#neverchucked???

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by horizon
That's what precisely my point was. If it required a visible change to get back to a legal action, then he would have been called in Domestic cricket.

Bowlers have been called in domestic cricket though. 10 of them this past season, of which the BCB says 5 are real chuckers or still chucking. In fact, one bowler was called twice, IIRC.

Even at the ICC level, 95% of the bowlers called in the last 10 years have been called since teh ICC started clamping down in 2014 with Saeed Ajmal and Sunil Narine.

In other words, whether at domestic or international level, umpires start calling once they've been instructed to clamp down.

Ajmal didn't just start chucking the day he was called. But he'd been doing it for years and over the course of thousands of overs bowled under the umpires eyes.

Of course, Taskin may get called again since his action has not changed. If its not visible different in slow motion with today's 1080p HD resolution videos, then it wasn't changed. Certainly doesn't require 6 months of alleged rehabilitation.

Mashrafee has had obvious changes to his bowling action over the years and he never put in 6 months of work solely for that purpose.

[epitaph]

Originally Posted by jeesh
Austin buddy, we are polite bunch here, we welcome and like to debate opposing views. But you are clearly not here for that. So kind request to take your intelligent arguments to ESPN Cricinfo comments section-you ll find more of your type there.

lmao, well said.

[RazabQ]

sigh, thin epidermis strikes again ...

[guppy]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Of course, Taskin may get called again since his action has not changed.

This is exactly what I think.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by guppy
This is exactly what I think.

It is a valid thought. Logically consistent based upon visual evidence.

[horizon]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/banglade...y/1060525.html

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by horizon
http://www.espncricinfo.com/banglade...y/1060525.html

Interesting info in this article.

Only bowled 24 balls in Brisbane but reportedly had to bowl 42 in Chennai. If true the tests lack standardization and hence validity.

His maximum extension is now 7 degrees. Given that, it means there is an 8 degree improvement from before. At least 8 degrees. Is that substantial enough to be noticed on a slow motion replay of an HD cricket broadcast?

An arm flexed to create an L shape is 90 degrees. A normal arm will only extend maybe 80 degrees beyond that. 8 degrees out of 80 is 10%. 10 % is noticeble if viewed multiple times in decent resolution.

[MHRAM]

Beyond a shadow of doubt, Taskin Ahmed had the cleanest action to be ever reported.

Now I might be a bit biased, but a lot of other bowlers have same amount of straightening than Taskin if not more.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by MHRAM
Beyond a shadow of doubt, Taskin Ahmed had the cleanest action to be ever reported.

Now I might be a bit biased, but a lot of other bowlers have same amount of straightening than Taskin if not more.

The standard TV angle, which is very close to the angle of the umpire does make him look quite illegal. However, when you see the side on view...which I am searching for to post...his action looks very clean. Both then and now, as there has been no visible change to his action.

Thus him being reported is suspicious, because the umpire should have checked other angles before filing his report. The index of suscipicion should be high not just "lets see if this guy is at 15.01 degrees".

[Austin 3:!6]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Interesting info in this article.

Only bowled 24 balls in Brisbane but reportedly had to bowl 42 in Chennai. If true the tests lack standardization and hence validity.

His maximum extension is now 7 degrees. Given that, it means there is an 8 degree improvement from before. At least 8 degrees. Is that substantial enough to be noticed on a slow motion replay of an HD cricket broadcast?

An arm flexed to create an L shape is 90 degrees. A normal arm will only extend maybe 80 degrees beyond that. 8 degrees out of 80 is 10%. 10 % is noticeble if viewed multiple times in decent resolution.

You should also do some investigation how come Adelaide lab found Sunny to be a clean bowler? LOL. He is as blatant a chucker as chucker can be. Very suspicious testing this is.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Austin 3:!6
You should also do some investigation how come Adelaide lab found Sunny to be a clean bowler? LOL. He is as blatant a chucker as chucker can be. Very suspicious testing this is.

Adelaide lab didn't do anything. The lab is in Brisbane.

And I would bet Brisbane knows not to ask a fast bowler to bowl 9 bouncers in 3 minutes, but in Chennai, having very rarely seen any fast bowlers, they figured if you can ask an off spinner to bowl 9 half trackers in 3 minutes, shouldn't be an issue for a quick.

Secondly, Sunny actually spent a lot of time remodelling his action. Sat out 13 out 15 DPL matches to work on his action. Taskin, played in all 15 games. Much more energy goes into fast bowlers than left arm spinners so you'd expect Sunny to play every match and still work on his action. But it was the other way around.

Why was Taskin not reported in the 2015 World Cup? Too many Bangladeshi umpires? WC has the best umpires officiating. Why was Taskin reported as soon as he set foot in India?

Does the BCCI not have the power to order umpires to report certain people? Or labs to engineer certain results? Does the BCCI lack the money to do so?

All possibilities are possible.

[Austin 3:!6]

^^ So Sunny rectified his action, fair enough but I have to yet see him bowl in his new action. But so did Taskin as per that article Horizon published. Not sure why would you blame Chennai lab and say its some sort of a conspiracy and Taskin never chucked.

You arguement about why was he not called in 2015 WC is flawed. Ajmal/Hafeez played more than 5 years with many ICC events. Why were they call now? Bowlers action can detoriate with time.

[Austin 3:!6]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Adelaide lab didn't do anything. The lab is in Brisbane.

And I would bet Brisbane knows not to ask a fast bowler to bowl 9 bouncers in 3 minutes, but in Chennai, having very rarely seen any fast bowlers, they figured if you can ask an off spinner to bowl 9 half trackers in 3 minutes, shouldn't be an issue for a quick.

Secondly, Sunny actually spent a lot of time remodelling his action. Sat out 13 out 15 DPL matches to work on his action. Taskin, played in all 15 games. Much more energy goes into fast bowlers than left arm spinners so you'd expect Sunny to play every match and still work on his action. But it was the other way around.

Why was Taskin not reported in the 2015 World Cup? Too many Bangladeshi umpires? WC has the best umpires officiating. Why was Taskin reported as soon as he set foot in India?

Does the BCCI not have the power to order umpires to report certain people? Or labs to engineer certain results? Does the BCCI lack the money to do so?

All possibilities are possible.

This is GOLD.

Even if BCCI has power to report certain bowlers, they would do for quality bowlers like Starc/Amir etc. Not mediocre ones like Taskin Ahmed of all people who got spanked by hopeless Afghans...lol

Delusion level

[al Furqaan]

So having a few screenshots from other angles might help to elucidate the controversy.

One thing is clear: Taskin's cleared action is so similar to his "banned" action, that he really shouldn't have been banned in the first place.

Firstly, there has been a lot of speculation that the only banned delivery he had was the slower ball bouncer. This cannot be true for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he didn't bowl it in the match in which he was reported (vs Netherlands in 2016 World T20). In that game, Taskin did not bowl any deliveries slower than 130 kph. His slower balls are delivered from the back of the hand and are usually around 105-110 kph:



Secondly, his slower ball is actually his cleanest delivery. The idea that this was the only ball banned is pure speculation on the part of the fans and media. Here is the delivery in action:



The resolution on these still images may not be great, but its fairly clear to see overt flexion and extension and the ICC rules allow for a 15 degree leeway. As you can see, his arm is perfectly straight once it reaches the shoulder height (which is the point from which measurement begins).

Here is an image of him from the 2015 series vs India. Once again, although it appears as though he is chucking far more than 15 degrees in the TV angle, the front-on angle reveals that there is no visible flexion of the elbow joint once his arm reaches the level of his shoulder.



Now we move on...

Here is Taskin bowling just days before he was reported, in the Asia Cup Final vs India:



Is there any flexion in his elbow at that point? Definitely, because the reason the ICC has a 15 degree limit is because it is anatomically impossible to bowl with 0 degrees. However, is that degree of flexion substantially more than any other bowler who has never been reported? I really really don't think so. Once again please note, that that is the point from which chucking measurements are taken (ie. shoulder height).

But here are 2 views of Dale Steyn, and truth be told, I don't see anything wrong with Taskin's action based on what we see of Steyn.



Now we look at pics of Taskin with a "clean" action...ie after he was cleared to bowl by the Brisbane lab.





It looks identical to the naked eye as his action before.

Of course the defense is that we can't use the naked eye and thats why there are tests, yadda yadda yadda. Well, didn't the umpire use his "naked eye" to file a report? Isn't the BCCI against DRS because technology isn't "as good as the umpire's naked eye" no matter how poor his vision might be?

Thus the report and the test could not have followed due process, at least from a US legal sense. The index of suspicion must high before reporting someone for a potentially career ruining examination.

This is even with the assumption that the testing protocol followed in Chennai was appropriate. The BCB's appeal seems to indicate that common sense procedure may not have been followed during Taskin's test. A similar appeal was not launched for Arafat Sunny, nor for Shohag Gazi, or Abdur Razzak when they were banned.

The ICC made a mistake by banning Kusal Perrera on doping allegations, and that too was the work of an independent lab. So even if the Chennai lab is independent, that is still not a guarantor of accuracy.

Final interesting piece of information: Taskin's coach, Mahbub Ali Zaki, seemingly indicates that he's "not working on Taskin's action, but rather focused on pace" during Taskin's alleged "rehabiliation".



How many bowlers spend 6 months to rehab an action, and then have no visible change in their actions?

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Austin 3:!6
This is GOLD.

Even if BCCI has power to report certain bowlers, they would do for quality bowlers like Starc/Amir etc. Not mediocre ones like Taskin Ahmed of all people who got spanked by hopeless Afghans...lol

Delusion level

Thats like saying even if OJ is a killer, he will only kill women who are currently cheating on him and not ex-wives who are now having new relationships.

Your assumption of motive is wrong.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Austin 3:!6
^^ So Sunny rectified his action, fair enough but I have to yet see him bowl in his new action. But so did Taskin as per that article Horizon published. Not sure why would you blame Chennai lab and say its some sort of a conspiracy and Taskin never chucked.

You don't have to see Sunny bowl with his new action. His new action is irrelevant to Taskin's old or new action. The fact is Sunny spent time rectifying his action. And based on the evidence spent a lot more time than Taskin.

Even Taskin's coach, admitted on camera, he's not "concerned" about Taskin's "action".

You arguement about why was he not called in 2015 WC is flawed. Ajmal/Hafeez played more than 5 years with many ICC events. Why were they call now? Bowlers action can detoriate with time.

Ajmal and Hafeez sent down many times the deliveries Taskin has in his short career. That kind of detioration doesn't happen when you've only bowled 150 overs in your entire career. Please get real or tape your fingers together so you're unable to make keystrokes.

And thats a good question? Why was Ajmal called right before the 2015 World Cup? Rather good question indeed.

[al Furqaan]

Brian Vitori who was banned in Feb and cleared to bowl in June, was reported for chucking in his comeback match.

Taskin could also be reported again.

[Dilscoop]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
Taskin could also be reported again.

Made me recheck the news. Nothing about Taskin on CI or Vitori article. Is that an official news? What's going on?? What you talking about?

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Dilscoop
Made me recheck the news. Nothing about Taskin on CI or Vitori article. Is that an official news? What's going on?? What you talking about?

Just my speculation given how his action is almost identical to what it was before.

I believe Taskin was banned most likely on the back of technical errors during testing. Analagous to Kusal Perera's doping ban.

[DKG]

Why are you guys fretting so much, Rubel is such a better bowler than this bloke....... He is like shaun tait, all pace no brains