facebook Twitter RSS Feed YouTube StumbleUpon

Home | Forum | Chat | Tours | Articles | Pictures | News | Tools | History | Tourism | Search

 
 


Go Back   BanglaCricket Forum > Cricket > Cricket

Cricket Join fellow Tigers fans to discuss all things Cricket

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old September 22, 2017, 06:39 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 23,227

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eshen
If Prothom Alo to be believed, Taskin was chucking even last year in DPL.

Anyway Asad, whatever gives you the wood....
Except that all the evidence suggests Taskin has never chucked in any international game, which is the ICC's jurisdiction.

I'm not sure BD journalists papers have much credibility. From basic spelling and grammatical errors (English)...its probably pretty easy to write sensationalist stuff.



From that you can see that pre-ban he wasn't chucking despite having a heavily bend elbow in his delivery stride (the loading phase). Thats because only flexion-extension AFTER the arm reaches the height of the shoulder is measured as chucking.

Immediately post-ban is the following:



As you can see he still has that pronounced bend elbow as he is hitting his delivery stride. But the key is that whatever flexion-extension occurs above the shoulder, is within the 15 degree limit.

In fact, the only change to his action occurred in the loading phase of his action - but that isn't factored in the chucking calculation to begin with as its below the shoulder line.

Interestingly the coach tasked with remodelling his action, Mahbub Ali Jaki, seems to suggest that he was not even concerned about Taskin's action, rather his pace as the following clip illustrates:



As it turns out, Taskin's pace hasn't increased either.
__________________
Bangladesh: Our Dream, Our Joy, Our Team

#OneTeam1Dream
Reply With Quote

  #27  
Old September 22, 2017, 06:46 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 23,227

In fact, it looks like he's chucking even more after he was cleared, lol.

Still could get reported and banned again...

Take Brian Vitori...takes the test 3 times in 10 months and fails, passes, then fails again. How is that possible?
__________________
Bangladesh: Our Dream, Our Joy, Our Team

#OneTeam1Dream
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old September 22, 2017, 07:11 PM
DinRaat. DinRaat. is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: January 30, 2017
Location: Sydney Australia
Favorite Player: Solomon Mire.
Posts: 2,754

Nice titlew,
Quote:
Taskin cutely cried during appeal shocking amazing
__________________
"Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die."-Hoover
"Aim towards the Enemy."
— Instruction printed on US Rocket Launcher
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old September 25, 2017, 03:53 AM
Vahroone Vahroone is offline
First Class Cricketer
 
Join Date: January 31, 2014
Location: Indian Ocean
Posts: 230

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Dude, relax, you're not important enough for me to need to challenge you. You have 2200 posts. First get to 10,000 with quality. You are barely past Eclipse level.
Holy crap.

There are average arguments, bad arguments, and then there are Al Furqaan arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old September 25, 2017, 04:08 PM
Eclipse's Avatar
Eclipse Eclipse is online now
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: July 15, 2013
Posts: 1,755

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
ICC also said Kusal Perrera was doping.
False equivalence. These two incidents r entirely different in nature and therefore should be treated differently. Perrera's case was an isolated incident where the lab experts mistakenly found a banned substance in pererra's blood.

Just because it has happened once doesn't necessarily mean that every test that has been carried out under ICC's supervision is wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
ICC also cleared Vitori and he got reported again in his first game back and failed the test again.
Not really sure what's ur point here. It's quite clear that vitori was bending his arm over 15 degree limit which is why he was initially banned. But he worked on his bowling to fix his action and later when he took the test again his action was found alright.

But probably he wasn't feeling that much comfortable with his new bowling action or perhaps it wasn't penetrative enough which is why he again started to chuck and thought that nobody would be able to catch him. Not so sure what's the problem here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
ICC's test has no sensitivity whatsoever. Its probably not even 50% sensitive with loads of false positive and false negative results.

Wrong again. Barring that irrelevant dope test of perera there haven't been a single incident where a cricketer was banned wrongfully, but here u r talking avout loads of false positive results lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Asides from that youtube videos don't lie...you can see for yourself there is no change in his bowling action before and after the ban.
Again, it's extremely difficult for normal viewers to distinguish between legal and illegal bowling action by viewing still pictures or video footages.

Besides this, most of taskin's normal deliveries were found legal in the formal test too. It's his fast bouncy deliveries which were declared illegal since taskin was bending his arm more than 15 degrees to get excess speed and bounce. This is why u won't be able to see much differences between taskin's present and past bowling action.
__________________
Drink formalin free orange juice.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old September 25, 2017, 06:13 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 23,227

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclipse
False equivalence. These two incidents r entirely different in nature and therefore should be treated differently. Perrera's case was an isolated incident where the lab experts mistakenly found a banned substance in pererra's blood.
You are mistaken, as you are 99% of the time when you post.

The ICC's lab did NOT mistakenly find a banned substance. They correctly found a banned substance. However, independent biochemists were consulted and they confirmed the substance found, in the concentration in which it was found, could have resulted from normal metabolism.

Quote:
Not really sure what's ur point here. It's quite clear that vitori was bending his arm over 15 degree limit which is why he was initially banned. But he worked on his bowling to fix his action and later when he took the test again his action was found alright.

But probably he wasn't feeling that much comfortable with his new bowling action or perhaps it wasn't penetrative enough which is why he again started to chuck and thought that nobody would be able to catch him. Not so sure what's the problem here.
The problem with your theory is, why would Vitori chuck on purpose during his 2nd test? How can his action change so quickly so as to yield 3 different results in the space of 1 year?
.


Quote:
Again, it's extremely difficult for normal viewers to distinguish between legal and illegal bowling action by viewing still pictures or video footages.
Not really. If the video is decent in quality, and you slow it down, you can notice 15 degrees of curvature. 90 degrees is a right angle (L), 15 degrees is one sixth of that and very noticeable. Further as the arm is in motion you can see flexion and extension.

When he was cleared his averaged was quoted by cricinfo to be 4 degrees. 15 is way more than 4 and would have yielded a markedly different appearance, especially on slow motion.

From now on, stick to topics you know something about in future.
__________________
Bangladesh: Our Dream, Our Joy, Our Team

#OneTeam1Dream
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old September 26, 2017, 02:27 AM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 23,227

Quote:
Besides this, most of taskin's normal deliveries were found legal in the formal test too. It's his fast bouncy deliveries which were declared illegal since taskin was bending his arm more than 15 degrees to get excess speed and bounce. This is why u won't be able to see much differences between taskin's present and past bowling action.
So are you suggesting Taskin doesn't bowl bouncers anymore?

If he does, we should be able to see the difference since his old bouncers were 15+ degrees and according to cricinfo's report his "remodelled" bouncer is at most 7 degrees...ie less than half the bend.

Here he is bowling a shortish delivery at 1:50 in the 2015 World Cup...notice the visible bend in his arm - BELOW the level of his shoulder:



Here is another short one from 2016 (immediately after passing his bowling test):



Identical appearing degree of bend in his arm - again BELOW the level of the shoulder.

Now you are right that the naked eye cannot differentiate between 14 degrees and 16 degrees. However, the ICC test means Taskin is at 15+ degrees in the first video and at most 7 degrees in the second. 8 degrees - probably more - should be discernible to the naked eye aided by slow motion.

Here are the excerpts from cricinfo (http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/...rehabilitation)

Quote:
Footage confirms that Taskin's load-up remains consistent with how it was even as far back in 2012, when he bowled in the nets in front of Bangladesh coach Shane Jurgensen and Academy head Richard McInnes, or a few months later when he played his first BPL match, or even when he made his international debut two years later.But even if its not. Why should anyone be confident in the accuracy of the ICC's testing procedures?
and

Quote:
The report obtained by ESPNcricinfo says that Taskin did not go past an average of five degrees, upon ball release, in an over at the Brisbane assessment. Out of the 24 deliveries he bowled, only four went up to seven degrees while some others touched six degrees.
Notably, in his original failed test, cricinfo did not report any actual numbers...

We saw what happened with the ICC's experts when the SLC confronted them about Kusal Perera. They both got the same test result, but reached different conclusions.

Brian VItori was suspended on Feb 16, 2016...then was cleared to bowl again on June 23, 2016...and once again banned on Dec 26, 2016.

Thats 10 months, 3 tests, fail - pass - fail. Its very hard to believe Vitori's action keeps changing. Why would he willingly revert to chucking in his first game back after being suspended knowing the 2nd ban will be for at least 12 months?
_________________

Eclipse...you should be made aware of a statistical tool called sensitivity and what it means in relation to diagnostic tests like the ICC bowling test.

Sensitivity is used in medicine to determine if a person who tests negative for a disease (ie test says he is healthy) really is healthy or not.

Lets say I have a test to diagnose dengue. I test 100 people who really do have dengue, but my test only says 50 of them have the disease. That means those 50 are true positives, and the other 50 are false negatives.

Sensitivity is defined as true positives / (true positives + false negatives)...in this case 0.50 or 50%.

If a test repeatedly gives different results (Brian Vitori) it generally is not a reliable test. This is doubly true because there appears to be no standardization for the test - which is a basic prerequisite for a "good" diagnostic test. Taskin's first test consisted of 42 deliveries, but his second test only had 24. What kind of test is that?

Bottom line. You put every bowler through that test, you are bound to catch a few chuckers from amongst the clean bowlers out there.

But we know that only bowlers from certain nations are ever called for chucking.
__________________
Bangladesh: Our Dream, Our Joy, Our Team

#OneTeam1Dream
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old September 26, 2017, 05:16 AM
DinRaat. DinRaat. is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: January 30, 2017
Location: Sydney Australia
Favorite Player: Solomon Mire.
Posts: 2,754

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
So are you suggesting Taskin doesn't bowl bouncers anymore?

If he does, we should be able to see the difference since his old bouncers were 15+ degrees and according to cricinfo's report his "remodelled" bouncer is at most 7 degrees...ie less than half the bend.

Here he is bowling a shortish delivery at 1:50 in the 2015 World Cup...notice the visible bend in his arm - BELOW the level of his shoulder:



Here is another short one from 2016 (immediately after passing his bowling test):



Identical appearing degree of bend in his arm - again BELOW the level of the shoulder.

Now you are right that the naked eye cannot differentiate between 14 degrees and 16 degrees. However, the ICC test means Taskin is at 15+ degrees in the first video and at most 7 degrees in the second. 8 degrees - probably more - should be discernible to the naked eye aided by slow motion.

Here are the excerpts from cricinfo (http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/...rehabilitation)



and



Notably, in his original failed test, cricinfo did not report any actual numbers...

We saw what happened with the ICC's experts when the SLC confronted them about Kusal Perera. They both got the same test result, but reached different conclusions.

Brian VItori was suspended on Feb 16, 2016...then was cleared to bowl again on June 23, 2016...and once again banned on Dec 26, 2016.

Thats 10 months, 3 tests, fail - pass - fail. Its very hard to believe Vitori's action keeps changing. Why would he willingly revert to chucking in his first game back after being suspended knowing the 2nd ban will be for at least 12 months?
_________________

Eclipse...you should be made aware of a statistical tool called sensitivity and what it means in relation to diagnostic tests like the ICC bowling test.

Sensitivity is used in medicine to determine if a person who tests negative for a disease (ie test says he is healthy) really is healthy or not.

Lets say I have a test to diagnose dengue. I test 100 people who really do have dengue, but my test only says 50 of them have the disease. That means those 50 are true positives, and the other 50 are false negatives.

Sensitivity is defined as true positives / (true positives + false negatives)...in this case 0.50 or 50%.

If a test repeatedly gives different results (Brian Vitori) it generally is not a reliable test. This is doubly true because there appears to be no standardization for the test - which is a basic prerequisite for a "good" diagnostic test. Taskin's first test consisted of 42 deliveries, but his second test only had 24. What kind of test is that?

Bottom line. You put every bowler through that test, you are bound to catch a few chuckers from amongst the clean bowlers out there.

But we know that only bowlers from certain nations are ever called for chucking.
Agreed with your post overall but last comment stood out

That makes no sense, your comment clearly has a double entendre and follows the classic motif of "pointing fingers @ the big three, England, Australia and India have worked hard to improve their infrastructure to ensure spinners that chuck get phased out before they enter international, unlike BD,Pakistan, West Indies heck even SA have lacklustre domestic conditions and the grassroots clearly do not have enough funding/ the viable technology to sustain and accurately combat chuckers, thats why you see all these mystery spinners, Mendis, Razzak,Ajmal hitting it up in domestic and suddenly get banned for suspected actions.

The big three have state of the art facilities, to ensure proper spinners make into international cricket. Even as I speak it is only in 2016 when Bangladeshi authorities properly started to target bowlers with illegal actions. The big three have also invested in facilities and training centres( Australian Institute of Sport and USyd Biomedics) as places were bowlers can get their bowling action tested.

Now you can't blame it on the big three if their players never get banned, they have the facilities to remedy their bowlers and ensure proper spinners go out and bowl. That's why the amount of members getting banned are much less compared to other nation.

There is no puppet behind the curtain banning bangladeshi/pakistan/WI/SL players purposefully. It's just that some countries are smart with their revenue and have actually professional handling the team.
__________________
"Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die."-Hoover
"Aim towards the Enemy."
— Instruction printed on US Rocket Launcher
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old September 26, 2017, 12:02 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 23,227

Quote:
Originally Posted by DinRaat.
Agreed with your post overall but last comment stood out

That makes no sense, your comment clearly has a double entendre and follows the classic motif of "pointing fingers @ the big three, England, Australia and India have worked hard to improve their infrastructure to ensure spinners that chuck get phased out before they enter international, unlike BD,Pakistan, West Indies heck even SA have lacklustre domestic conditions and the grassroots clearly do not have enough funding/ the viable technology to sustain and accurately combat chuckers, thats why you see all these mystery spinners, Mendis, Razzak,Ajmal hitting it up in domestic and suddenly get banned for suspected actions.

The big three have state of the art facilities, to ensure proper spinners make into international cricket. Even as I speak it is only in 2016 when Bangladeshi authorities properly started to target bowlers with illegal actions. The big three have also invested in facilities and training centres( Australian Institute of Sport and USyd Biomedics) as places were bowlers can get their bowling action tested.

Now you can't blame it on the big three if their players never get banned, they have the facilities to remedy their bowlers and ensure proper spinners go out and bowl. That's why the amount of members getting banned are much less compared to other nation.

There is no puppet behind the curtain banning bangladeshi/pakistan/WI/SL players purposefully. It's just that some countries are smart with their revenue and have actually professional handling the team.
I would like to believe that. But in which compartment of human society do you see the powerful and the wealthy treating the less fortunate with 100% total fairness? Why do we expect sports, especially internationals with its myriad political overspills to be the lone exception?

Remember what happened as soon as Stokes got some demerit points...all of a sudden the ECB/ICC wanted to change the rules. Remember what happened when Bucknor made a couple of terrible decisions and cost India a series in Australia...poof he was gone.

During the England-BD series, I saw Gareth Batty the SLA bowling with a tremendously bent arm. It was certainly bent much more than Taskin. Guy has played country cricket for 15+ years. I will try grab screenshots of what appears to be chucking from Big 3 bowlers...shouldn't be too hard to find hopefully.

That being said, thanks for your support.

The main issue here is one of quality control, really. Has anyone ever checked the accuracy of the bowling test instruments. How accurate are they? What is the sensitivity? What is the rate of true positive test results and/or false negatives? Is there even a way to know? Has the technology gotten any better in the 15-20 years since its been introduced? Why was Taskin's Chennai exam 42 deliveries but only 24 balls in Brisbane?

My theory is, the Test itself is unreliable.
__________________
Bangladesh: Our Dream, Our Joy, Our Team

#OneTeam1Dream
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old September 26, 2017, 08:03 PM
Night_wolf's Avatar
Night_wolf Night_wolf is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Favorite Player: Mash
Posts: 17,141

Batty is an offspinner
__________________
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old September 26, 2017, 08:44 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 23,227

Quote:
Originally Posted by Night_wolf
Batty is an offspinner
Yes, thanks for the correction. Knew he was a finger spinner just couldn't remember which arm.

Wrist spinners are pretty much immune from chucking.
__________________
Bangladesh: Our Dream, Our Joy, Our Team

#OneTeam1Dream
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old September 26, 2017, 09:39 PM
DinRaat. DinRaat. is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: January 30, 2017
Location: Sydney Australia
Favorite Player: Solomon Mire.
Posts: 2,754

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
I would like to believe that. But in which compartment of human society do you see the powerful and the wealthy treating the less fortunate with 100% total fairness? Why do we expect sports, especially internationals with its myriad political overspills to be the lone exception?

Remember what happened as soon as Stokes got some demerit points...all of a sudden the ECB/ICC wanted to change the rules. Remember what happened when Bucknor made a couple of terrible decisions and cost India a series in Australia...poof he was gone.

During the England-BD series, I saw Gareth Batty the SLA bowling with a tremendously bent arm. It was certainly bent much more than Taskin. Guy has played country cricket for 15+ years. I will try grab screenshots of what appears to be chucking from Big 3 bowlers...shouldn't be too hard to find hopefully.

That being said, thanks for your support.

The main issue here is one of quality control, really. Has anyone ever checked the accuracy of the bowling test instruments. How accurate are they? What is the sensitivity? What is the rate of true positive test results and/or false negatives? Is there even a way to know? Has the technology gotten any better in the 15-20 years since its been introduced? Why was Taskin's Chennai exam 42 deliveries but only 24 balls in Brisbane?

My theory is, the Test itself is unreliable.
Speak of the devil Ben Stokes is arrested. The partying has got to him.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-2...cident/8991668
__________________
"Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die."-Hoover
"Aim towards the Enemy."
— Instruction printed on US Rocket Launcher
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old September 27, 2017, 12:42 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 23,227

I guess I didn't take the screenshot of Gareth Batty chucking in Bangladesh, but he is such a blatant chucker that my first search of his County bowling found undeniable evidence suggesting he is the biggest chucker in the history of chucking.

Just have a look at the very first delivery:



Batty has played 250+ first class matches, so all this BS from eclipse about how the big 3 monitor their bowlers and thats why they don't get called for chucking is a total lie. Batty has even played 9 Tests.

Pragyan Ojha bowled in 24 Tests and was never called by the ICC. He was called by the BCCI after the crackdown started in 203-2014.

The point being if Batty chucks, and I have seen questionable elbow flexion on other bowlers, Shakib included, it proves that single out certain bowlers - in this case Taskin - is an injustice in the sense that the same standards and rules aren't being applied to everyone.
__________________
Bangladesh: Our Dream, Our Joy, Our Team

#OneTeam1Dream
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old September 27, 2017, 08:46 PM
DinRaat. DinRaat. is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: January 30, 2017
Location: Sydney Australia
Favorite Player: Solomon Mire.
Posts: 2,754

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
I guess I didn't take the screenshot of Gareth Batty chucking in Bangladesh, but he is such a blatant chucker that my first search of his County bowling found undeniable evidence suggesting he is the biggest chucker in the history of chucking.

Just have a look at the very first delivery:



Batty has played 250+ first class matches, so all this BS from eclipse about how the big 3 monitor their bowlers and thats why they don't get called for chucking is a total lie. Batty has even played 9 Tests.

Pragyan Ojha bowled in 24 Tests and was never called by the ICC. He was called by the BCCI after the crackdown started in 203-2014.

The point being if Batty chucks, and I have seen questionable elbow flexion on other bowlers, Shakib included, it proves that single out certain bowlers - in this case Taskin - is an injustice in the sense that the same standards and rules aren't being applied to everyone.
First ball is no way, under the limit.
__________________
"Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die."-Hoover
"Aim towards the Enemy."
— Instruction printed on US Rocket Launcher
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old September 27, 2017, 10:19 PM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 23,227

Quote:
Originally Posted by DinRaat.
First ball is no way, under the limit.
Exactly.

As was Taskin all along. And thats my point.
__________________
Bangladesh: Our Dream, Our Joy, Our Team

#OneTeam1Dream
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old September 27, 2017, 10:55 PM
DinRaat. DinRaat. is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: January 30, 2017
Location: Sydney Australia
Favorite Player: Solomon Mire.
Posts: 2,754

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Exactly.

As was Taskin all along. And thats my point.
Maybe your right, that the testing is skewed to the more esteemed nations. The stats also suggest that as well, 8 Bowlers have been banned from SC, 3 from Pak, 3 from BAN and 2 from SL and 0 from Ind.

England has had only 2 banned players, India 0 and Australia, but that could also suggest that their testing is far better than the other nations. I think the solution to create a more rigorous testing procedure would be to have just 1 independent body rather than multiple independent bodies around the world, I know there is a biomedics institute that does bowling tests in University of Sydney. Maybe all these institutes have different regulations/procedures. It would be better to form just 1 governing body for bowlers and implement proper controls and tests, to ensure players careers are not destroyed due to poor mismanagement.
__________________
"Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die."-Hoover
"Aim towards the Enemy."
— Instruction printed on US Rocket Launcher
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old September 30, 2017, 06:49 AM
Eclipse's Avatar
Eclipse Eclipse is online now
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: July 15, 2013
Posts: 1,755

Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
You are mistaken, as you are 99% of the time when you post.

The ICC's lab did NOT mistakenly find a banned substance. They correctly found a banned substance. However, independent biochemists were consulted and they confirmed the substance found, in the concentration in which it was found, could have resulted from normal metabolism.
Looks like u've difficulties in understanding very basic things Furqan bhai. Allow me to make it simpler for u.

A banned substance was found in perera's body and he was rightfully banned. It's the way things r usually done. The banned substance that was found in perera's body could have come from a banned drug or could have resulted from normal metabolism. But first thing that a respective authority can do in such cases is ban the suspect immediately and give him the opportunity to defend himself.


ICC have done exactly that. They gave perera the opportunity to defend himself and clear himself of all the charges. Nobody can say with certainty that perera did not take any performance enhancing drug but he was given benefit of the doubt.

But u r comparing this incident with taskin's ban which is entirely a different thing. Ur logic is pretty poor to be completely honest. Just because a man got himself cleared after appealing against a court judgement doesn't necessarily mean that every single decision that was taken by the previous court was wrong.



Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan

The problem with your theory is, why would Vitori chuck on purpose during his 2nd test? How can his action change so quickly so as to yield 3 different results in the space of 1 year?
Vitori didn't chuck out purpose. He was simply not skillful enough to maintain his correct action. He got cleared when he took the test after remodeling his action but with time he again forgot that and his old habit came back. Umpires caught that again and they were proven in test once again.



Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan

Not really. If the video is decent in quality, and you slow it down, you can notice 15 degrees of curvature. 90 degrees is a right angle (L), 15 degrees is one sixth of that and very noticeable. Further as the arm is in motion you can see flexion and extension.

When he was cleared his averaged was quoted by cricinfo to be 4 degrees. 15 is way more than 4 and would have yielded a markedly different appearance, especially on slow motion.
Ur attempt of identifying the angle of a bending arm from still pictures and videos is getting quite hilarious Bro. U can bend ur arm as much as u wish during bowling, what u can't do as a bowler is stretch it more than 15 degrees while delivering the ball.

And calculating the angle of stretched arm by reviewing still pictures and slow motion video is quite difficult if not impossible.


Taskin was chucking before his ban and his ban was justified. If he felt that he was accused wrongly he could've taken another test in another lab just like perera did. But obviously he was blatantly chucking before the ban which he is why bcb wanted him to remodel his action and send him for test after a prolonged period of time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by al Furqaan
From now on, stick to topics you know something about in future.
I know it has been quite difficult for u buddy. U've been proven wrong again and again. First it was about Tendulkar's lack of clutch innings in high pressure games, then it was about fizz and now taskin.

But what can I do bud. Sometimes It's quite difficult to agree with ur absurd claims. 😁
__________________
Drink formalin free orange juice.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old September 30, 2017, 06:58 AM
Eclipse's Avatar
Eclipse Eclipse is online now
Test Cricketer
 
Join Date: July 15, 2013
Posts: 1,755

Quote:
Originally Posted by DinRaat.
Maybe your right, that the testing is skewed to the more esteemed nations. The stats also suggest that as well, 8 Bowlers have been banned from SC, 3 from Pak, 3 from BAN and 2 from SL and 0 from Ind.

England has had only 2 banned players, India 0 and Australia.
Wrong. P. Ojha has been banned for chucking. The only reason less players r banned from countries like India, Australia and England is because of the fact their authority is quite strict when it comes to identifying bowlers with questionable action at a very early stage. Most of them don't even get the chance to get selected for national team which is why they have less banned players compared to other nations.


And we should stop this BCCI is pure evil type rubbish. It's one of the best boards in the world and they have done a lot for us. We should be grateful to them.
__________________
Drink formalin free orange juice.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old September 30, 2017, 07:15 AM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 23,227

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclipse
Wrong. P. Ojha has been banned for chucking. The only reason less players r banned from countries like India, Australia and England is because of the fact their authority is quite strict when it comes to identifying bowlers with questionable action at a very early stage. Most of them don't even get the chance to get selected for national team which is why they have less banned players compared to other nations.


And we should stop this BCCI is pure evil type rubbish. It's one of the best boards in the world and they have done a lot for us. We should be grateful to them.
Wrong. Ojha was banned internally by the BCCI, not by the ICC. He still bowled in 24 tests, presumably with an illegal action.

Furthermore, have a look at Gareth Batty's action. I doubt if even Ajmal's action was ever that bad. So no, Big 3 authorities aren't always strict. The ICC knows that calling up a Big 3 bowler may have significant blow back.

The powerful always play by a different set of rules...ever heard of the UN Security Council, why would cricket be any different?
__________________
Bangladesh: Our Dream, Our Joy, Our Team

#OneTeam1Dream
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old September 30, 2017, 07:31 AM
al Furqaan's Avatar
al Furqaan al Furqaan is offline
Cricket Sage
 
Join Date: February 18, 2004
Location: New York City
Favorite Player: Mominul, Nasir, Taskin
Posts: 23,227

Quote:
But u r comparing this incident with taskin's ban which is entirely a different thing. Ur logic is pretty poor to be completely honest. Just because a man got himself cleared after appealing against a court judgement doesn't necessarily mean that every single decision that was taken by the previous court was wrong.
Of course not. I'm not an idiot.

What it proves is that ICC and its precedural mechanisims aren't infallible (nothing human is). So then you have to go to other evidence. When you look at youtube videos, there is no reason to suspect that Taskin is chucking any more than some other bowlers like Gareth batty - who have not been called for chucking. Simple concept really.

Quote:
Vitori didn't chuck out purpose. He was simply not skillful enough to maintain his correct action. He got cleared when he took the test after remodeling his action but with time he again forgot that and his old habit came back. Umpires caught that again and they were proven in test once again.
Bowling with a legal action has nothing to do with skill. That would imply that all amateur bowlers chuck because they aren't as skilled as professionals. Idiotic statement.

Secondly, Vitori got 3 different results in the space of 10 months. So there was no "with time". He didn't bowl 500 overs of and start chucking again due to fatigue.

Quote:
Ur attempt of identifying the angle of a bending arm from still pictures and videos is getting quite hilarious Bro. U can bend ur arm as much as u wish during bowling, what u can't do as a bowler is stretch it more than 15 degrees while delivering the ball.

And calculating the angle of stretched arm by reviewing still pictures and slow motion video is quite difficult if not impossible.
When did I give any calculation?

What I have done is simply state that other bowlers also bend their arms and yet don't get reported nor tested. There is no way to know that they are bowling legally and hence the whole issue becomes a sham for the bowlers who have been reported.

I would trust my eyes, vs the results of a Test no one can see or monitor.

I have in my hand the results of a Test that says Eclipse knows very little about cricket. I guess you have to assume that Test is fair.

Quote:
Taskin was chucking before his ban and his ban was justified. If he felt that he was accused wrongly he could've taken another test in another lab just like perera did. But obviously he was blatantly chucking before the ban which he is why bcb wanted him to remodel his action and send him for test after a prolonged period of time.
Well the coach tasked with remodelling his action stated in an interview that he wasn't working on Taskin's action. The fact that Taskin is bowling with a nearly identical action after the ban is reason to believe that the original test was wrong.

The you have the test itself. No test can be reliable without having standardized procedures. 42 deliveries in one Test and 24 in another. The test is itself unreliable.

Again, is there any analysis or estimate on what the sensitivity of the ICC's bowling tests are? What are the rates of false positive and false negative results?

Quote:
I know it has been quite difficult for u buddy. U've been proven wrong again and again. First it was about Tendulkar's lack of clutch innings in high pressure games, then it was about fizz and now taskin.

But what can I do bud. Sometimes It's quite difficult to agree with ur absurd claims. ������
Please list the clutch innings in finals again. You had to go to meaningless tri series finals and Compaq...the stuff even Indians refer to as "jamodis" these days. We're talking about World Cups and Champions Trophies, really.

Tendulkar's 4th innings record is also not siginificantly better than that of Lara, Kallis, Ponting, etc.

Not to mention, his ball by ball record against the best bowlers of his era is far inferior to guys like Lara, Ponting, Kallis. He was, statistically speaking, not even the best batsman of his era, let alone all time.

And Fizz just took 5-100 against the Aussies in a Test. You had said he'd been found out. Bowled a match winning spell in the Colombo test as well...

For a Bangladeshi, you seem to hate everything Bangladeshi...wonder why...?
__________________
Bangladesh: Our Dream, Our Joy, Our Team

#OneTeam1Dream
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old October 1, 2017, 10:27 PM
jeesh jeesh is offline
Cricket Legend
 
Join Date: January 4, 2005
Location: Colombo, Sri Lanka
Posts: 3,779

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclipse
Wrong. P. Ojha has been banned for chucking. The only reason less players r banned from countries like India, Australia and England is because of the fact their authority is quite strict when it comes to identifying bowlers with questionable action at a very early stage. Most of them don't even get the chance to get selected for national team which is why they have less banned players compared to other nations.


And we should stop this BCCI is pure evil type rubbish. It's one of the best boards in the world and they have done a lot for us. We should be grateful to them.
Really? Exactly what?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
BanglaCricket.com
 

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Partner Sites | Useful Links | Banners |

© BanglaCricket