posted Feb 26, 2008

It was but a few weeks ago that I mentioned Samuels as a rare example of a genuine chucker in a thread in which I was stoutly and rightly defending Murali's again for the umpteenth time. In that thread I said that, having watched Samuels' action closely and having seen quality slow-motion footage of his faster ball, it was my belief that he intentionally straightened his arm for this faster ball by c.35 degrees. Incredibly I was absolutely spot on too, at least with the amount of straightening as only Samuels himself knows for sure whether or not this 35 degree straightening is deliberate. As it happens, I would give Samuels the benefit of the doubt with his offbreak, despite the c.27 degree average flex, as I am not convinced that he deliberately straightens his arm when delivering the offbreak. I do not however give him the benefit of the the doubt for the faster ball as there is an extra jerk in his action for this ball and the fact that there is 8 degrees more straightening than there is for the offbreak tends to suggest that the straightening for this delivery is deliberate. As far as I'm concerned, it is only deliberate straightening that equates to chucking and not unintentional flexing as it is only deliberate straightening which constitutes a clear attempt by the bowler to gain an unfair advantage over the opposing batsman and also in comparison with other bowlers of a similar type.

Frankly Samuels has no excuse whatsoever for any intentional straightening of his bowling arm and propelling his faster ball as though it were a dart at the batsman. If he was a genuine, fierce spinner of the ball and/or a spinner with a lot of wrist in his action and this was to cause a degree of completely involuntary flexing in the action, then I would have no problem with his action at all, especially if his average flex was within the 15 degree limit. However Samuels is neither a fierce spinner of the ball nor is he one who uses a lot of wrist action to spin the ball; thus, frankly, his dart-throwing faster ball is completely inexcusable and hopefully he will never use it again.

DL, may I just add that when I mentioned in a thread a few weeks back that Samuels' faster ball was a rare example of a genuine throw and that he intentionally straightened it by around 35 degrees, you didn't believe me. Perhaps you can now see that where chucking truly does go on I will oppose it as fervently as I will defend the many bowlers, including the likes of McGrath, Lee, Flintoff, Harmison, Steyn, Tait, Harbhajan and Murali, who are entirely wrongly accused of throwing when they are simply flexing completely naturally and involuntarily in their bowling actions.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 26, 2008

Third line of first paragraph above: please insert the word 'action' between the words 'Murali's' and 'again'. Thanks.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 26, 2008

“As far as I'm concerned, it is only deliberate straightening that equates to chucking…”

Fine, so all a player would have to do would be to say it wasn’t deliberate and he could go on chucking to his heart’s content.

Let’s extend that principle to football (nice, simple example)…

“But ref, I didn’t mean to let in that goal.”

“Didn’t you? OK then, it’s a dropped ball in the centre circle”.

Many people will never believe the ICC propaganda about “natural” flexing, cricidmuslibale.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 26, 2008

"Let’s extend that principle to football (nice, simple example)…"

Surely there is already a more sensible analogy in football with the handball rule?

Indeed cricket already has laws where the umpire must judge intent (deliberate beamers being the most obvious example).

Having said that I don't think that intent should be part of the chucking laws, but it isn't as ludicrous as you suggest.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 26, 2008

Obviously I do think that intent should be a key factor in the chucking laws as for me it is only a true throw if the arm straightening is clearly intentional as seems to be the case with Samuels' faster ball. That's probably why the umpires were primarily concerned with this faster ball and not Samuels' offbreak, despite the c.27 degrees flex in the latter; it is quite possible, maybe even probable, that much of this 27 degrees is natural flex. What is completely inexcusable is intentionally exceeding one's natural flex by as much as 8 degrees or more in order to unfairly 'bowl' (propel) a particular, very different delivery to one's stock ball at the unsuspecting batsman.

DL, I do wonder sometimes whether you read my comments fully. If you do, you will see that they come from an educated, balanced perspective that is concerned primarily with being as fair and even-handed as possible.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 26, 2008

“…they come from an educated, balanced perspective that is concerned primarily with being as fair and even-handed as possible.”

I wouldn’t dispute that for a second, cricidmuslibale. However, there’s a big bad world out there and call me an old cynic if you want, but if bowlers could get away with chucking by pleading it was accidental, I reckon one or two of them may just be dishonest enough to try it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 26, 2008

Oh for God's sake, Trying to prove 'intent' is impossible and unnecessary. How on earth is an umpire supposed to know what the bowler was thinking? And why would he care - its either a throw or it isn't. This isn't a competition to introduce as many pointless variables as possible.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 27, 2008

I'm glad lots of other people remember that 80mph delivery off 2 paces against Colly last summer. It was a disgrace that he was not no-balled there and then.
I am slightly perplexed, though; I thought the ICC's policy was to all it takes to assist the weaker teams such as Sri Lanka in the 90s and West Indies now? Does this represent a change in their approach to one in which players are judged objectively rather than in the context of their skin colour or team?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 27, 2008

It was never the ICC policy to assist teams like the West INdies....

On the contrary, rules like the one-bouncer rule were implemented to cut into the dominance of the WIndies. That will be the day, when the WI play on a level playing field as teams like England, Australia, and the subcontinent.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Feb 29, 2008

Well stated 'mikesiva'.

There was alot of sabotage back then. All the Aussie supporters that have plenty to say now, seem to forget that back in the mid 80s, the team under the Bobby Simpson coaching staff agreed to pull out of the tour of the Caribbean, after what happenned to England (and Gatting's nose) the season before.

Although our team had badly gone downhill during the late 90s and beyond, we always toured superior teams to at least make an attempt to compete. Failing miserably mind you, but showing up all the same.

add comment | complain about this comment