see a problem with them doing so. I've commented before about being conflicted over this: On one hand if there are doubts about a player and they have been formally raised, there are issues over them continuing to bowl and take wickets with what may be an illegal action. On the other hand, preventing a bowler from bowling before they've been tested opens up the floodgates to dubious reports taking out key bowlers in a series etc.

The obvious answer would be to drastically shorten the period from the report to the test. I don't think there is any comment about "fair play" that can be made here.
"It was my opinion it is up to me if I want to justify it or not" - Bhaveshgor
User avatar
Making_Splinters
 
Posts: 10183
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:44 pm
Location: Manchester, England
Team(s) Supported: Cricket - Lancshire , England
Rugby - Sale , England

Re: 2014 prospects

Postby sussexpob » Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:13 pm

Yorkshire are within their rights to bowl him, I don't see a problem with them doing so. I've commented before about being conflicted over this: On one hand if there are doubts about a player and they have been formally raised, there are issues over them continuing to bowl and take wickets with what may be an illegal action. On the other hand, preventing a bowler from bowling before they've been tested opens up the floodgates to dubious reports taking out key bowlers in a series etc.


All true, but if you take the path of playing him, you must also take the punishment should it subsequently be found he was bowling illegally.

It is simply not good policy to say that the balance of favour should go with the player/team even in the event that he is found guilty. Why would that benefit be given, or justified? Once the guilty verdict is levelled the "he could have been innocent" argument is completely irrelevant and invalidated.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: 2014 prospects

Postby Arthur Crabtree » Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:17 pm

You can legitimately say Yorkshire broke no rules. You can also feel they were willing to gamble on the bowler being cleared to justify their decision. I don't even think they did that, because they probably knew he was in trouble. I think it looks that they showed a lack of care for the interests of the opposition and the image of the sport. This is to do with fair play. In sport, I think that matters.
I always say that everybody's right.
User avatar
Arthur Crabtree
 
Posts: 80416
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: Nottingham
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire.

Re: 2014 prospects

Postby Making_Splinters » Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:19 pm

sussexpob wrote:
Yorkshire are within their rights to bowl him, I don't see a problem with them doing so. I've commented before about being conflicted over this: On one hand if there are doubts about a player and they have been formally raised, there are issues over them continuing to bowl and take wickets with what may be an illegal action. On the other hand, preventing a bowler from bowling before they've been tested opens up the floodgates to dubious reports taking out key bowlers in a series etc.


All true, but if you take the path of playing him, you must also take the punishment should it subsequently be found he was bowling illegally.

It is simply not good policy to say that the balance of favour should go with the player/team even in the event that he is found guilty. Why would that benefit be given, or justified? Once the guilty verdict is levelled the "he could have been innocent" argument is completely irrelevant and invalidated.


What punnishment? As far as any side are aware, it has not been proven a bowler is bowling with an illegal action.
"It was my opinion it is up to me if I want to justify it or not" - Bhaveshgor
User avatar
Making_Splinters
 
Posts: 10183
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:44 pm
Location: Manchester, England
Team(s) Supported: Cricket - Lancshire , England
Rugby - Sale , England

Re: 2014 prospects

Postby Alviro Patterson » Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:24 pm

sussexpob wrote:
Tony Pickersgill is a coach at Yorkshire whos job it is to video players with "unusual actions" through all tiers of Yorkshire cricket, and rehabilitate them. Before Williamson was suspended by the ICC, he had an interview inside which he commented that;

“It’s only occasionally that his arm does tend to bend a little bit. I think that can be rectified......I think the lad is a part-time bowler, like Adam Lyth, who’s bowled a handful of overs yet there’s all this hoo-ha about his action. I’m sure he’ll take it all in his stride and endeavour to try to get his arm a little bit straighter.”


Its clear to me, therefore, and to Yorkshire fans (and their specialist coach) that he was throwing. It was clear to the ICC too.... If you think it right that a player is played even though under testing at his own county, a coach has flagged his arm is not straight enough, why should a county be givne the benefit of the doubt when it subsquently is proved he is bowling illegally?

This is knowingly breaking the rules, when it is found out or stopped is irrelevant, the punishment should apply to all matches he was expected to have played in, and include all those parties that willingly picked and benefited from it.


Pickersgill's findings suggest Williamson's arm flexes beyond the 15 degree limit at a certain delivery, possibily in an attempt to extract excess turn with a surprise ball.

Between Williamson getting reported and banned from bowling, he bowled 5 overs in the 3rd WI-NZ test and 3 overs in the Yorks-Middx CC match with negligble impact, likely from bowling stock deliveries. Hardly the actions of a team who have "part cheated their way to a title".
"Stats are there to be broken" Dominic Cork
"They took all our players away, banned our captain and we still came away with a ten-wicket victory" Jason Gillespie
"You won't get anywhere slouching about half out of bed" Geoffrey Boycott


2011-12 Oz vs India Tests FL guru | 2012-13 Oz vs SA Tests FL guru | 2012-13 Bang vs WI combined FL guru | 2013 Friends Life T20 FL guru | 2015 The Ashes FL guru | 2015 County Championship D2 FL guru | 2016 Womens WT20 FL guru| 2016 Eng v Pak Tests FL guru | 2017 Kia Super League FL guru | 2018 County Championship D2 FL guru
User avatar
Alviro Patterson
 
Posts: 17832
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:07 pm
Location: North Cheshire
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire CCC, Bradford City FC

Re: 2014 prospects

Postby sussexpob » Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:28 pm

ickersgill's findings suggest Williamson's arm flexes beyond the 15 degree limit at a certain delivery, possibily in an attempt to extract excess turn.

Between Williamson getting reported and banned from bowling, he bowled 5 overs in the 3rd WI-NZ test and 3 overs in the Yorks-Middx CC match with negligble impact, likely from bowling stock deliveries. Hardly the actions of a team who have "part cheated their way to a title".



Nope, wrong.

Williamson's biometric report said his problem was not with the arm ball, he doesnt bowl the doosra, and in fact broke the rules on his stock off spin delivery.

Probably key to note, the Kiwi coach at the time (who also picked him and whose team bowled him) said as much as Pickersgill, and said it wasnt much of a suprise that WIlliamson was called and they knew it would happen with the ICC cracking down.

So his country knew he had problems but bowled him, his county knew he had problems but bowled him, he was being tested on video and it proved he chucked.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Re: 2014 prospects

Postby Arthur Crabtree » Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:38 pm

On my way out from this thread (because I'm repeating myself), I'm a long way from thinking Yorks cheated their way to the title. I do think they tarnished their image though.

And I do agree (further) with Sussex, it's KW's stock ball that he bends his arm for. Though that isn't reflected in the Yorks report above.
I always say that everybody's right.
User avatar
Arthur Crabtree
 
Posts: 80416
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: Nottingham
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire.

Re: 2014 prospects

Postby Alviro Patterson » Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:52 am

sussexpob wrote:
Nope, wrong.

Williamson's biometric report said his problem was not with the arm ball, he doesnt bowl the doosra, and in fact broke the rules on his stock off spin delivery.

Probably key to note, the Kiwi coach at the time (who also picked him and whose team bowled him) said as much as Pickersgill, and said it wasnt much of a suprise that WIlliamson was called and they knew it would happen with the ICC cracking down.

So his country knew he had problems but bowled him, his county knew he had problems but bowled him, he was being tested on video and it proved he chucked.


What's not to say Williamson placed emphasis on keeping his arm as straight as possible in the games he played since being reported? After all KW was used primarily to give frontline bowlers a rest, as opposed to picking up wickets. The fact that KW bowled only 5 overs in the Scarborough fixture says a lot, where Yorkshire traditionally use spin bowlers with more frequency at North Marine Road.

As far as I am aware, no-one within county cricket has reported Williamson for his bowling action, nor publically criticised Yorkshire for using a suspect bowler. That suggests there isn't a real issue.
"Stats are there to be broken" Dominic Cork
"They took all our players away, banned our captain and we still came away with a ten-wicket victory" Jason Gillespie
"You won't get anywhere slouching about half out of bed" Geoffrey Boycott


2011-12 Oz vs India Tests FL guru | 2012-13 Oz vs SA Tests FL guru | 2012-13 Bang vs WI combined FL guru | 2013 Friends Life T20 FL guru | 2015 The Ashes FL guru | 2015 County Championship D2 FL guru | 2016 Womens WT20 FL guru| 2016 Eng v Pak Tests FL guru | 2017 Kia Super League FL guru | 2018 County Championship D2 FL guru
User avatar
Alviro Patterson
 
Posts: 17832
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:07 pm
Location: North Cheshire
Team(s) Supported: Yorkshire CCC, Bradford City FC

Re: 2014 prospects

Postby westoelad » Sun Jan 04, 2015 10:47 am

Arthur Crabtree wrote:On my way out from this thread (because I'm repeating myself), I'm a long way from thinking Yorks cheated their way to the title. I do think they tarnished their image though.

And I do agree (further) with Sussex, it's KW's stock ball that he bends his arm for. Though that isn't reflected in the Yorks report above.

It's been a rather circular discussion prompted initially by a provocative statem ent. The bottom line is did Yorkshire gain advantage by bowling him? Probably not I suspect-he's such an innocuous bowler that any frontline Yorkshire bowler even when tired would be more effective. Sadly any ethics went out the game long ago. Sledging and incessant appealing are an accepted form of the game, both are certainly unethical and you could argue a form of cheating.
westoelad
 
Posts: 7620
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: 2014 prospects

Postby sussexpob » Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:44 am

Alviro Patterson wrote:
sussexpob wrote:
Nope, wrong.

Williamson's biometric report said his problem was not with the arm ball, he doesnt bowl the doosra, and in fact broke the rules on his stock off spin delivery.

Probably key to note, the Kiwi coach at the time (who also picked him and whose team bowled him) said as much as Pickersgill, and said it wasnt much of a suprise that WIlliamson was called and they knew it would happen with the ICC cracking down.

So his country knew he had problems but bowled him, his county knew he had problems but bowled him, he was being tested on video and it proved he chucked.


What's not to say Williamson placed emphasis on keeping his arm as straight as possible in the games he played since being reported?


Maybe, the fact that his biometric analysis of his action found him to throw in a lab after he was reported, no doubt he would have been trying pretty hard to straighten up.
2010 French Open fantasy league guru 2010 Wimbledon fantasy league guru 2014 Masters golf fantasy guru 2015 Players Championship FL Guru 2016 Masters Golf Fantasy Guru

And a hat and bra to you too, my good sirs!
sussexpob
 
Posts: 35322
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Asker, Norway
Team(s) Supported: Sussex and England Cricket, Vålerenga Fotball/FC Barcelona/Seagulls! ....
England and Norway at everything else

Previous

Return to Domestic Cricket

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests