Shane Shillingford's bowling action found to be illegal (Update Post #111)

[Shayan]

West Indies off-spinners Marlon Samuels and Shane Shillingford have been reported with suspected illegal bowling actions during the second Test against India, which ended in Mumbai on Saturday.

Samuels and Shillingford were reported at the end of the second day’s play on Friday by on-field umpires Richard Kettleborough and Nigel Llong, TV Umpire Vineet Kulkarni and Andy Pycroft of the Emirates Elite Panel of ICC Match Referees.

Mr Pycroft, at the end of the Test, handed over the copies of the reports to the West Indies team manager Richie Richardson after the conclusion of the Test.

The umpires’ reports have cited concerns over the two bowlers’ bowling actions, with particular references to Samuels’ “quicker deliveries” and Shillingford’s “doosras”.

Samuels’ and Shillingford’s bowling actions will now be scrutinised further under the ICC process relating to bowlers reported in Tests, ODIs and T20Is. Clause 2.2 of the ICC regulations, which deal with ICC independent analysis, provides as follows:

• The players are required to submit to an independent analysis of their bowling actions;

• This analysis must take place within 21 days, and the reports on the independednt assessment of their actions must be submitted to the ICC within a further 14 days;

• If the players are found to have bowled with an illegal action during the independent analysis then they will be suspended from bowling in international cricket until they undertake remedial actions and are reassessed;

• Until the independent assessments are received, the players shall be permitted to continue bowling in international cricket. At any time throughout this period the players are subject to being called on the field by the umpire(s) in accordance with Law 24.2 and the consequences of such Law must apply. During this period a further match officials’ report will, however, have no consequence.

Both the bowlers have previously been reported and suspended from bowling in international cricket after their bowling actions were found to be illegal. They were, however, allowed to resume bowling in international cricket after they underwent remedial work on their bowling actions and further testing.

Samuels was reported in February 2008 and resumed bowling in international cricket in September 2011, while Shillingford was reported in November 2010 and resumed bowling in June 2011.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/201...eported-for-suspected-illegal-bowling-actions

 

[Kianig89]

Sad for WI who seem to going down the drain day by day

 

[Bewal Express]

Shillingford-As I predicted after the 1st test.

 

[Varun]

Samuels, Shillingford reported for suspect actions

West Indies' Marlon Samuels and Shane Shillingford have been reported for suspect bowling actions by the ICC and are required to get their actions independently tested within the next 21 days. The bowlers are also required to submit the results of the tests within a further 14 days failing which both could be suspended from bowling in international cricket till remedial action has been taken. The two can, however, continue bowling in international cricket during this period.

The bowlers' actions were reported at the end of the second day's play of the Mumbai Test by umpires Nigel Llong, Richard Kettleborough, Vineet Kulkarni and match referee Andy Pycroft, with particular references to the quicker deliveries and the doosras.

Both bowlers have been suspended from bowling in international cricket because of illegal actions in the past. Samuels was first reported in 2008 after which he didn't bowl for the next three years. Shillingford was also banned from bowling in 2010 but returned to bowl in 2011 after undergoing remedial work.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-west-indies-2013-14/content/story/689503.html?CMP=chrome

Second time both are getting caught in the net.

 

[cricketjoshila]

They chuck plain and simple.And they will do so if allowed to ball.

 

[Down2Earth]

The umpires conveniently ignored ojha's action

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The umpires conveniently ignored ojha's action

Ojha chucks. So does Ajmal. So does Harby.

Atleast its not hopelessly blatant as Shillingford.

He is a good spinner but damn....he chucks...

 

[trogger]

Whole thing is a joke, players will go into a lab test use a different action to the in game action get cleared then rinse and repeat.

At the very least the umps who reported the player should be at the lab tests so they can make sure the player is using the exact same action as was used in the actual test match.

 

[Major]

But weren't both of them cleared in the past?

 

[SL_Fan]

Good that they have been reported. Marlon's quicker ones and Shillingford's doosra looks suss. Let's see what comes out of it.

 

[SL_Fan]

Whole thing is a joke, players will go into a lab test use a different action to the in game action get cleared then rinse and repeat.

At the very least the umps who reported the player should be at the lab tests so they can make sure the player is using the exact same action as was used in the actual test match.

Looks like you missed this bit

Both the bowlers have previously been reported and suspended from bowling in international cricket after their bowling actions were found to be illegal.

As if they don't have any controls in place. They use match footage, check different variations and speeds etc as well as have bowling expert/s overseeing things. Of course the system is not foolproof but until it's possible to test all players during matches without any hindrance or having to cough up millions, lab tests is the only option.

 

[trogger]

any system where an obvious cheat cannot be stopped during a game/series is seriously flawed.

Whats to stop a team recruiting a different baseball pitcher every match?

yes they would later be suspended for a short period but in the meantime they can throw their way through a whole test series with no on field action taken.

As for these two being suspended and then cleared to bowl again, sorry but it's painfully obvious they were not using their current in game actions in the lab tests.

Expecting players to use their full on action in a non competition lab test is like expecting a crook to commit a crime when he knows there is a cop right behind him.

 

[SL_Fan]

Plenty of bowlers have been banned or have had certain deliveries banned after testing. The problem is banned/suspended bowlers passing the test after remedial work and then their bowling action deteriorating again. I certainly agree that the system is not perfect. Testing during the game would obviously be better. In-game technology is currently being tested so pretty sure it will be available for use in the near future but until then this is the best we've got.

 

[trogger]

No the best we have got is trusting the umpires to do their job and call throwing when they see it, the current system is what happens when you make political compromises, you end up with a flawed system when the only people who are likely to face long term ramifications for chucking are those that report it or speak out about it.

 

[SL_Fan]

We are talking about players' careers and livelihoods here. So it's not as simple as that. It may have worked back in the day because that was the only option available, but it definitely won't work this day and age. For one thing umpires don't even get a proper look from the position/s they stand to make such a call. Not to mention human eyes are no match for advanced technology.

 

[trogger]

We are talking about players' careers and livelihoods here. So it's not as simple as that. .

Exactly, a batsmen could lose his spot in the team while struggling against an obvious cheat, that batsmen has a right to be protected from cheats during a match does he not?

 

[SL_Fan]

Exactly, a batsmen could lose his spot in the team while struggling against an obvious cheat, that batsmen has a right to be protected from cheats during a match does he not?

But that batsman can't turn around and sue now can he? If you ban/suspend a bowler without proper evidence that's exactly what will happen.

 

[Ims1]

I am not surprised about Shilly's doosra . Samuels i did not watch closely so cannot comment .

 

[Haroon786]

All this chucking and every controversy just links to back to one man and how it all started.

 

[Ims1]

All this chucking and every controversy just links to back to one man and how it all started.

yes, the MM man . That is the only reason i do not rate him .

 

[Energetic]

Ajmal needs to be investigated again and also Kane Williamson.

 

[Haroon786]

yes, the MM man . That is the only reason i do not rate him .

Only reason why he isn't considered the greatest spinner.

 

[leatherface58]

Wonder how Saqlain managed to bowl a doosra without chucking. Is there an off spinner apart from Swann today who doesn't chuck? Maybe Lyon.

 

[Haripotter]

The umpires conveniently ignored ojha's action

says Hiiiii

 

[SL_Fan]

All this chucking and every controversy just links to back to one man and how it all started.

Whether anyone likes it or not the rule change was inevitable. As technology evolves so does the world, and that includes sports.

 

[James]

We are talking about players' careers and livelihoods here. So it's not as simple as that.

I agree. If I was a young batter trying to get my foot in the door and make a career and living for myself, I would be pretty annoyed at a bloke with an illegal bowling action pelting the ball at my stumps and getting me out.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Haven't seen much of Shillingford in this recent series but am surprised Samuels has got away with it for so long.

He is the biggest chucker I've seen.

 

[James]

Haven't seen much of Shillingford in this recent series but am surprised Samuels has got away with it for so long.

He is the biggest chucker I've seen.

Botha and Harby.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Botha and Harby probably had slight kinks in their arm but Samuels takes two steps towards the crease and literally throws the ball at decent pace.

 

[Haroon786]

Whether anyone likes it or not the rule change was inevitable. As technology evolves so does the world, and that includes sports.

Technology may evolve, but that doesn't call for a change in the legality of cheating, which chucking is a form of. Most people would've have minded if it (the rule change) affected just Murali, but it has engendered a whole generation of chuckers, who's legacies will know be blighted and have a mysterious cloud over their achievements.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Technology may evolve, but that doesn't call for a change in the legality of cheating, which chucking is a form of. Most people would've have minded if it (the rule change) affected just Murali, but it has engendered a whole generation of chuckers, who's legacies will know be blighted and have a mysterious cloud over their achievements.

Who?

 

[Convict]

We are talking about players' careers and livelihoods here. So it's not as simple as that. It may have worked back in the day because that was the only option available, but it definitely won't work this day and age. For one thing umpires don't even get a proper look from the position/s they stand to make such a call. Not to mention human eyes are no match for advanced technology.

So we should let them cheat?

Maybe we should let all the injury prone players take steriods to heal.

 

[dhump]

I am a Murli fan but if he was allowed to ball than everyone else should be too.

 

[SL_Fan]

I agree. If I was a young batter trying to get my foot in the door and make a career and living for myself, I would be pretty annoyed at a bloke with an illegal bowling action pelting the ball at my stumps and getting me out.

No doubt about that. But as I have said earlier you need conclusive evidence to ban/suspend bowlers. You can't just go by what anyone thinks, you need actual data to back it up.

 

[leatherface58]

I am a Murli fan but if he was allowed to ball than everyone else should be too.

They are and they will always be. Watch these two cleared after a couple of months and be back to their chucking..err..bowling.

 

[Haroon786]

Who?

Bowlers like Harby, Ajmal, Botha etc. and all the others that will bowl in the coming years.

 

[SL_Fan]

Technology may evolve, but that doesn't call for a change in the legality of cheating, which chucking is a form of. Most people would've have minded if it (the rule change) affected just Murali, but it has engendered a whole generation of chuckers, who's legacies will know be blighted and have a mysterious cloud over their achievements.

What else can you do when all the studies were showing that it's pretty much impossible to bowl properly without chucking? ban all the bowlers?

 

[SL_Fan]

So we should let them cheat?

Maybe we should let all the injury prone players take steriods to heal.

Not sure how steroids come into it?

 

[dhump]

They are and they will always be. Watch these two cleared after a couple of months and be back to their chucking..err..bowling.

Fine for me as long as these two are also allowed to ball.

 

[Haroon786]

What else can you do when all the studies were showing that it's pretty much impossible to bowl properly without chucking? ban all the bowlers?

Well one thing for sure is that banning all the blatant chuckers would've set some kind of a standard, but no, they even accommodated them.

 

[James]

No doubt about that. But as I have said earlier you need conclusive evidence to ban/suspend bowlers. You can't just go by what anyone thinks, you need actual data to back it up.

Maybe it's our culture but I was always told that you trust your eyes. Fire leaves smoke behind it. If a guy looks to be chucking, he probably is.

This lab testing reminds me of audits that I have to help arrange at work, for the purposes of ethical selling. Top sellers are often suspected of mis-advising, so you shadow their appointments or listen to their calls, but you have to let them know you are doing that beforehand, so they behave immaculately on the day and you therefore have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Wonder how Saqlain managed to bowl a doosra without chucking. Is there an off spinner apart from Swann today who doesn't chuck? Maybe Lyon.

Ashwin.

 

[SL_Fan]

Well one thing for sure is that banning all the blatant chuckers would've set some kind of a standard, but no, they even accommodated them.

It's not as simple as that. The whole issue here is trying to define blatant chuckers. As it stands they are the ones going over 15 deg. You can't set it to 10 deg because most bowlers were shown to go over that even with their routine deliveries (in contrast only Murali's doosra was found to be going over the 10 deg mark, rest were below 5 deg). So where do you go from there?

 

[trogger]

sl fan doesn't seem to want to admit it but the big call for changing the rules came after the 04 champs trophy where they used in game testing on some players and some(not all) were found to exceed 7.5 or 10 degrees.

I will ask again why could they use in game technology then but refuse to use it now on players with suspect actions?

Just test them using the same cameras during an actual test series or they need to admit that those in game tests in 2004 were faulty and should never have been used as basis for a law change.

 

[SL_Fan]

Maybe it's our culture but I was always told that you trust your eyes. Fire leaves smoke behind it. If a guy looks to be chucking, he probably is.

This lab testing reminds me of audits that I have to help arrange at work, for the purposes of ethical selling. Top sellers are often suspected of mis-advising, so you shadow their appointments or listen to their calls, but you have to let them know you are doing that beforehand, so they behave immaculately on the day and you therefore have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

As I said earlier the system is not foolproof, but it's the best we've got. The days of the umpire's call being the be all and end all is long gone.

 

[leatherface58]

Ashwin.

Yeah. He does something worse than chucking like pausing.

 

[Haroon786]

It's not as simple as that. The whole issue here is trying to define blatant chuckers. As it stands they are the ones going over 15 deg. You can't set it to 10 deg because most bowlers were shown to go over that even with their routine deliveries (in contrast only Murali's doosra was found to be going over the 10 deg mark, rest were below 5 deg). So where do you go from there except to 15 deg?

You're going into the intricacies of the rule, what I'm insinuating is that the rule itself is dubious, I don't think it is valid when you consider that it was used to justify someone chucking.

 

[trogger]

As I said earlier the system is not foolproof, but it's the best we've got. The days of the umpire's call being the be all and end all is long gone.

Do you at least agree the umpire should be at the lab tests to ensure the proper action(the one he reported as suspect) is being used?

 

[Convict]

SL_Fan forgets the reality of commissioning reports and studies. Never commission anything that might give you an undesired result.

 

[SL_Fan]

sl fan doesn't seem to want to admit it but the big call for changing the rules came after the 04 champs trophy where they used in game testing on some players and some(not all) were found to exceed 7.5 or 10 degrees.

I will ask again why could they use in game technology then but refuse to use it now on players with suspect actions?

Just test them using the same cameras during an actual test series or they need to admit that those in game tests in 2004 were faulty and should never have been used as basis for a law change.

Because it costs millions and the outcome is a foregone conclusion. In fact Murali actually volunteered to be tested in-game since he missed out on the CT testing due to shoulder surgery but ICC turned it down citing costs. Besides that wasn't the only study used to come up with their decision. There were numerous others all of which showed the same thing. It's impossible to bowl properly without chucking.

A study from 2000-2003 showed that bowling actions that looked normal to the naked eye in many of the worlds elite fast bowlers, had, on average 9 degrees of elbow extension during the bowling action. Some recorded elbow extension measuring between 10-15 degrees, yet none of these bowlers had ever had a problem regarding the legality of their bowling action. This testing showed that a zero tolerance threshold, and the tiered thresholds implemented in the late 90's, had no or little scientific merit. The study, conducted by the Australian Institute of Sport Biomechanics department, lead by cricket biomechanist Dr. Marc Portus, involved taking three-dimensional video based biomechanical analyses during tour, test and one-day international matches in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. This report was submitted to the ICC in 2003, which instigated the review of the illegal action definition and processes.

The ICC also carried out further video based three-dimensional analyses on all bowlers during the 2004 Champions Trophy in England. Regardless of the biomechanical measurement protocol used, a strikingly similar pattern emerged: the normal biomechanics of cricket bowling, whether it be spin or pace, features an element of elbow extension. The average extension of a normal, seemingly legal delivery was 8-10 degrees for all bowler types. There were virtually zero instances of no elbow extension at all in accordance with the original laws.

After extensive research ICC decides to raise the elbow extension tolerance threshold to 15 degrees for all bowlers. This limit was chosen after considering biomechanical findings from 130 pace and spin bowlers, the scientific issues with measurement, and that bowling actions considered to be "throw-like", or illegal, were usually measured to be well above 15 degrees of elbow extension, often in the 20 to 30 degree range.

 

[SL_Fan]

You're going into the intricacies of the rule, what I'm insinuating is that the rule itself is dubious, I don't think it is valid when you consider that it was used to justify someone chucking.

So ignore all the scientific data and go with opinion/s? Yup that sounds more validating to me.

 

[SL_Fan]

Do you at least agree the umpire should be at the lab tests to ensure the proper action(the one he reported as suspect) is being used?

Why would I have a problem with that. All I want to see at the end of the day is the right thing to be done and the correct decision to be made.

 

[SL_Fan]

SL_Fan forgets the reality of commissioning reports and studies. Never commission anything that might give you an undesired result.

There have been numerous studies done on this by various bodies. Not just one or two. All have shown that there's no option but to legalise chucking. You may not like that but those are the facts.

 

[trogger]

The study, conducted by the Australian Institute of Sport Biomechanics department, lead by cricket biomechanist Dr. Marc Portus, involved taking three-dimensional video based biomechanical analyses during tour, test and one-day international matches in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. This report was submitted to the ICC in 2003, which instigated the review of the illegal action definition and processes.

So both studies you mentioned involved taking footage from actual competitive matches yet we keep hearing that the correct and only available way to test suspect actions is in out of comp lab tests?

This Australian group that did the study in 2000-2003...why can't they take footage of the last test series and tell us if the two suspect bowlers are over or under 15?

They and the ICC didn't didn't base their findings on lab tests so what possible relevance would a lab test be when enforcing a rule change that was decided based on analyzing actual game footage?

The ICC say there is currently no reliable technology to test players in a match....ok so aren't the ICC basically saying both the above study and their own in 2004 are flawed and unreliable?

Both relied on in game testing, logically if it's unreliable the above studies mean nothing as they are flawed if it is reliable why are the ICC saying it's not and refusing to use it now?

 

[saeedhk]

Samuels is a big chucker.

 

[SL_Fan]

So both studies you mentioned involved taking footage from actual competitive matches yet we keep hearing that the correct and only available way to test suspect actions is in out of comp lab tests?

This Australian group that did the study in 2000-2003...why can't they take footage of the last test series and tell us if the two suspect bowlers are over or under 15?

They and the ICC didn't didn't base their findings on lab tests so what possible relevance would a lab test be when enforcing a rule change that was decided based on analyzing actual game footage?

Not just any video footage. You didn't see the part where it said three-dimensional video? As I said these studies cost millions.

Again for the umpteenth time if you are so concerned about chucking what does it matter if these tests were carried out in-game? what difference does it make to the final outcome? Chucking is chucking right?

Besides even if they spend millions upon millions testing every suspect bowler out there people will still go on about how it was faked and all like the lab tests. So what's the point really?

 

[SL_Fan]

So both studies you mentioned involved taking footage from actual competitive matches yet we keep hearing that the correct and only available way to test suspect actions is in out of comp lab tests?

This Australian group that did the study in 2000-2003...why can't they take footage of the last test series and tell us if the two suspect bowlers are over or under 15?

They and the ICC didn't didn't base their findings on lab tests so what possible relevance would a lab test be when enforcing a rule change that was decided based on analyzing actual game footage?

The ICC say there is currently no reliable technology to test players in a match....ok so aren't the ICC basically saying both the above study and their own in 2004 are flawed and unreliable?

Both relied on in game testing, logically if it's unreliable the above studies mean nothing as they are flawed if it is reliable why are the ICC saying it's not and refusing to use it now?

Where have they said that? Source?

 

[Singham]

I am a Murli fan but if he was allowed to ball than everyone else should be too.

If that s the case, shoaib was a chucker too. Both had hyperextension elbows.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Shane Shillingford's bowling action found to be illegal (update Post #6)

Banned for his action.

 

[Ims1]

well,he did chuck & so did Samuels .

 

[ChaudrySaab]

His action has been deemed illegal!.

 

[SL_Fan]

I thought you can "fake" it in the labs and get away with it?

 

[Ims1]

I thought you can "fake" it in the labs and get away with it?

are you referring to any particular bowler ?

 

[SL_Fan]

are you referring to any particular bowler ?

Referring to all the wannabe bio-mechanics experts out there who think they know better than actual bio-mechanics experts.

 

[battler]

Referring to all the wannabe bio-mechanics experts out there who think they know better than actual bio-mechanics experts.

Ask RA what he thinks about this

 

[SL_Fan]

Ask RA what he thinks about this

RA is a closet Murali fan I'm sure of it He's always talking about the great man.

 

[SL_Fan]

ICC suspends Shillingford & Samuels prohibited from bowling quicker ones

http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/current/story/700733.html

The ICC has suspended Shane Shillingford, the West Indies offspinner, from bowling in international cricket after his action was found illegal. His team-mate Marlon Samuels, who is a part-time offspinner, has been prohibited from bowling quicker deliveries in international cricket.

An ICC statement said that an independent biomechanical analysis had revealed that for both Shillingford's standard off-break delivery and his doosra, the amount of elbow extension in his bowling action exceeded the 15 degrees' level of tolerance permitted under the ICC regulations.

Meanwhile, the analysis on Samuels' action revealed that the spinner's standard off-break delivery was legal but the quicker delivery exceeded the prescribed levels of tolerance.

If Samuels is reported for a suspect action in the next two years, the ICC will take note of it as a second report and the player will have to undergo a biomechanical analysis. If the analysis concludes that Samuels has an illegal action for any delivery, he will be banned from bowling in international cricket for a minimum period 12 months.

Shillingford had earlier been suspended from bowling in international cricket in December 2010, a month after being reported for a suspect bowling action on West Indies' tour of Sri Lanka.

 

[Executioner]

About time!

Samuels quicker ball is nothing but blatant chucking, good to see ICC making amends to ensure that the spinners don't have the unfair advantage

 

[trogger]

So how does an ump stop Samuels using his illegal quicker ball mid game?

He can throw his way to a win and the umps just have to sit and watch.

 

[Obeid]

The umpire is now, with confidence that it is an illegal delivery, able to call a no ball on any of the "faster deliveries"

 

[90MPH]

well,he did chuck & so did Samuels .

Yes he is talking about Harbajhan Singh.

Pragyan Ohja is blatantly chucking as well.

 

[AlizeeFan]

I thought you can "fake" it in the labs and get away with it?

He was cleared earlier.

 

[Space Cat]

Few other players need to be tested as well.

 

[trogger]

The umpire is now, with confidence that it is an illegal delivery, able to call a no ball on any of the "faster deliveries"

As far as i can tell all the umps can do is report the player after the match, could you point to the law that says they can still no ball for throwing during a match?

 

[SL_Fan]

He was cleared earlier.

Yes after remedial work. The process is completely different. When reported actual match footage is used as reference during testing. However after remedial work has been done the bowler basically starts from scratch. That's why bowlers who are cleared after remedial work (Botha, Shillingford, Samuels etc) are the ones to really worry about because their actions can deteriorate and they can go back to their old ways.

 

[Master Leo]

muralitharan destroyed off-spin bowling.every off spinner chucks because of him.

Thank you sir for your words of Wisdom..Highly enlightening..

 

[trogger]

Yes after remedial work. The process is completely different. When reported actual match footage is used as reference during testing. However after remedial work has been done the bowler basically starts from scratch. That's why bowlers who are cleared after remedial work (Botha, Shillingford, Samuels etc) are the ones to really worry about because their actions can deteriorate and they can go back to their old ways.

What work did he do?

His action looked dodgy then as it does now and no doubt when he does more "remedial work" he will come back to cricket with a dodgy action and take more wickets before he is reported again.

The current system is a farce, even those suspended still get to bowl far too long with highly suspect actions.

 

[SL_Fan]

What work did he do?

His action looked dodgy then as it does now and no doubt when he does more "remedial work" he will come back to cricket with a dodgy action and take more wickets before he is reported again.

The current system is a farce, even those suspended still get to bowl far too long with highly suspect actions.

Well he obviously did enough to pass it. All I was saying is that the process is different. I agree that's a real concern and ICC should look into it. Maybe they should think about banning bowlers who fail the test twice (i.e. failing again after being cleared as a result of remedial work), say during a 4 year period, for something like 2 years? Atm if a bowler fails the test twice within a 2 year period then they are banned for just a year. Need to be a lot tougher me thinks.

 

[trogger]

Well he obviously did enough to pass it.

And if his horrible action got cleared then as i said the whole process is a farce and does not prevent dodgy action bowlers taking test wickets.

 

[Space Cat]

He had a large part in saving the draw for Windies in the 1st test.

Change it to a win.