equatorIn the women’s world cup England have a quick by the name of Jenny Gunn.
She has a eyesore of an action.
It does appear like the most blatant chuck ever from behind.
From front on it looks a little more legal.
On the side you tend to think chuck again.
When Gunn played for Western Australia this year she was reported for throwing.
According to the Cricket Australia analysis, none of her deliveries were under the 15% rule.
Gunn appealed it, the hearing was due for after the world cup.
Then during the world cup she was reported again.
This game was not televised, so the footage of another world cup game was shown to the man that originally cleared her action, and he decided she was still within 15%.
He didn’t test her action in a machine like Cricket Australia did, he watched her play on TV, and decided she was fine.
Apparently that is enough.
Very soon Jenny Gunn will play in the world cup final.
Say what you want about the ICC, but they fuck up with more consistently than most.
Loading ...
How did the ICC official come to the conclusion based on video evidence only? Did he freeze frame her point of delivery and use a protractor to see the exact angle. Or does the official have superhuman visual powers? Or is it just that the ICC deems women cricket to be too trivial and the Womens’ World Cup as just a formality?
I don’t get it. What is the ruling these days. Can’t an umpire no ball a chucker any more, but instead just report them afterwards What if the chucker takes a heap of wickets and the analysis later finds them guilty – does the team lose points if they won the game.
It wasn’t quite as simple as that. The guy in question was a bio-mechanics expert at ECB Loughborough (and member of the ICC panel on Human movements), and has tested Miss Gunn many times, because of previous doubts on her action.
He studied footage from the last televised WC game, and compared her deliveries to ones taken during proper testing, and stated that there was no discernable difference in her action now. She was cleared in 2007 & 2009, for the same reason Brett Lee & Akhtar were, hyperflexion in the arm creating visual illusions..
Now, however, her action has been cleared by the ICC’s Dr Mark King, part of the board’s panel of Human Movement Specialists.
“The recordings are consistent with the rear view recordings (from both March 2009 and April 2007) which clearly shows that Miss Gunn’s bowling arm goes from a near straight position when the upper arm is horizontal into extreme hyperextension and then back to a near straight position around the time of ball release,” said King.
“The unusual amount of hyperextension and abduction may well create the illusion that Ms Gunn throws but that is not the reality. Her action complies with ICC regulations and the laws of cricket.”
It looks dodgy, but probably isn’t.
So, it is not only sub-continentals. What happened to the “Chucking cannot happen in England/Australia” theme?
Er…sorrry Suave has clarified. For a moment I thought the unthinkable is happening in Aus/Eng and a player is actually chucking and being saved by “bio-mechanic experts”. But all’s well now. Gunn doesnt chuck. It isn’t dodgy. Thank God for that. Now, if only we could eject Murali from intl cricket…
So chucking is actually a visual illusion (David Copperfield could make a comeback as a fast bowler in the IPL) and the ICC has a Panel of Human Movement Specialists (do they work as consultants in the porno film industry). Fuck me drunk (preferably by MIss Gun under the watchful eye of an ICC specialist).
The simple solution is to get a panel of Aussie cricket fans (the less informed the better) to judge her action. They are the foremost experts on what is a legal delivery. Lillee, Lee, Tait = legal. Murali, Akhtar = chucker
Why can’t the fucking umpire decide. I hear they are neutrally appointed in international cricket these days.
Bob, because of the optical illusion created, that fucks with the human eye.
Well at my next club game I’m gonna actually chuck the ball, and if the umpire questions it, I’ll tell him that what he saw was an optical illusion and in reality it was a perfectly legitimate delivery.
Are your club games regulated by the ICC, Bob?
Suave, that is all true, but it is also true her action was put through an ICC approved test run by cricket australia and it failed the 15% test every single time.
Oh shit Dave you’re right. I first have to become an international cricketer before I can chuck the ball properly, and I can’t get to that level without chucking. Damn Catch 22 My dream has been ruined within the space of half an hour.
Jrod, that is true, but the results have been challenged, and CA have not released that information in full, pending investigation.
She may well chuck, and if proven, she should be banned, but I believe someone should be innocent until proven guilty.
Suave, Dude, she was proven guilty, she has appealed that decision. Like ntini before her.
Seriously now, is it not possible for a coach these days to take a youngster with a perfectly normal action and teach him to bend the arm oh about 15 degrees in order to achieve more pace, swing, movement, whatever. Where does it end, especially if it takes a panel of experts to decide on the matter, and seemingly with this case at least, even they can’t decide.
bob, apparently that is already being done with off spinners at the top level.
rest my case
What exactly is the rule with chucking? Why doesn’t the ICC have a central body for all chucking matters instead of sending the player all over the world for all kinds of tests. Also they should freeze the rules once and for all. They seem to keep changing the rules (15 degrees etc etc) as per the player and board involved.
On another note, I think NZ could win the women’s world cup!!