Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

sussexpob wrote:

Biggest Strengths?
Bowling department, Yorkshire could field two separate attacks and they wouldn't look out of place.

Indeed. Just a shame in 2014 they took wickets with a chucker, and therefore part cheated their way to a title without punishment.

The term "chucker" shouldn't be used flippantly as it has the potential to ruin a player's livelihood. You're only a "chucker" when ICC declare you such and only Kane Williamson has been declared so-he took a staggering 5 wickets for Yorkshire in the CC in 2014.

Doesnt matter, does it? You wouldnt say "Maradona only handballed one goal in, so it doesnt matter?" what ever happens after he bowled in any match is invalidated, the course of fate altered by him being there.

Case in point, he took Chris Woakes wicket vs Warwickshire. If Woakes had gone on to make 200, which has happened in many cricket matches, Warwickshire may have overridded a win to a lose, a yorkshire loss to a win, and the course of the county championship changed.

He bowled in several matches because Yorkshire needed to rest others maybe, or to keep runs down, and that has knock on effects of other bowlers around you. The fact he could bowl some spin maybe allowed Yorkshire to field other players in the line up that added more runs and meant they didnt need another bowler.

Its not a case of... "well he only did this"... what did him being there allow others to do with extra rest, with the line up as a whole?

And, for the record, I said "a chucker".... clearly not a representation, and clear a solid fact. Bowling batsman out illegally could wreck their career, see them dropped, etc etc.... he admitted that his bowling action broke the rules, the ICC found him guilty = chucker.

sussexpob wrote:Doesnt matter, does it? You wouldnt say "Maradona only handballed one goal in, so it doesnt matter?" what ever happens after he bowled in any match is invalidated, the course of fate altered by him being there.

Case in point, he took Chris Woakes wicket vs Warwickshire. If Woakes had gone on to make 200, which has happened in many cricket matches, Warwickshire may have overridded a win to a lose, a yorkshire loss to a win, and the course of the county championship changed.

He bowled in several matches because Yorkshire needed to rest others maybe, or to keep runs down, and that has knock on effects of other bowlers around you. The fact he could bowl some spin maybe allowed Yorkshire to field other players in the line up that added more runs and meant they didnt need another bowler.

Its not a case of... "well he only did this"... what did him being there allow others to do with extra rest, with the line up as a whole?

And, for the record, I said "a chucker".... clearly not a representation, and clear a solid fact. Bowling batsman out illegally could wreck their career, see them dropped, etc etc.... he admitted that his bowling action broke the rules, the ICC found him guilty = chucker.

Would your argument equally apply to James Kirtley and Sussex in their 2003 Championship win?

westoelad wrote:

sussexpob wrote:Doesnt matter, does it? You wouldnt say "Maradona only handballed one goal in, so it doesnt matter?" what ever happens after he bowled in any match is invalidated, the course of fate altered by him being there.

Case in point, he took Chris Woakes wicket vs Warwickshire. If Woakes had gone on to make 200, which has happened in many cricket matches, Warwickshire may have overridded a win to a lose, a yorkshire loss to a win, and the course of the county championship changed.

He bowled in several matches because Yorkshire needed to rest others maybe, or to keep runs down, and that has knock on effects of other bowlers around you. The fact he could bowl some spin maybe allowed Yorkshire to field other players in the line up that added more runs and meant they didnt need another bowler.

Its not a case of... "well he only did this"... what did him being there allow others to do with extra rest, with the line up as a whole?

And, for the record, I said "a chucker".... clearly not a representation, and clear a solid fact. Bowling batsman out illegally could wreck their career, see them dropped, etc etc.... he admitted that his bowling action broke the rules, the ICC found him guilty = chucker.

Would your argument equally apply to James Kirtley and Sussex in their 2003 Championship win?

Though Williamson was suspended when he bowled for Yorkshire awaiting testing. Was Kirtle ever suspended?

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Though Williamson was suspended when he bowled for Yorkshire awaiting testing. Was Kirtle ever suspended?

He was suspended at one point, though I think it was 2005ish

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Though Williamson was suspended when he bowled for Yorkshire awaiting testing. Was Kirtle ever suspended?

Williamson was allowed to bowl until the test results were known.

Sorry, but you made a crusading point about not smearing people, then decided to make a remark that has no factual basis and does just that.

Kirtley was referred to the ICC in Zimbabwe in 2001, but was cleared by 2002.

He was called again in 2005 at the end of the county year, and didnt play in the first 10 county championship matches of 2006 awaiting sanction.

In 2000/01 he was sent away from a tour of England A because of concerns of his action.

All in all, he was monitored incredibly strictly, and didnt play any games after any umpire/referee or ECB coach spotted his bowling changing.

To reference 2003, when no concerns where made despite him being a high profile case, is a cheap shot and is far different to a called and cited player bowling when a suspension was already levelled by another cricketing authority about his action, and NO remedial work having taken place to correct it.

Yorkshire knew Williamson was bowling illegally, and chose to ignore his ban for their own good. Kirtley had gone through a process, was being monitored, and was deemed satisfactory at the stage you suggest. He also was dropped from teams once his problems came to the boil.

Alviro Patterson wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Though Williamson was suspended when he bowled for Yorkshire awaiting testing. Was Kirtley ever suspended?

Williamson was allowed to bowl until the test results were known.

I'm between you and Sussex I think. Williamson might have been allowed to bowl, but there was a serious doubt about the legitimacy of his action. And I think we know that Yorkshire and Williamson knew that his action wasn't fair. KW has admitted he thought as much. He was allowed to bowl, but it wasn't ethical for him to do so. While there's no reason to penalise Yorks, I think the opposition are justified in feeling disappointed in them.

My guess is that Yorks didn't intend to bowl him, as it was a long while before they did. But did so when expedient.

sussexpob wrote:
Yorkshire knew Williamson was bowling illegally, and chose to ignore his ban for their own good.

Williamson has not bowled a single ball during his ban, in domestic or international cicket.

There are clear rules and procedures in place for those with bowling actions which are considered suspect and it's the sole responsibity of the ruling authority to impose and monitor these actions. It is not in the remit of an individual club to rule on the legality of a bowler's action. For the club unitarily to prevent a bowler playing or bowling could constitute a restraint of trade and leave the club open to legal action.That's aside from the laudable concept of "being innocent until proven guilty".
Yorkshire, therefore, didn't do anything illegal-on the contrary they'd have been acting illegally if they'd have prevented him from bowling. Ever since I watched James Kirtley being interviewed after his successful comeback in that Lord's final I've always had sympathy for bowlers who are subject to such scrutiny. His relief was palpable and it was clear that he'd undergone a terrible ordeal.
That is why I believe these issues should be dealt with objectively and solely by the relevant authority -hence my initial response to a comment which I considered flippant.

Williamson would have played as a batter anyway. I can't see that it was restraint of trade if they don't give him a bowl. I doubt even a specialist bowler being left out is illegal. It doesn't mean they've sacked him. I think it's fairly common for an organisation to suspend staff on pay while they investigate their conduct. It happens where I work.

It's up to everyone to make an ethical decision, no matter what the law allows. That includes Yorks and KW. Don't people routinely make decisions based on what they think is right, rather than what is allowed?

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Williamson would have played as a batter anyway. I can't see that it was restraint of trade if they don't give him a bowl. I doubt even a specialist bowler being left out is illegal. It doesn't mean they've sacked him. I think it's fairly common for an organisation to suspend staff on pay while they investigate their conduct. It happens where I work.

It's up to everyone to make an ethical decision, no matter what the law allows. That includes Yorks and KW. Don't people routinely make decisions based on what they think is right, rather than what is allowed?

That's a valid point regarding suspending staff but in Williamson' s case one assumes the ECB were the ruling body who decided he could bowl in this particular tournament. As such it's not for Yorkshire to overrule the relevant ruling body. My argument is that this is a sensitive issue best left to the ruling body to decide.

I don't see why they shouldn't? And if they make the decision to go along with this, then they will be judged accordingly. Benevolently by yourself, and with a little disappointment by me.

The rules are pretty clear, you're allowed to bowl until you are offically banned from bowling. Nothing to do with ethics, just a red herring.