Harbhajan's action reported yet again

[ashwini]

Originally Posted by imaginarydiva

Umm..actually i know it looks supicious but i doubt the existence of a racist angle.Ok,what happened to Murali was unfair (I mean singling him out for treatment) but its hard to say it happened only cuz hes asian.Anyways Brett Lee isnt asian,right?Or has he started applying boot polish on his face?

whtever u say maddy....i stil think they r biased

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by imaginarydiva

Why didnt the 99% come under scrutiny?

Because the naked eye can only detect flexations of more than 15 degress. I don't think it's a case of the ICC being biased in favor of the English or the Aussies, or anyone else for that matter, players from virtually all test playing nations have been reported in the last five years or some at one time or another.

[ashwini]

and only bootpolished players get the worst of teh deal....

[imaginarydiva]

[quote=Zainub Razvi ]Because the naked eye can only detect flexations of more than 15 degress. [quote]
But why not make more use of technology so as to reduce the margin of error.I mean why cant the 3rd umpire have a look and do something abt it.Im still not convinced.

[imaginarydiva]

Now!I wouldnt say that!

[ashwini]

well said pal....

[vvvrulz]

I gotta agree with that.

[Nikhil]

My opinion on this is simple. No umpire on the field will be able to judge the angle at which the bowler is bending his arm, which effectively renders him useless in this matter. I think this is getting too technical, which is hindering the game. I don't think there is going to be a solution to this, unless someonce comes up with a new innovative machine like a speed gun, which measures the angle at which the bowlers arm is bent for each delivery. Then the angle will be displayed on the big screens after each delivery and depending on that the umpire will decide whether it was a no-ball or not. I know this sounds very far-fetched, but then it's a far-fetched idea of my mind.

I have the following argument to bolster it. The batsman never knows when the bowler has been no-balled for chucking (since the batsman can not look at the leg umpire) unless the ball has been completed. So, this technology is not going to affect the batsman in question. Now the bowler might feel a bit embarassed if the angle of bend is displayed on a screen, but the solution to this is to wire the machine to a hand-held device with the umpires and the umpires will look at the device when they suspect the bowler chucked. Now, that's more technology and is open to debate. I'm merely suggesting something, which I thought might solve the problem.

Now, on the other hand, there is one much easier solution. Since the umpires are nuetral these days, we can be assured of unbiased umpiring (I know this is a mere assumption, but there we go). So, when the umpire thinks the bowler is chucking (that is the umpire sees it with his naked eyes), he should no-ball the bowler for chucking. This is the old-fashion way, and one that I support.

[imaginarydiva]

Hmm...thats an interesting observation-but why are u against the use of scientific machinery?

[vvvrulz]

Well it might offend the bowler don't you think, they might feel like a lab rat.