Rule changes good for cricket

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Maranello

The match petered out into a draw because the English captain was not reprimanded or warned by the coach and other players. The TCCB, instead of banning him for life, actually had the nerve to back him for two days, before finally doing the half-decent thing and asking him to apologise for acting like an uncultured, semi-literate chav.

I do agree with you on part of your first sentence - there was no useful input from the "board / selectors / coach" during the first day or two of the Gatting affair and we should not expect even less in this day and age - cricket has unfortunately turned into big business, and values such as decency and good manners are no longer paramount, if they ever were.

Sorry Maranello, I realise that I implied that only the Pakistan board could have sorted the matter out sooner. But I particularly left out references to either side's boards to attempt to make the point neutral sounding.

I failed.

Nevertheless the point is well made. That is, the point about the boards not helping much.

[Maranello]

No need to apologise, the Faisalabad Test was a sorry affair all around!

A Pakistan supporter will naturally have a different perspective from an England supporter, and arguing over ancient history is not always a useful exercise (and certainly not on this thread - this is about Chucking, not Gatting!).

I do feel some England supporters that I have come across on other boards have a very jaundiced view of the world, and of such incidences - what I call the "Sun" or the "Daily Express/Mail" view of the world. However, the tabloids are seldom correct on facts and even more infrequenly on opinions. I was in Pakistan in 1987 and am probably conversant with both sides of the argument, which most English supporters would not be (nor for that matter would most Pakistanis).

Originally Posted by Oliver

Nevertheless the point is well made.

Sorry, which point? I have lost your initial point after I first read your Gatting/Rana comment and hit the roof! Now that I have calmed down, could do with a steer back to the point! :-)

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Instinct says... it's only a game.. and if a team wants to win it by cheating then let them.. but when the game is over... take a damned hard look.. then indicate there might be a problem and give that side the opportunity to do something about it.. and if they don't take the matter seriously then throw the book at the team as a whole for bringing the game into disrepute.

...

Sides that seem unwilling to make that effort should be sanctioned as sides: they had the option of tryign to sort out the player's action or of droppingthe player.. and if they failed to take the necessary measures then that's not the player's responsibility.. it's the responsibility of the board / selectors / coach / captain.

Couldn't agree less with the highlighted comments, Rachael. I am a big natural justice fan and both suggestions fly in the face of that. We appoint umpires as the first level of control on the game. Taking a hard look after the game is over is too late and makes the umpires irrelevant for this purpose. They are there to stop players cheating among other things. So let them get on with that. As I have said in a response to Zainub above, there should be no occasion on which subsequent review takes place without an on-field sanction having already been applied. If bowlers are no-balled, that is the sanction. If they are repeatedly no-balled, let the umpires ask the captains to remove them, and then - and only then - refer them for review. We're not looking at a game like rugby, where citation is appropriate in cases where the officials have missed something. Cricket is less of a continuous action sport, and I would only call for review where the umpires have seen something so blatant that they have taken their own action against it.

As for group punishment for individual offences, well, I am shocked that you even suggest it, and perhaps the fact that I describe it as such makes it clear enough why.

Finally, just to respond to the point you highlighted in your post from Maranello's Guardian quotation, that is exactly what the position presently is. As I have noted several times above, by definition if the umpires can only see a flex of 15 degrees that is all they can call a no-ball. And 15 degrees is pretty blatant, surely, within the game we are discussing. No-one is seriously expecting that we will get to a baseball-type of pitch, and Ashley Giles won't do it. With respect, even suggesting it as an absurd example hardly helps your argument.

[Maranello]

In response to the last comment in your post OF, I agree that currently umpires can only spot flexions of greater than 15 degrees - so then it is useful and important, is it not, that this is codified? Why should actions with a 6 degree flexion be illegal for spinners, when these illegal actions can not be noticed by any umpire?

As a natural justice fan, how can you justify an unenforceable law? It has been proven that the umpires have no chance of seeing a flexion of less than say 10 degrees, let alone of enforcing the laws as they stand. So in this case, there are only two options - either the existing laws are made enforecable (by having more technology and cameras etc at each and every ground), or changing the laws to make them sensible.

You are right, this will not have a practical impact - the umpires will only call over 15 degrees if they can see it, and above 15 degrees they should be able to see and call now too. But it does correct a technically absurd law at the very least, and prevents people being technically in breach of the law who have or have not been called. Surely this you can agree with, even if you are not in favour of the other aspects of the change?

[Rachael]

Busy right now.. but your thought that I recomment about group punishment for individual offenses is misguided: I am suggesting a colective punishment for a collective failure to address an issue off collective concern - a team benefitting from cheating (and worse still, not doing anything to ensure that situation isn't repeated).

I think we should all be able to agree in supporting a team fielding a player striving to do the right thing and putting in long hours with the bo-mechanics people and only slipping out of the guidelines at the end of marathon spells when sheer exhaustion kicks in (and rested by his team between Tests to ensure that exhaustion is rarely a factor).

Can we not agree that there's a big difference between that and a team fielding a player who seems to slip in the occasional chuck at convenient moments to effect dismissals (mysterious faster ball, perhaps)... which refuses to acknowledge there's a problem.. and which basically just turns around and "**** you and your sporting ethos".

The first team does not bring the game into disrepute.. or set a bad example to youngsters. The second does.

[Occasional Fan]

I'm with you in all of that, Maranello, except for the conclusion that the law therefore needs to be changed. I suggested to Zainub earlier in the thread that it is like changing a speed limit from 100 km/h to 62 mph. Makes no difference, as both speeds look the same to the external observer. I would use that as an argument for leaving things as they are rather than changing them. So what if the umpires can only see 15 degrees? Changing the law doesn't alter that, but it can give rise to "creep", as, sooner or later, someone is going to ask for another five degrees. And then another five ...

Here's another example of what I am getting at. Off subject, but maybe it will help explain my point. In the UK, the motorway speed limit is 70 mph. The police, as a rule, will not book you if you are travelling at less than 85 mph - and they have said as much. So some people are arguing that the law should therefore be changed to an 85 mph maximum. The police, the AA and the RAC (and I) are against it, as they believe that this would only lead to top speeds generally rising on the motorways and then to pressure for the police to continue to be flexible (or lenient, or practical, or call it what you will) for the first 10 or 15 mph over the new limit. And that, it is suggested, would be bad for the road users in general, as it would lead to a greater chance of them being killed in RTAs.

Bottom line: you don't change the law to reflect what is actually happening; you set the law to influence what you actually want to happen. You don't even have to apply it to the letter. I am concerned that this unnecessary tinkering by the ICC will eventually change bowlers' behaviour. Do I want that to happen? No. Hence my position, which I sum up in the following poem by Spike Milligan:

Dr Bell fell down a well
And broke his collar bone.
The silly man should heal the sick
And leave the well alone.

[Occasional Fan]

Yes, Rachael, I can agree with all of that. But I still want to see the bloke who chucks one in your second paragraph no-balled for it. In fact, that is a team punishment anyway, isn't it? If the skipper is prepared to risk leaving him on and he chucks another one, no-ball him again. I'm a reasonable man. At this stage, I'd tell him that I will refer him if he chucks a third. Bowler and skipper can now confer and take whatever action they think fit, knowing the risks. I wouldn't want to have a bowler work through five days thinking what a great job he's doing and then being reported at the end.

[haseebbutt007]

Originally Posted by the great don talon

I think that Shoiab Athkar should do some work where this in concerned...never have I seen a bowler try to bowl fast like he does at this level and take so long to actually learn how to bowl - he will sufer when his pace goes and is has begun to wane over the past 6-12 months.


If I were to say a lad chucks it would be him...he constantly bowls in long sleves to hide this fact. BY golly he must arc 20-30 degrees

I dont know why people get jealous of players from other countries . I think u r a new follower of cricket . You dont even know that ICC has cleared Shoaib's bowling action and declared it with in the limits of bowling laws . He was sent to Australia where his bowling action was recorded and analysed by the experts and it was found to be with in the 15 degree restriction.I think you r saying this in the revenge of the bouncer which Shoaib hit on the faca of Lara.I think new West indian bowler Bravo has more chucking action than Shoaib.