Test Kuhnemann reported for suspect action

[dogs105]

know the exact wording of the rule. And he chucks it. It isn't the inside of his elbow you see it's the point. It is notu hyperextended.

View attachment 2225234
That's his elbow.

The degree of straightening here is 32 degrees. Well beyond the cheating, but allowable for some reason, 15 degrees.

View attachment 2225235

So the big issue is, you think that's his elbow bending normally, not backwards?

 

[Phone]

to accuse bumrah of chucking is distasteful and ridiculous. very little clue about the specifics of the rule.

back in the glory days, you would sometimes see people accuse Lasith Malinga of chucking. people just have a ~vibes approach to chucking and when they see an unusual action they call it

Since this Kuhnemann story came up the sheer volume of people emerging who have absolutely no idea of how the whole modern progression of the issue has played out, is astounding

to be fair, it's really not. it's sadly predictable.

 

[new0066]

 

[Woody15]

back in the glory days, you would sometimes see people accuse Lasith Malinga of chucking. people just have a ~vibes approach to chucking and when they see an unusual action they call it


to be fair, it's really not. it's sadly predictable.

Allan Border was a good example of this 'vibe'

"I'm a bit from the old school - throwing is throwing. If you straighten your arm, it's a throw,"

Just completely ignoring the overwhelming evidence from the 2 studies at the time that concluded 99% of all bowlers historically were chuckers under the ICC rules at the time. You see the same vibe comments in here - "ICC changed for Murali" "Bumrah is a chucker". I mean what is the point of biomechanics?

 

[Linda Lovelace]

There are two insurmountable problems when it comes to chucking discourse:

1. Most people have no idea about the rules - some seem to have never even thrown a ball in their life.

2. People think we can establish labels of 'chucker' or 'non-chucker' but reality is more complicated than that. There are structurally problematic actions, and then are guys who push the limits of legality and cross it occasionally.

I don't think Kuhnemann chucks every ball. But I do think he chucks some balls. And controlled testing can only identify guys with structurally problematic actions.

The issue for cricket is that the problem can't be fixed. Allow umpires to go rogue Darell Hair (Daryl Hare? I swear I have seen every variation of spelling of both names) on everyone, the game is f*cked. Have only a technical, but no realistic ability to call chucking mid-match, the game is f*cked.

 

[sydney_gws]

Maybe at worst Kuhnemann can change action, perhaps try to copy Jadejas action.

 

[Woody15]

The angle from behind Kuhnemann is the telling one. Starting at around 23 seconds. Ive seen a similar one from the Big Bash which appears really suss.

 

[hawkman]

The angle from behind Kuhnemann is the telling one. Starting at around 23 seconds. Ive seen a similar one from the Big Bash which appears really suss.

The quicker one is where I think the biggest issue is and it sounds like the ones the Sri Lankans had an issue with

 

[big_e]

The issue for cricket is that the problem can't be fixed. Allow umpires to go rogue Darell Hair (Daryl Hare? I swear I have seen every variation of spelling of both names) on everyone, the game is f*cked. Have only a technical, but no realistic ability to call chucking mid-match, the game is f*cked.

The umpire is still allowed to call a no-ball if they believe the bowler throws it. And if they do it again, they can direct the bowling captain to withdraw the bowler from the attack. Reporting and testing is a mechanism used when the action is doubtful.

 

[danielnajdek]

Ironic coming from Sri Lankan players who had a guy who took the most test wickets ever.

 

[DaRick]

I'm not surprised, unfortunately.

At times his action looked pretty ragged.

back in the glory days, you would sometimes see people accuse Lasith Malinga of chucking. people just have a ~vibes approach to chucking and when they see an unusual action they call it


to be fair, it's really not. it's sadly predictable.

Calling Malinga a chucker is like calling Tait & Thomson chuckers.

It's pretty hard to chuck when you sling the ball.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

The umpire is still allowed to call a no-ball if they believe the bowler throws it. And if they do it again, they can direct the bowling captain to withdraw the bowler from the attack. Reporting and testing is a mechanism used when the action is doubtful.

I clearly acknowledged that (see 'technical').

The point being that this is no longer a practical reality, so it's not worth talking about.

 

[PhatBoy]

Ironic coming from Sri Lankan players who had a guy who took the most test wickets ever.

Is it? How come? So in 30 years if Australians see someone rubbing sandpaper on the ball, they can’t go to their coach and go ‘mate I thought I saw someone with some sandpaper?’

Literally every country has had players reported for suspect actions.

Botha from SA
Williamson from NZ
Lawson from the Windies
Singh from India
Shakib from Bangladesh
Saqlain and Ajmal from Pakistan
James Kirtley from England
Grant Flower from Zimbabwe

Etc

Was it ironic when Australia kicked up a stink about Murali given they picked Meckiff who was the most controversial bowling figure action wise in history up until that point?

They shouldn’t just shut up because they’re from Sri Lanka

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I'm always a little suspicious of off spinners who bowl doosras and have their sleeves buttoned to the wrists.

 

[grumbleguts]

Is it?

View attachment 2225417

View attachment 2225419

For the majority of the action he's going from straight to bent (allowed, the rules say a throw is moving from bent to extended/straight) and then at the end there's a 9 degree difference (allowed, as the extension is less than 15 degrees) and all of it is a hyperextension anyway (allowed, rules say hyperextension does not count for purposes of analysis)

There are others where it bends greater than 45 degrees though. You really think foxtell is going to rease a biomechanic of him chucking it and lose the rights to televise India games in the future? He chucks it, you know he chucks it and it's just patronising to the entirety of India to say he doesn't. Like they need some bullshit sensitivity. The entire subcontinent have been getting away with cheating for years. And idiots condone it.

 

[PhatBoy]

There are others where it bends greater than 45 degrees though. You really think foxtell is going to rease a biomechanic of him chucking it and lose the rights to televise India games in the future? He chucks it, you know he chucks it and it's just patronising to the entirety of India to say he doesn't. Like they need some bullshit sensitivity. The entire subcontinent have been getting away with cheating for years. And idiots condone it.

View attachment 2226526

This still literally proves nothing. Like it proves absolutely nothing. It’s a guy’s arm bending backwards. Which it’s allowed to do. The protractor can show it at 90 degrees mate. Unless you can show that it is bending at that angle, forwards, then STRAIGHTENING more than 15 degrees, as he releases the ball, you can show this photo a trillion times and all, you, are doing, is stating the following:


“I am oblivious to any notion of what constitutes a throw.”

 

[craffles]

Kuhnemann’s a chucker
Murali’s a chucker
Bumrah’s a chucker
We’re all chuckers.

 

[The 747]

Good, his action has noticeably deteriorated.

Didn't see anything that looked suss when he toured India (or in the BBL), but in the SL tests at times he was obviously chucking it.

 

[Cleavy]

so they just bowl for hours on end in a net with all the sensors attached? no batsman?

 

[DaRick]

Good, his action has noticeably deteriorated.

Didn't see anything that looked suss when he toured India (or in the BBL), but in the SL tests at times he was obviously chucking it.

I do wonder what caused the change.

Was it fatigue making it harder for him to repeat his action?

He was notably more accurate against SL than he was against India, but chucking alone wouldn't cause that, and I don't think he turned the ball notably more either (which chucking can facilitate).

 

[PhatBoy]

I do wonder what caused the change.

Was it fatigue making it harder for him to repeat his action?

He was notably more accurate against SL than he was against India, but chucking alone wouldn't cause that, and I don't think he turned the ball notably more either (which chucking can facilitate).

I don’t see how chucking could make someone more accurate either. Effort certainly can - I played with a chucker and he acknowledged that he had a dodgy action he always said there was absolutely nothing deliberate about it and nothing that he really felt he could do about it and it was just how he had always bowled but you could see he was a run in and give effort bowler and whenever he really went for it it was really obvious and yeah I’d say it’s possible that Kuhnemann in particular when under fatigue was more susceptible to it.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Ironic coming from Sri Lankan players who had a guy who took the most test wickets ever.

Yes, the irony of Sri Lankans complaining about suspect actions of a spin bowler is not lost on me.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yes, the irony of Sri Lankans complaining about suspect actions of a spin bowler is not lost on me.

One of them was an international cricketer when Murali was still one, another of them was a professional cricketer when he was still playing.

It’s literally no different to saying ‘god it’s so ironic that Australians complained about Murali because Meckiff’

 

[Bletch]

One of them was an international cricketer when Murali was still one, another of them was a professional cricketer when he was still playing.

It’s literally no different to saying ‘god it’s so ironic that Australians complained about Murali because Meckiff’

It really isn't.

There are some similarities between the Meckiff/Murali incidents. Both bowled with permanently bent arms, making adjudication of their actions difficult.

However, in the Meckiff case, he was called four times in one over (in tests). The umpire was Australian (and a very good friend of Meckiff). His captain (Benaud) then refused to bring him back into the attack. Meckiff promptly retired after the test. Whilst he maintained his action was legal, he accepted the umpire's call, as did the Australian board. Certainly Meckiff had plenty of supporters, but by and large Australian cricket accepted the umpire was correct, and Meckiff never bowled again.

That's very different to the Murali case. Sri Lanka complained bitterly about the treatment of their star bowler. Eventually leading to a change to the no-ball rule. So there is a fair amount of irony associated with Sri Lanka complaining about Kuhnemann now. Yes, it's 30 years later, but does that matter?

fwiw, I think Kuhnemann has some work to do on his action. Seems that he straightens the arm during delivery. Whether that's by more than 15% or not, who knows. Stoopid rule.

 

[PhatBoy]

It really isn't.

There are some similarities between the Meckiff/Murali incidents. Both bowled with permanently bent arms, making adjudication of their actions difficult.

However, in the Meckiff case, he was called four times in one over (in tests). The umpire was Australian (and a very good friend of Meckiff). His captain (Benaud) then refused to bring him back into the attack. Meckiff promptly retired after the test. Whilst he maintained his action was legal, he accepted the umpire's call, as did the Australian board. Certainly Meckiff had plenty of supporters, but by and large Australian cricket accepted the umpire was correct, and Meckiff never bowled again.

That's very different to the Murali case. Sri Lanka complained bitterly about the treatment of their star bowler. Eventually leading to a change to the no-ball rule. So there is a fair amount of irony associated with Sri Lanka complaining about Kuhnemann now. Yes, it's 30 years later, but does that matter?

fwiw, I think Kuhnemann has some work to do on his action. Seems that he straightens the arm during delivery. Whether that's by more than 15% or not, who knows. Stoopid rule.

Some batsmen on the field went to a coach and said ‘hey is there something slightly concerning about this guy’s bowling? We think it looks a bit suspect.’ They didn’t go public about it, there was no outcry, there was no public condemnation of him - there were people on this forum mentioning it, though.

What the hell does that have to do with what happened 20-30 years ago?