Johan Botha throws up problems with ICC policy
Roar Pro By Benjamin Conkey, 16 Apr 2009 Benjamin Conkey is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Cricket, Ian Meckif, Johan Botha, Proteas
South Africa's Johan Botha bowls a delivery while Australia's Ricky Ponting looks on during their One Day International series match at the MCG in Melbourne, Friday, Jan. 16, 2009. AAP Image/Joe Castro
If only Ian Meckiff was playing international cricket today. The man was effectively no-balled out of cricket by the human eyes of umpire Colin Egar.
Now the computer takes over to determine if a player goes beyond the new magical mark of 15-degrees.
But how effective is this process?
South African Johan Botha in 2006 was cited for throwing, and biomechanical testing confirmed he was a chucker. He was suspended.
But then further testing was done later in the year, and “hallelujah, praise the lord,” Johan was cured from the chucking disease.
Well, of course, he was.
He had time to work on straightening out his action for the testers, didn’t he? And you can bet your bottom dollar, as soon as he was cleared to play again, that arm was bent from ball one.
The ICC chucking policy needs to be changed.
If they really want to stamp out chucking, a player needs to be cited secretly, so they are unaware of being monitored – otherwise they’ll just change their actions for a in-house test.
Which is exactly what Botha will do when the ICC’s human movement specialists monitor him. He probably won’t even bowl his doosra, which is the problem ball.
Players have to be tested while bowling in a proper match. This is the only way you can know for sure whether a player is a chucker.
Instead of investing in hawk-eye technology for every single match where the umpire review system is in place, they could use that money to pay a geek to invent a computer program that can analyse a bowler’s action during a match.
Surely technology is up to the point where a computer-aided television replay could gauge if a player is a chucker. Or just go old school and get the protractor out.
If this technology can be sought, it will erase doubts from people’s minds.
Whatever Muttiah Muralitharan does for the rest of his career, he will always be a suspected chucker in the eyes of many, despite what bio-mechanical testing showed.
I think his main action is okay. But it changes for his doosra, and there IS a question mark on that.
I’m sure Murali would love to prove once and for all that he’s not a chucker. And if he could be secretly tested in a match situation, which proves he is under 15-degrees, most Australians would finally regard him as one of the greatest spin bowlers.
It will be interesting to see what they do about Botha, if they do prove that he has been chucking a second time.
Will they give him another chance? Or will they say: “Sorry Johan, that arm is too bent, go and play baseball.”
If he is found guilty in the bio-mechanical testing, I would suspend him for life from cricket. Yes, it’s a bit harsh, but you have to make a stand.
At least Botha has been given a second chance. Ian Meckiff didn’t get any chances, and he didn’t have a computer to defend him.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Cricket, Ian Meckif, Johan Botha, Proteas
April 16th 2009 @ 2:06pm
sledgeross said | April 16th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Eric, studies done by the ICC showed that every bowler in the wake of Murali-gate had a flexion of their arm. From what I recall Glenn McGrath was only a degree or two off being labelled a “chucker” according to the old laws. If you slow a bowling action down to nanoseconds, you cant appreciate the “action”, or the differences of degrees. I dont know if youve done much bowling Eric, but most bowlers will have a slight kink at the elbow in their action, because it is anatomically preferable. Trying to bowl with a perfectly straight arm would put a severe strain on the ligaments of the elbow.
April 16th 2009 @ 2:06pm
Hoy said | April 16th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
Not that the article was on Murali at all, but every time I hear about chuckers, he springs into mind like a bear trap.
April 16th 2009 @ 2:08pm
sledgeross said | April 16th 2009 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Hoy, you cant blame Murali for the law being changed. Hes just a bloke who loves playing cricket. ITs the ICC that should be the target of your venom, not individual players.
April 16th 2009 @ 2:15pm
Hoy said | April 16th 2009 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
I understand Sledgeross, and that is another matter that gets up my nose too. The spineless ICC.
If nothing else, Murali’s want to play cricket should definitely be commended, but that is as close as I can go to paying him a compliment.
April 16th 2009 @ 3:31pm
RickG said | April 16th 2009 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
I remember seeing slo mo replays of Botha’s action on ch9 last summer absolutely gobsmacked at how bad it looked. My issue with him is that, as I understand it, he was an average medium-pace bowler who changed to spin because it afforded better opportunities for selection. He deliberately modelled his action on Harby apparently – alarms bells!
There’s a point I think needs to be made about slow v fast bowling. It’s physically impossible for the human arm not to bend slightly from the elbow when wheeling your arm through at pace – simply because the forearm is travelling faster than the upper arm/shoulder. It’s wrong to argue that slow bowlers should be cut some slack as the fast bowlers are right on the line – the spinners have no biomechanic reason to straighten their arm so it’s an unfair comparison.
April 16th 2009 @ 3:33pm
drewster said | April 16th 2009 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
I believe the ICC have commissioned research (Feb 2009) into the development of a device that can measure degrees of flex in the bowling arm. The device is about the size of an “Ipod Shuffle” and can be worn during matches for real time information. This type of technology (which is used to test arm actions of swimmers and tennis players) seems to be the only real way to end the debate on “suspect actions” if it is shown to work.
Ever since the Meckiff incident us Aussies have had strong views on “suspect actions” probably because The English left arm spinner in that series, Tony Lock was was generally thought to throw his faster ball.
On one occasion Essex batsman Doug Insole asked the umpire if he’d been “bowled or run out” after Lockie had shattered his stumps. Ah! the dry humour of cricketers
April 16th 2009 @ 3:44pm
Benjamin Conkey said | April 16th 2009 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
Yeah Drewster you don’t get that kind of wit today. Another favourite was the Douglas Jardine one from a heckler in the crowd. “Hey Jardine, leave our bloody flies alone.”
But getting back to the issue of throwing. I agree with Greg, this has been a good discussion. I never even thought about Botha wearing long sleeve shirts to cover up his bent arm..it’s a cynical outlook, but I like it!
It’s interesting that people have such differing views on what’s the better judge, the human eye or technology.
Technology in cricket has been shown to be faulty. Remember when Shane Warne spun out Strauss in the Ashes, and they had to reset the parameters of hawk-eye because it spun too far?
The biomechanical testing is about as accurate as you can get. But as I said in my article, once a player has all those dots over their body, they are immediately going to bowl differently.
Hopefully they can get this new device in you mentioned Drewster..hopefully it is accurate, and can be used during a match.
April 16th 2009 @ 3:47pm
Benjamin Conkey said | April 16th 2009 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
On a side note. I know in junior cricket if a player has an obvious chucking action coaches put those wrist guards on, which prevents the player from chucking. Perhaps these could be used on Botha to see if he can bowl with them on. If he can’t then he’s a chucker! Probably a bit simplistic, but it would be a good first up test.
April 16th 2009 @ 3:57pm
dasilva said | April 16th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
I think this video pretty much debunks the myth that Murali never bowled a legal delivery in his life. You see him bowling with a brace where it’s physically impossible to straighten (and hence chuck) and he stills able to bowl a doosra and all of his deliveries.
April 16th 2009 @ 4:07pm
dasilva said | April 16th 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
I do understand why people are upset with new laws.
If someone deliberately throws, the umpires can’t call no ball anymore.
If someone like Murali who has a deformities where it’s impossible to tell whether he throws or not, then that leads him open to occasionally throw the ball and get away from it.
I don’t think there’s any way around it though until people develop technology to be able to measure the degree of straightening of every delivery and then no ball person automatically anytime the flexion goes above 15 degrees.