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

[SL_Fan]

Shillingford failed the test back in late 2010 before coming back after remedial work. So had this happened this time last year he would have received a 1 year ban. The 2 year time frame is just too short I think.

 

[SL_Fan]

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.

It wouldn't have been the same action obviously. That's where the problem lies. A bowler can undergo remedial work and then fall back into old habits.

 

[SL_Fan]

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

Change it to a win.

I would start writing a letter to I double C if I was you

 

[trogger]

Could you show me some videos of tests when his action was "clean"?

It really looks like it always did to me.

 

[SL_Fan]

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?

ICC regulations for the review of bowlers reported with suspected illegal bowling actions

http://static.icc-cricket.com/ugc/d...D768E4902737F0ACA2E856B_1352699920795_146.pdf

1.2

Nothing contained herein shall override an Umpire’s responsibility and discretion to apply Law 24 of the Laws of Cricket.

2.2.12

In circumstances where the Independent Assessment concludes that the Player employed an Illegal Bowling Action during the Independent Analysis in respect of a specific type of delivery only, the Player will be allowed to continue bowling in International Cricket but subject to the warning (Warning) that should he continue to bowl any of the specific type(s) of delivery for which he has been found to have an Illegal Bowling Action, he will run the risk of being cited a second time. In these circumstances a further report resulting in an Independent Analysis concluding that the Player has employed an Illegal Bowling Action will result in the immediate suspension of the Player from bowling in International Cricket and such suspension shall be considered a second suspension under the provisions of paragraph 2.5 below.

2.5 Second and further reports

In the event of a Player being suspended from bowling in International Cricket under these Regulations for a second time within a period of 2 years from the date of the commencement of the first period of suspension, the Player shall be suspended from bowling in International Cricket for a minimum period of 1 year. Only after the expiry of this 1 year period will the Player be entitled to approach the ICC for a re-assessment of his action in accordance with paragraph 2.4 above. (See also paragraph 2.2.12 above)

Law 24 of the Laws of Cricket

http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball/

2. Fair delivery - the arm

For a delivery to be fair in respect of the arm the ball must not be thrown. See 3 below

Although it is the primary responsibility of the striker’s end umpire to assess the fairness of a delivery in this respect, there is nothing in this Law to debar the bowler’s end umpire from calling and signalling No ball if he considers that the ball has been thrown.

(a) If, in the opinion of either umpire, the ball has been thrown, he shall call and signal No ball and, when the ball is dead, inform the other umpire of the reason for the call.

The bowler’s end umpire shall then,

(i) caution the bowler. This caution shall apply throughout the innings.

(ii) inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for this action.

(iii) inform the batsmen at the wicket of what has occurred.

(b) If, after such caution, either umpire considers that, in that innings, a further delivery by the same bowler is thrown, the procedure set out in

(a) above shall be repeated, indicating to the bowler that this is a final warning.

This warning shall also apply throughout the innings.

(c) If either umpire considers that, in that innings, a further delivery by the same bowler is thrown, he shall call and signal No ball and when the ball is dead inform the other umpire of the reason for the call.

The bowler’s end umpire shall then,

(i) direct the captain of the fielding side to suspend the bowler forthwith. The over shall, if applicable, be completed by another bowler, who shall neither have bowled the previous over or part thereof nor be allowed to bowl any part of the next over.

The bowler thus suspended shall not bowl again in that innings.

(ii) inform the batsmen at the wicket and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of the occurrence.

(d) The umpires together shall report the occurrence as soon as possible after the match to the Executive of the fielding side and to any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and the bowler concerned.

 

[SL_Fan]

Could you show me some videos of tests when his action was "clean"?

It really looks like it always did to me.

I will for 50 bucks. Show me the monay!
He passed the test so it must have been clean.

 

[trogger]

I will for 50 bucks. Show me the monay!
He passed the test so it must have been clean.

You know damn well that is spurious reasoning, if the test itself is flawed passing it means nothing.

 

[SL_Fan]

You know damn well that is spurious reasoning, if the test itself is flawed passing it means nothing.

It's not the testing that's the issue here. Obviously it's not perfect but whether you agree or not that's the best we've got atm. It's the process that's the problem - i.e. the tests showed that the action was illegal on both occasions but it was after remedial work that he was cleared. Therein lies the problem.

 

[saeedhk]

Samuels definitely chucks.

 

[IndianWillow]

Every bowler chucks to some degree. Only the degree varies. It is only the rules of the game that dictates that the extent of chucking can be no bigger than eleven or fourteen degrees or whatever - and the authorities seem to be flexible enough on this matter to bend the rules to accommodate certain bowlers.

We have to go back to the period where whatever looked like chucking to the naked eye was considered chucking. Then we can avoid all the controversy. A number of bowlers it seems have enough skill to deceive technology based chucking detection, but it is harder to deceive human agents (looking for flaws in your bowling action) that way.

 

[Patriot]

To me , bowling means high arm action without bending . Cricket has witnessed those type of bowlers for ages and the records created by these bowlers should never be compared with those with deviations .
It is like comparing batting records of legends with that of FTB's.

I guess you don't know what chucking means.

 

[Bilal7]

You know damn well that is spurious reasoning, if the test itself is flawed passing it means nothing.

So where is the perfect test? I really don't get why people sitting at home pretend like they know more than the experts who are getting paid big money to conduct these tests. Or the umpires who are far better observers of the game than any one here.

Arrogance to the extreme.

Every bowler chucks to some degree. Only the degree varies. It is only the rules of the game that dictates that the extent of chucking can be no bigger than eleven or fourteen degrees or whatever - and the authorities seem to be flexible enough on this matter to bend the rules to accommodate certain bowlers.

We have to go back to the period where whatever looked like chucking to the naked eye was considered chucking. Then we can avoid all the controversy. A number of bowlers it seems have enough skill to deceive technology based chucking detection, but it is harder to deceive human agents (looking for flaws in your bowling action) that way.

Lolwut? So we ditch the objective information provided by computers for the subjective information provided by some BCCICC agent?

 

[Azlan Khan]

Saeed Ajmal and Muttiah Muralitharan were cleared by the ICC. Not sure what's the cry about now?

We're not going entertain any accusations for the ones who have been cleared by the ICC.

 

[BDfanforever]

Can someone clearly explain what exactly is chucking/throwing is in cricket? Shillingford action looks exactly like most other spinners from few clips I just saw. If he is chucking then most spinners chucks.

 

[Buffet]

Can someone clearly explain what exactly is chucking/throwing is in cricket? Shillingford action looks exactly like most other spinners from few clips I just saw. If he is chucking then most spinners chucks.

A lot of them do.

 

[BDfanforever]

Yes, but I would like to know how the 15 degree is measured. What does it mean to "straighten your arm more than 15 degrees"?

 

[AlizeeFan]

Yes, but I would like to know how the 15 degree is measured. What does it mean to "straighten your arm more than 15 degrees"?

You can bend your arm to any degree, but you can't move your arm around elbow for more than 15 degrees. So, initially if your arm is at 30 degrees and by the time of delivery it ends up at 44 degrees then you're fine. But you start with 3 degrees and end at 18.1 degrees then you're in trouble.

 

[BDfanforever]

You can bend your arm to any degree, but you can't move your arm around elbow for more than 15 degrees. So, initially if your arm is at 30 degrees and by the time of delivery it ends up at 44 degrees then you're fine. But you start with 3 degrees and end at 18.1 degrees then you're in trouble.

Thanks. But it would be better to understand with pictorials. Anyway I didn't see anything wrong with Shillingford's bowling action.

 

[AlizeeFan]

Thanks. But it would be better to understand with pictorials. Anyway I didn't see anything wrong with Shillingford's bowling action.

Try bowling, you would understand how bending arm helps.

 

[IndianWillow]

So where is the perfect test? I really don't get why people sitting at home pretend like they know more than the experts who are getting paid big money to conduct these tests. Or the umpires who are far better observers of the game than any one here.

Arrogance to the extreme.


[/B]

Lolwut? So we ditch the objective information provided by computers for the subjective information provided by some BCCICC agent?

No, they have been bending the rules to allow some bowlers to get away with suspicious actions. Many bowlers who have been cleared nowadays would have been labelled chuckers in the 80s and earlier periods. The rule then was clear - if you appear to throw, then you are throwing. With computers, they have introduced a kind of sophistication that can be used to "protect" the bowlers they want to.

Bowlers with suspect action must be asked to bowl with their arms in a cast ( in such a way that the elbow cannot be straightened) - if the bowler can repeat all his deliveries ( at least to a significant degree) with the cast, then he is probably not chucking.

 

[SL_Fan]

Every bowler chucks to some degree. Only the degree varies. It is only the rules of the game that dictates that the extent of chucking can be no bigger than eleven or fourteen degrees or whatever - and the authorities seem to be flexible enough on this matter to bend the rules to accommodate certain bowlers.

We have to go back to the period where whatever looked like chucking to the naked eye was considered chucking. Then we can avoid all the controversy. A number of bowlers it seems have enough skill to deceive technology based chucking detection, but it is harder to deceive human agents (looking for flaws in your bowling action) that way.

That isn't going to work in this day and age. ICC would be flooded with lawsuits. You can't just end careers on a whim without proper evidence.

BTW what the ump sees from a fixed position is only two dimensional, same as what we see on the telly or at the ground etc. Whereas what needs to be measured is three or even four dimensional. Until they can come up with some new technology that can test bowlers during matches without much hindrance or costing millions (being trialled atm so not too far away), the current set-up is the best we've got.

 

[Random Aussie]

That isn't going to work in this day and age. ICC would be flooded with lawsuits. You can't just end careers on a whim without proper evidence.

BTW what the ump sees from a fixed position is only two dimensional, same as what we see on the telly or at the ground etc. Whereas what needs to be measured is three or even four dimensional. Until they can come up with some new technology that can test bowlers during matches without much hindrance or costing millions (being trialled atm so not too far away), the current set-up is the best we've got.

Bowling a lab when you know you are being tested is NOT evidence you dont chuck in a game. How anyone could even consider that it might be is ludicrous.

 

[Saj]

Whatever next? Some will be calling for long sleeved shirts for bowlers to be outlawed?

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Marlon samuels quicker bowl has been outlawed, surely they should also stop all those pie and meat chuckers who bowl darts at batsman without any guile, simple to keep the run rate down

 

[SL_Fan]

Bowling a lab when you know you are being tested is NOT evidence you dont chuck in a game. How anyone could even consider that it might be is ludicrous.

I presume your solution would be for just the umpire/s to measure something that's three or even four dimensional from a fixed two dimensional point of view, and that too in real-time? Cmon RA seriously that doesn't sound ludicrous to you?

Whether any one likes it or not until ICC comes up with some cost-effective way to continually test bowlers during games, reporting suspect bowlers and having them undergo lab tests is the best form of 'evidence' we've got. Of course it's not perfect but it's much more robust than just the umpires out in the middle or the opinions of some wannabe bio-mechanics experts out there. As is the case here many bowlers have been suspended or have had certain deliveries banned after these tests, which indicates that the testing itself is quite stringent. However I do think the process of clearing suspended bowlers after remedial work obviously needs to be looked at, and the cases of Botha, Shillingford, Samuels etc shows that.

 

[SecondSlip]

Shane Shillingford’s off-break and arm balls found to be legal

The International Cricket Council today confirmed that following remedial work, an independent test has found the bowling action of the West Indies bowler Shane Shillingford to be legal and the off-spinner can now resume bowling in international cricket.

Shillingford’s off-break and arm balls were re-tested at the University of Western Australia (UWA) in Perth on 4 March 2014, and the elbow extension measured for each of his deliveries was within the 15-degree level of tolerance permitted under the ICC Regulations for the Review of Bowlers Reported with Suspected Illegal Bowling Actions.

Shillingford has confirmed that he will no longer bowl the Doosra. Therefore, his Doosra will remain an illegal delivery and he cannot bowl it in international cricket.

Shillingford was reported at the end of second day’s play in the Mumbai Test against India in November and was tested on 29 November 2013 at the UWA. All his delivery types were assessed as illegal and he was suspended from bowling in international cricket, and subsequently underwent remedial work to modify his action.

It is important to point out that under this process, as with all bowlers, Shillingford’s bowling action will continue to be scrutinised by match officials to ensure it remains legal.

http://icc-cricket.com/news/2014/me...rds-off-break-and-arm-balls-found-to-be-legal

..

 

[Haz95]

Shillingford is an underrated spinner....even in the India tests he was taking 5fers and was pretty much the bowling line up himself.

 

[Convict]

Given the precedent set by other bowlers it was probably the only choice. Good to see he can't throw the doosra anymore but apart from Saqlain nobody 'bowls' a doosra

 

[Bilal7]

Given the precedent set by other bowlers it was probably the only choice. Good to see he can't throw the doosra anymore but apart from Saqlain nobody 'bowls' a doosra

Wrong. Quite a few bowlers did/do.

 

[Poison]

Shillingford will be rubbish without his doozie

 

[Saj]

ST. JOHN’S, Antigua – Cricket West Indies confirmed today that an independent assessment has found the bowling action of Windward Islands Volcanoes off-spinner Shane Shillingford to be illegal and, as such, he has been suspended from bowling in regional matches with immediate effect.

The assessment revealed that Shillingford’s deliveries exceeded the 15 degrees level of tolerance permitted under playing regulations.

Shillingford will remain suspended until such time as his action is found to be legal, either by an opinion report from Loughborough University or by an independent analysis from an accredited testing centre, in accordance with the CWI Regulations for Dealing with Suspected Illegal Bowling Actions.

He is expected to undergo remedial work supervised by the Volcanoes franchise and can apply for a re-assessment after modifying his bowling action in accordance with the Regulations.

Shillingford was reported for a suspect bowling action during the first-round match against Guyana Jaguars in the West Indies Championship, which the Volcanoes lost by 125 runs at the Daren Sammy Cricket Ground in St. Lucia.

 

[Shaka81]

No big loss for West Indies... he's not very good