Johan Botha chucks it, that much is clear. Sadly, what's not clear is by how much - just calling "no ball" doesn't cut it. New rules prevent an umpire from looking at Botha and making a judgement. In matters of chucking, unlike Elbee, an umpire isn't trusted to umpire. Ludicrous, of course, but there you are.
How did it come to this? Well, the ICC, for whatever reason (Sno job?), were looking for an out which had them assessing old footage to determine that nearly ALL bowlers chuck, ergo there needs to be a little flexibility (a wickedly flexible word, in itself) in the rules. Ha! That's a good one. Like a little wobble in, say, Dennis Lillee's action should or could be compared with the structural abortion that is, say, Murali's doosra. Speed merchants will always be able to bowl pretty damn quick without flex, sure, some will occasionally wobble, but on the other side of things, spinners will never be able to bowl the doosra without flex. (Sacky Mushtaq's toppy is my exception, but as toppy implies, I don't consider it a true doosra.) In other words, by comparing a spinner's action against the vastly different action of a fast bowler, spinners are allowed to cheat. Farcical, I know.
The single greatest criticism of the new process is that a bowler can try to work within the allowable tolerance at the UWA bowling doctor, get certifiad A1, but then out on the field, do pretty much what he likes. It's that old comparison thing of getting your driver's license. If you are caught driving like an idiot, you can't then use the excuse "Now, come on, officer - driving recklessly? But I passed my test!" Dave Richardson at the ICC, while comparing Botha to Harby, acknowledges (inadvertently?) that point in today's Australian.
Amount of flex sees Botha in new light
Harbhajan's case highlights the problems with the ICC's handling of suspected chuckers. The body found that he did not throw when being analysed but appeared to when playing.
"There is no doubt that the action analysed in the University of Western Australia showed Harbhajan bowling with an action that is in accordance with the regulations," ICC general manager of cricket David Richardson said.
"The analysis of the action used during the Pakistan match identifies some differences including the position of the feet and the speed of the delivery.
"However, Mr Portus (the biomechanist) was unable to reach a definitive conclusion on the action used against Pakistan because of the quality of the footage and the camera angles used.
First up - good stuff. It's an anomaly too glaring to let pass indefinitely, or until the ICC hope the problem goes away. But should you choose to play a shot - those of you not hard of thinking will spot the other contradiction. Dodgy old footage is good enough to ping Lillee and co for chucking, but the latest in flash footage is not good enough to do the same for Harby and his fellow campers. I mean - Sky and/or Channel 4 - Channel 9.
Once we've ironed out Botha, let's kick the racist stuff and go after the real offender/s.
I take it you lot are sick of chucking then. Leave it up to sad ole Tone to carry on the fight. Craven dogs.
Posted by: Tony.T | 05 January 2006 at 20:53
If you think it's bad now, wait until he quits (or is forced to quit) playing and starts coaching. And if you think they will go after Murali after banning all the scapegoats, then you've clearly misunderstood the purpose of scapegoats.
Posted by: Clem Snide | 05 January 2006 at 22:35
I was a bit worried when I saw Botha chuck his doosra. No-one else mentioned it. Was I mistaken? Thankfully AGB has confirmed the evidence of my own eyes........maybe the ICC will feel better about calling a white chappy?
Posted by: nick | 06 January 2006 at 00:16
Haven't seen Botha in action as yet. However, my old man rang me the other day and said "Have you seen this Botha? He's another chucka." My reply "groan".
Posted by: pat | 06 January 2006 at 10:17
Oh, I did wonder why Smiffy was so reluctant to bowl his spinner; I didn't even seen Botha yet. I'll have to give him a look when Australian bat this afternoon.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 06 January 2006 at 10:45
Botha is bowling too front-on to not throw. At least if he wants to bowl off-spin, he could probably get some decent out-swing.
I think we need to get past the idea that throwing is somehow the same as cheating. Almost all bowlers do chuck the odd ball, some occasionally (Brett Lee), some every few balls (Murali and most other off-spinners). Let the bowlers bowl what they will and let umpires call it as they see it. They are seeing it after all, because they report bowlers.
Posted by: Russ | 06 January 2006 at 11:16
Throwing is cheating.
Hopefully we won't see a reply of this...
Total Australia 279 (all out, 64.3 overs, 307 mins)
Posted by: nick | 06 January 2006 at 11:34
No Nick, it isn't. No more than over-stepping the mark is, or not walking when you've got an edge. The bowler is entitled to bowl it if they think it is a legitimate delivery, and it is (or at least should be) up to the umpires to make a decision on whether it is.
If they were consistently called, bowlers who throw would soon learn, like Michael Kasprowicz, that an inability to bowl a legitimate delivery makes them a liability.
Generous declaration. Should be an entertaining afternoon.
Posted by: Russ | 06 January 2006 at 11:48
Hmm, Good win to the Aussies and Smith is definately looking like a tool now. Warnie proved right yet again!
I missed the Botha bowling action, but seeing the word DOOSRA! on Cricinfo live scores immediately had me thinking 'chuck'. Does anyone have a photo or video of his action?
Posted by: Mr Z | 06 January 2006 at 17:03
Cricinfo says the declaration was "generous". ABC radio described it as "sporting" and "brave". Cricinfo goes on to say "South Africa could feel a bit hard done by: with most of day four lost to rain, they were forced into a situation where they had to risk losing a match that they had controlled so much of in order to have a chance of winning And on a pitch that had remained in tact under overcast skies all match, it was always going to be difficult to defend such a moderate target"
BULLSHIT!
Smith had 2 options: 1) draw the series or 2) lose the series (either 1-0 or 2-0, either way *lose* the series). Smith did what any decent captain would do - try to salvage a draw from a loss.
And remember: aren't Australia supposed to be chokers in the chase? Aren't we supposed to be flat-wicket-bullies? Isn't the capitulation to Fanie De Villiers just over a decade ago supposed to always be the fatal flaw in our claims to world supremacy and forever mark us with the chokers chain stain?
Well Oz just smashed the Safas out of the park with 15 overs to spare, 287 runs in approx two sessions on a pitch that the Safas struggled to make quick runs on. Lets not forget we were 7 for 230 odd in the 1st innings at great risk of failing to reach the follow on.
No, the truth is, that was a challenging declaration, a record 4th innings chase at the SCG since 1890 something, and Australia won the match and series in brilliant style. Emfuckingphaticly!! All hail Punter. As KO'Keefe says "2nd to the Don."
Posted by: pat | 06 January 2006 at 18:20
Mr Z ... there's a pic in today's "West", if that's any good. The man's a contortionist.
I used to throw javelins, I would have given my left one for an elbow action like that.
Posted by: os | 06 January 2006 at 18:32
I'll have a look @ the west in a minute but I think I'll get to see a bit more on the news tonight.
If he does get pinged, as much as anyone gets pinged for chucking these days, what does it say about SA cricket? There best new spinner is a dud.
I think G Smith should have ensured that he wouldn't lose rather than trying to win. There's a return leg of 3 tests in SA later this year, and overcoming a 1 test deficit is a damn sight easier than a 2 test deficit.
Posted by: Mr Z | 06 January 2006 at 19:33
It's a 3 test series though Mr Z with a return 3 Test series in SA. Each series stands on its own.
Posted by: pat | 06 January 2006 at 19:39
"I think we need to get past the idea that throwing is somehow the same as cheating. Almost all bowlers do chuck the odd ball, some occasionally (Brett Lee), some every few balls (Murali and most other off-spinners)."
Russ, you're in the wrong blog if you want to say even the slightest thing in defence of chucking.
As I explained in the post, 99% of fast bowler's 'chucking' is nowhere near the same thing as a huge proportion of offies' 'chucking'. Even Bruce Elliot, the UWA bowler doctor, notes that it is virtually impossible for bowlers to bowl a doosra without flex. But the new rules have basically allowed offies to flirt with that flex.
But I agree with the rest of what you say. Especially with your point that the umps should call it as they see it.
For the record, and not that it would surprise anyone, I think chucking is cheating.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 January 2006 at 21:06
Now Botha has a problem - http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/231870.html
Thank God!! His action is a shocker.
Posted by: Anthony from Chippendale | 06 January 2006 at 21:41
And it's still not as bad as Murali's.
Posted by: Tony.T | 06 January 2006 at 21:48
Agreed.
There'll be some interesting moments in the one-day series when Murali is bowling to Gibbs.
Channel 9 should invite viewers to SMS their votes in on who is the bigger the cheat - Murali the chucker or Gibbs the match-fixer.
The bloke with the most votes is booted out of the VB Series. Something of a reality cricket concept.
Posted by: Anthony from Chippendale | 06 January 2006 at 21:55
Russ, overstepping deliberately IS cheating - witness Ambrose, Walsh and Lee deliberately bowling from way over the line to intimidate the batsman. They know exactly what they are doing (as opposed to the odd sneaking over the line when straining for pace). Blatant nicking and disputing the umpires decision (Hello Warnie - who was surely pissed off and below his best in this Test, probably due to the fact that Mrs Warne (Test Wickets : 0) is about to take him for $10 million) is cheating as well. And if Botha, Murali, Harbajhan et al don't know they are chucking their doosras....well then they are idiots. I don't think that for a minute.
Posted by: nick | 06 January 2006 at 23:12
Tony, first let me clear something up. When I say fast bowlers throw occasionally I am not talking about flex. The statement that such-and-such bowls with 8.2 degrees of flex is a statistical abortion. What I am talking about is that if you get a typical fast bowler to bowl 100 deliveries then 99 will have no discernable bend and one will be a chuck (>10-12%). That doesn't make that bowler a cheat, but it is a no-ball.
And yes, off-spinners are more likely to chuck, and there are several who are taking advantage of the political hole that the ICC has dug itself -- though as you also said, they can bowl properly when they need to. But you won't get out of that hole if you continue to brand them as cheats. Because every time you do, you unleash a hail of indignation for accusing such a nice young chap of such dastardly things. You can't expect an umpire to make a no-ball call under those circumstances.
I'm not defending chucking. It shouldn't happen. But it is a cricketing problem, not a moral one.
Posted by: Russ | 07 January 2006 at 12:50
I think it is important to emphasise that Botha's doosras are clearly intentional cheating, whereas Murali's doosras are an understandable reaction to the legacy of colonialism, the exploitation of the third world by white males, and a reflection of an ancient, authentic and deeply spiritual culture.
Posted by: Clem Snide | 07 January 2006 at 19:20