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

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Umpires aren't allowed to call bowlers any more Splinters. At professional level anyway. They have to include it in their report.

For me, your view of what constitutes fair play is too narrow. I'm not really claiming he has broken any rules.

Yorkshire are within their rights to bowl him, I don't see a problem with them doing so. I've commented before about being conflicted over this: On one hand if there are doubts about a player and they have been formally raised, there are issues over them continuing to bowl and take wickets with what may be an illegal action. On the other hand, preventing a bowler from bowling before they've been tested opens up the floodgates to dubious reports taking out key bowlers in a series etc.

sussexpob wrote:

Yorkshire are within their rights to bowl him, I don't see a problem with them doing so. I've commented before about being conflicted over this: On one hand if there are doubts about a player and they have been formally raised, there are issues over them continuing to bowl and take wickets with what may be an illegal action. On the other hand, preventing a bowler from bowling before they've been tested opens up the floodgates to dubious reports taking out key bowlers in a series etc.

All true, but if you take the path of playing him, you must also take the punishment should it subsequently be found he was bowling illegally.

It is simply not good policy to say that the balance of favour should go with the player/team even in the event that he is found guilty. Why would that benefit be given, or justified? Once the guilty verdict is levelled the "he could have been innocent" argument is completely irrelevant and invalidated.

sussexpob wrote:
Tony Pickersgill is a coach at Yorkshire whos job it is to video players with "unusual actions" through all tiers of Yorkshire cricket, and rehabilitate them. Before Williamson was suspended by the ICC, he had an interview inside which he commented that;

“It’s only occasionally that his arm does tend to bend a little bit. I think that can be rectified......I think the lad is a part-time bowler, like Adam Lyth, who’s bowled a handful of overs yet there’s all this hoo-ha about his action. I’m sure he’ll take it all in his stride and endeavour to try to get his arm a little bit straighter.”

Its clear to me, therefore, and to Yorkshire fans (and their specialist coach) that he was throwing. It was clear to the ICC too.... If you think it right that a player is played even though under testing at his own county, a coach has flagged his arm is not straight enough, why should a county be givne the benefit of the doubt when it subsquently is proved he is bowling illegally?

This is knowingly breaking the rules, when it is found out or stopped is irrelevant, the punishment should apply to all matches he was expected to have played in, and include all those parties that willingly picked and benefited from it.

ickersgill's findings suggest Williamson's arm flexes beyond the 15 degree limit at a certain delivery, possibily in an attempt to extract excess turn.

Between Williamson getting reported and banned from bowling, he bowled 5 overs in the 3rd WI-NZ test and 3 overs in the Yorks-Middx CC match with negligble impact, likely from bowling stock deliveries. Hardly the actions of a team who have "part cheated their way to a title".

sussexpob wrote:
Nope, wrong.

Williamson's biometric report said his problem was not with the arm ball, he doesnt bowl the doosra, and in fact broke the rules on his stock off spin delivery.

Probably key to note, the Kiwi coach at the time (who also picked him and whose team bowled him) said as much as Pickersgill, and said it wasnt much of a suprise that WIlliamson was called and they knew it would happen with the ICC cracking down.

So his country knew he had problems but bowled him, his county knew he had problems but bowled him, he was being tested on video and it proved he chucked.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:On my way out from this thread (because I'm repeating myself), I'm a long way from thinking Yorks cheated their way to the title. I do think they tarnished their image though.

And I do agree (further) with Sussex, it's KW's stock ball that he bends his arm for. Though that isn't reflected in the Yorks report above.

Alviro Patterson wrote:

sussexpob wrote:
Nope, wrong.

Williamson's biometric report said his problem was not with the arm ball, he doesnt bowl the doosra, and in fact broke the rules on his stock off spin delivery.

Probably key to note, the Kiwi coach at the time (who also picked him and whose team bowled him) said as much as Pickersgill, and said it wasnt much of a suprise that WIlliamson was called and they knew it would happen with the ICC cracking down.

So his country knew he had problems but bowled him, his county knew he had problems but bowled him, he was being tested on video and it proved he chucked.

What's not to say Williamson placed emphasis on keeping his arm as straight as possible in the games he played since being reported?