Problem with your argument is that you are essentially saying that you know more about the fine line that differentiates a legal vs illegal delivery than all the former ex-cricketers who played the game at the highest level for decades, and are now sitting in the positions of rule-making at the ICC. Thats a pretty darn arrogant approach to take, not to mention quite laughable.
F&B actually took the easy way out by saying that ICC is politicized so it has no credibility, and hence any two-bit arm chair critic posting on internet forums or blogs is more correct on the issue than the ICC. That ICC banned a couple of bowlers and not banned some others kinda invalidates the argument. Obviosuly there is a way to check who chucks and who doesn't, and it is not as simple as "eye-balling". Its easy to accuse any bowler of chucking. RP Singh chucks. Brett Lee chucks. Joel Garner chucked. Its just meaningless to start accusing bowlers, just because our eyes tell us something. Better get eyes tested and enjoy the game.
And by the way, it is always fun to criticize the umpires/referees etc for making bad calls. So, please don't stop now.
Kaya kary bechharaay….they can’t bowl 140 km/h even if they chuck…..i guess there would be a national holiday in India the day an Indian fast bowler would bowl 140 km/hr or more….and yes there should be national holiday in pak too when mahan paki batsmen would survive first 20 overs on a seaming wicket….
obviously there is subjectivity involved, but come on now…blatant chucking doesn’t require much to detect other than a pair of eyes. and when these blatant chucks form a pattern and occur frequently, a bowler can be classed as a chucker. we have all seen enough deliveries by shoaib where we don’t need to pull out a protractor and measure the angle. i think any disagreement on this would be disingenuous on your part, though you can reject it and the cycle of denial and accusation will continue as expected.
i would have to do more research into who has and hasn’t been banned, but from an elementary perspective, it’s obvious that the ICC has nothing to gain and everything to lose by side-lining revenue-boosting, popularity-boosting marquee players of the sport if it can avoid doing so. some situations cannot be avoided or reconciled, like if a superstar were to murder another player on the pitch with a knife…but it’s not illogical for “controversial” issues that can swing both ways to be decided in the best interest of the ICC. i think it would be naive to think the ICC would not act in the best interest of itself and the game, especially when the sport is likely on a permament decline and losing fans and revenue would only hurry the process along.
i’m not accusing the ICC because i’ve done no research on the matter, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
