velu Posted October 3, 2014 Author Posted October 3, 2014 No ball will prevent it. You are assuming umpires are blind which is a poor excuse . Why deny him wickets on deliveries which are not even reported mean like steven fin scenario ?? thats another argument..
Lord Posted October 3, 2014 Posted October 3, 2014 mean like steven fin scenario ?? thats another argument.. Yeah if umpires can report they can no ball too
Zelig Posted October 3, 2014 Posted October 3, 2014 Does this chucking rule apply for non-Indians only? :hmmm: How did Harbhajan or Ojha didn't get called during the qualifiers :fishing:
Old guy Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Umpires are the first proof. They are not ban permanently. If they prove it in labs or improve their actions' date=' they will be back. For me, naked eye is enough to see if someone is chucking or not. Naked eyes cannot differentiate till 15 degrees. If they find kink, it means it is over 15 degrees.[/quote'] proof ? they are not proof they are just reporting dodgy actions which "might" be illegal there is a reason test is done after reporting and then bowler is banned and not after opinion of umpire . what umpire feels is not used to ban anyone..lets clear this thing:winky:
rkt.india Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 proof ? they are not proof they are just reporting dodgy actions which "might" be illegal there is a reason test is done after reporting and then bowler is banned and not after opinion of umpire . what umpire feels is not used to ban anyone..lets clear this thing:winky: Testing started only recently. There was no testing 10 years back, so umpire and referee's judgement was ultimate. You don't need testing to see who is chucking. You need testing to see how many degrees he is chucking.
rkt.india Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Does this chucking rule apply for non-Indians only? :hmmm: How did Harbhajan or Ojha didn't get called during the qualifiers :fishing: It means they did not chuck.
Old guy Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Testing started only recently. There was no testing 10 years back' date=' so umpire and referee's judgement was ultimate. You don't need testing to see who is chucking. You need testing to see how many degrees he is chucking.[/quote'] So just because wrong method was used before and changed now we will go back to that ? Now technology exists and is used and umpire no longer are proof or decide anything hey just report people and technology is proof In files of bowler hey are banned based of stats counted by technology not a single mention of umpire is used as proof to ban bowler
Zelig Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 It means they did not chuck. Yeah, right :giggle:
BeautifulGame Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 No ball will prevent it. You are assuming umpires are blind which is a poor excuse . Why deny him wickets on deliveries which are not even reported U really think umpires can call a bowler for chucking on field ? Last time an umpire did that Ranatunga called his players of the ground ICC nearly split and Hair was accused of racism all his career. No umpire will risk their careers calling bowlers on field when emotions run high.
BeautifulGame Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 so that norm is wrong ..i can understand at club level when you do not have technology but this is international tournament if you want to get chuckers so badly send them to lab on day they are reported . i find icc approach much much better for this. ICC method better? They apply the same rules too don't they? If reported twice suspended from bowling until tested and cleared.
Lord Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 U really think umpires can call a bowler for chucking on field ? Last time an umpire did that Ranatunga called his players of the ground ICC nearly split and Hair was accused of racism all his career. No umpire will risk their careers calling bowlers on field when emotions run high. Then what does ban on specific deliveries mean?You can't ban a bowler when only one of hs deliveries is illegal Murali issue was different as he wasnt even reported when he was called Narine is reported for his quicker ball so umpire can no ball him if he bowls that. It was same with Botha who'se Doosra was banned
Zelig Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 U really think umpires can call a bowler for chucking on field ? Last time an umpire did that Ranatunga called his players of the ground ICC nearly split and Hair was accused of racism all his career. No umpire will risk their careers calling bowlers on field when emotions run high. What is the point of calling the bowler after the match? :dontknow: Hobart were hard done by, if Narine was found to pelt in that match.
BeautifulGame Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 What is the point of calling the bowler after the match? :dontknow: Hobart were hard done by, if Narine was found to pelt in that match. So that he won't chuck in the next match. It isn't ideal but after the abuse Hair received for calling Murali chucking its unfair to ask umpires to risk their careers. Also too much emotions on the field as well to avoid stupid situations
BeautifulGame Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Then what does ban on specific deliveries mean?You can't ban a bowler when only one of hs deliveries is illegal Murali issue was different as he wasnt even reported when he was called Narine is reported for his quicker ball so umpire can no ball him if he bowls that. It was same with Botha who'se Doosra was banned Well then Narine should have avoided bowling those deliveries in the 2nd match.
Zelig Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 So that he won't chuck in the next match. It isn't ideal but after the abuse Hair received for calling Murali chucking its unfair to ask umpires to risk their careers. Also too much emotions on the field as well to avoid stupid situations I don't agree. Umps should be brave enough and call it on the field.
Lord Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 Well then Narine should have avoided bowling those deliveries in the 2nd match. if he did,no ball him then and there.Hes already had a warning.Its not fair on Hobart to allow it there and report later
BeautifulGame Posted October 4, 2014 Posted October 4, 2014 I don't agree. Umps should be brave enough and call it on the field. And risk their careers when cricket boards go after them with accusisions like racist. That unrealistic in them imo
Recommended Posts