The cost of one’s action: When Mohnish Parmar’s innocent idol-worship backfired

[sensible-indian]

Dude bending your arm is legal but flexing it is not Of you start at 29 degrees and finish at 15 that beans flex was 5 degrees no ?

Ok you were talking about bend. Sorry read it wrong.

[Old guy]

Dodgy means it needs scrutiny. That's all. Bud, you assumed that I called Ojha a chucker cos you thought by dodgy I meant he is hopelessly bad. That's not the case.

Where do you draw the line ? If ojha is to be checked let's check eve one else too while we are at it because after all it's because of some one somewhere feels it's dodgy and that can be true for anyone no ? All I am saying is make umpires very strict in domestic and ipl matches so that we can test whenever he chucks ...this will be more proper than randomly checking shone you feel is dodgy which will be lot more inconsistent

[sensible-indian]

Where do you draw the line ? If ojha is to be checked let's check eve one else too while we are at it because after all it's because of some one somewhere feels it's dodgy and that can be true for anyone no ? All I am saying is make umpires very strict in domestic and ipl matches so that we can test whenever he chucks ...this will be more proper than randomly checking shone you feel is dodgy which will be lot more inconsistent

The line is AS clear as it gets. Any bowler who does not look perfectly clean needs to get reported. Be it Ojha or Hafeez or Junaid Khan or Bhajji. That was how chucking was viewed from time immemorial. If you don't look clean, you must be tested.

[kira]

The line is AS clear as it gets. Any bowler who does not look perfectly clean needs to get reported. Be it Ojha or Hafeez or Junaid Khan or Bhajji. That was how chucking was viewed from time immemorial. If you don't look clean, you must be tested.

HA...does not look clean to whom...who will decide that.... Umpires of course ....so until the umpires have said anything you have no right to question them:whack:

[sensible-indian]

HA...does not look clean to whom...who will decide that.... Umpires of course ....so until the umpires have said anything you have no right to question them:whack:

See this is why I said the same logic was used for Ajmal by his defenders. Whenever you bring any point, they would say: "Umpires reported him and they found his action fine. You don't get to decide, umpires do. They reported him and ICC found him legal. So you now have no right to question his action." Ajmal is extending it more than Ojha but the CORE LOGIC is the same.:cantstop:

[kira]

See this is why I said the same logic was used for Ajmal by his defenders. Whenever you bring any point, they would say: "Umpires reported him and they found his action fine. You don't get to decide, umpires do. They reported him and ICC found him legal." Ajmal is extending it more but the CORE LOGIC is the same. When it comes to Ojha, the yardstick changes. Note: Doesn't mean Ojha = Ajmal. Talking about how logic is used conveniently. :cantstop:

But Ajmal was reported and his action was questioned....the argument was flawed in ajmal's case but is valid in ojha's case

[sensible-indian]

But Ajmal was reported and his action was questioned....the argument was flawed in ajmal's case but is valid in ojha's case

So what? His action was questioned and ICC CLEARED him in 2009. You don't get to decide. ICC does. So you can't talk about his action from 2009 - 2014 till he was reported again. :cantstop:

[Old guy]

HA...does not look clean to whom...who will decide that.... Umpires of course ....so until the umpires have said anything you have no right to question them:whack:

Yep that's what I am asking...

[Old guy]

So what? His action was questioned and ICC CLEARED him in 2009. You don't get to decide. ICC does. So you can't talk about his action from 2009 - 2014 till he was reported again. :cantstop:

You are confusing getting reported and getting banned

[kira]

So what? His action was questioned and ICC CLEARED him in 2009. You don't get to decide. ICC does. So you can't talk about his action from 2009 - 2014 till he was reported again. :cantstop:

So since Ajmal was proved one can question every action then.....people doubting ashwin's action are also right then ?

[sensible-indian]

So since Ajmal was proved one can question every action then.....people doubting ashwin's action are also right then ?

Exactly. Why were you questioning Ajmal's action when NO UMPIRES did it after 2009? Why were you questioning his action when cricinfo came out with an article about his action being legal? Why? Because you were seeing it with your eyes. Same is the case for Ojha. You can't use technicality when you want and use reality when it suits you. Fact is Ojha is marginal. And marginal action needs to be scrutinized. I have every right to question Ojha.

[Old guy]

Exactly. Why were you questioning Ajmal's action when NO UMPIRES did it after 2009? Why were you questioning his action when cricinfo came out with an article about his action being legal? Why? Because you were seeing it with your eyes. Same is the case for Ojha. You can't use technicality when you want and use reality when it suits you. Fact is Ojha is marginal. And marginal action needs to be scrutinized.

Fact is same law will be there for ojha which caught Ajmal and same umpire will do same job .. And you or me seeing did not got Ajmal banned but umpire did and let him do job for ojha too at both domestic and international level

[sensible-indian]

Fact is same law will be there for ojha which caught Ajmal and same umpire will do same job .. And you or me seeing did not got Ajmal banned but umpire did and let him do job for ojha too at both domestic and international level

As I said before, Ojha is much better than Bhajji or Ajmal so he was fine. Same case for guys like Hafeez who were never reported. That doesn't mean their action isn't marginal. We are here talking about whose action is fine and whose action is doubtful. We are not here talking about legal speak.

[kira]

Exactly. Why were you questioning Ajmal's action when NO UMPIRES did it after 2009? Why were you questioning his action when cricinfo came out with an article about his action being legal? Why? Because you were seeing it with your eyes. Same is the case for Ojha. You can't use technicality when you want and use reality when it suits you. Fact is Ojha is marginal. And marginal action needs to be scrutinized. I have every right to question Ojha.

So even Ashwin malinga and every other bowler should also be tested cause someone thinks they are not clean...you see the problem with that....ajmal was an anomaly ...he's not a rule...everyone is not a blatant chucker like that

[sensible-indian]

So even Ashwin malinga and every other bowler should also be tested cause someone thinks they are not clean...you see the problem with that....ajmal was an anomaly ...he's not a rule...everyone is not a blatant chucker like that

You clearly missed my point. One does not need to be a blatant chucker to be banned. Ojha's action is doubtful. So he must be tested. Name one non Indian fan who will come out and say his action is PERFECTLY fine. One non Indian fan. No one. But many would do for Ashwin, Malinga and co. You can see what is happening with your eyes. Basically you are appealing to the extreme by bringing in players who are not marginal and are called chuckers by TROLLS.

[kumar713]

WeDBS2PqRUU

[Old guy]

As I said before, Ojha is much better than Bhajji or Ajmal so he was fine. Same case for guys like Hafeez who were never reported. That doesn't mean their action isn't marginal. We are here talking about whose action is fine and whose action is doubtful. We are not here talking about legal speak.

Here is the thing what is marginal and what is not ? How is it defined and calculated from TV ? Just let umpires do their job and trust them as until now things have been going well and I won't mind if Indian chucker is banned it does not matter but what matters is that there is not chaos .. Next time when knob like broad says someone is chucker would he be tested again ?or Vaughan decides that ashwin is chucking or how majority of fans on forums feel malinga is chucking ...:giggle: It might be marginal for you but not marginal for me ..list your opinion or observation not fact .

[sensible-indian]

Here is the thing what is marginal and what is not ? How is it defined and calculated from TV ? Just let umpires do their job and trust them as until now things have been going well and I won't mind if Indian chucker is banned it does not matter but what matters is that there is not chaos .. Next time when knob like broad says someone is chucker would he be tested again ?or Vaughan decides that ashwin is chucking or how majority of fans on forums feel malinga is chucking ...:giggle: It might be marginal for you but not marginal for me ..list your opinion or observation not fact .

I already answered this. If it doesn't look clean, it is marginal. No one calls Ojha's action clean. If hardly anyone feels a bowler has a clean action, its marginal. See Ojha's video dude and you will know. Also I can ask a question: When umpires all over the world were NOT reporting Ajmal from 2009 -2014 (after he was cleared), why were we saying his action was bad? Blatant or not is irrelevant. Umpires didn't see that so any criticism of Ajmal from 2009-2014 is wrong? Are you seeing the picture? Would that be a right thing to say? Of course not.

[Old guy]

I already answered this. If it doesn't look clean, it is marginal. No one calls Ojha's action clean. If hardly anyone feels a bowler has a clean action, its marginal. Even guys like Junaid Khan and Hafeez weren't reported. So Junaid Khan has a clean action? See Ojha's video dude and you will know. Also I can ask you the question: When umpires all over the world were NOT reporting Ajmal from 2009 -2014 (after he was cleared), why were we saying his action was bad? Blatant or not is irrelevant. Umpires didn't see that so any criticism of Ajmal from 2009-2014 is wrong? Are you seeing the picture?

Who are these no ones who feel he chucks ? The authority of reporting is with umpire because they are in best position to see bowlers,have best idea about what rules are and what chucking is which IMO majority of these "no bodies " do not Also they get to have direct contact with icc and they get to watch different bowlers,different teams so they are the best person to judge it And umpire did not see any criticism with anyone because they were not specifically told to check chucking ...you can say they were now trained and told to report these bowlers as icc found out that earlier results were not that good Now here is the thing umpire at international scene were lax but clearly in India they were far stricter as bcci from start has this same attitude against chucking and as you can see in OP many bowlers got weeded out ..hope this makes sense

[sensible-indian]

Who are these no ones who feel he chucks ? The authority of reporting is with umpire because they are in best position to see bowlers,have best idea about what rules are and what chucking is which IMO majority of these "no bodies " do not Also they get to have direct contact with icc and they get to watch different bowlers,different teams so they are the best person to judge it And umpire did not see any criticism with anyone because they were not specifically told to check chucking ...you can say they were now trained and told to report these bowlers as icc found out that earlier results were not that good Now here is the thing umpire at international scene were lax but clearly in India they were far stricter as bcci from start has this same attitude against chucking and as you can see in OP many bowlers got weeded out ..hope this makes sense

Same way no one should speak about Ajmal's action from 2009-2014. The umpires are the judging authority and when they didn't have a problem with him for 5 years (after he was tested), why should we? Are you seeing the picture now?