Muralitharan - javelin thrower

[murray]

By intentionally straitening his arm. Choosing to bowl a delivery that requires more straightening than the alternative stock delivery is intentional straightening. Keep in mind that the laws of cricket say nothing about 15 degrees, that is just an ICC rule.

 

[honestbharani]

By intentionally straitening his arm. Choosing to bowl a delivery that requires more straightening than the alternative stock delivery is intentional straightening. Keep in mind that the laws of cricket say nothing about 15 degrees, that is just an ICC rule.

how do u know i if it is intentional or not? And the fast bowlers' effort ball is always intentional and it was found out that it required flex of a greater degree than their stock delivery. And anyways, hypothetically, if a fast bowler's natural ball involves a flex of 14 degrees and Murali's doosra demands the same flex, Murali should NOT be allowed to bowl it, just because it involves a greater flex than his normal delivery, even though the extent of the flex is just the same as the stock delivery of another bowler?



That would be the greatest example of double-standards.

 

[murray]

how do u know i if it is intentional or not? And the fast bowlers' effort ball is always intentional and it was found out that it required flex of a greater degree than their stock delivery.

It is intentional because he has been to the lab and found that the delivery that turns the other way requires about 10 degrees extra straightening. Before that date it would be fine, but since that date, every time he bowls it he is intentionally bowling a delivery that requires more straightening.

And anyways, hypothetically, if a fast bowler's natural ball involves a flex of 14 degrees and Murali's doosra demands the same flex, Murali should NOT be allowed to bowl it, just because it involves a greater flex than his normal delivery, even though the extent of the flex is just the same as the stock delivery of another bowler?



That would be the greatest example of double-standards.

The key point is the intentional part. If a bowler is doing his best to bowl a delivery with no straightening then it is really irrelevant what degree of unintentional straightening occurs. If the bowler chooses to bowl a delivery that requires more straightening than that, then they are chucking. If the fast bowler throws down an effort ball that is shown to require more straightening then he is chucking that effort ball.

Of course all bowlers should be minimising straightening, but it is the intentional use of deliveries that require more straightening that should be dealt with first.

 

[Richard]

By intentionally straitening his arm. Choosing to bowl a delivery that requires more straightening than the alternative stock delivery is intentional straightening. Keep in mind that the laws of cricket say nothing about 15 degrees, that is just an ICC rule.

I$C$C rules are the Laws Of Cricket.

 

[Richard]

It is intentional because he has been to the lab and found that the delivery that turns the other way requires about 10 degrees extra straightening. Before that date it would be fine, but since that date, every time he bowls it he is intentionally bowling a delivery that requires more straightening.

The key point is the intentional part. If a bowler is doing his best to bowl a delivery with no straightening then it is really irrelevant what degree of unintentional straightening occurs. If the bowler chooses to bowl a delivery that requires more straightening than that, then they are chucking. If the fast bowler throws down an effort ball that is shown to require more straightening then he is chucking that effort ball.

Of course all bowlers should be minimising straightening, but it is the intentional use of deliveries that require more straightening that should be dealt with first.

There's no way to administer justice on the throwing ruling and that's just a fact of life. You can't prove any of what you're saying, you can't prove intentional-vs-unintentional or 14.34degrees or 15.66 degrees. The only way to have a completely fair ruling would be to make sure every bowler was the same, ie everyone bowl with a brace on their arm.

Otherwise you either have an unacceptible ruling that's policeable or you have an acceptible ruling that's unpoliceable. We used to have the former. Now we have the latter.

 

[honestbharani]

It is intentional because he has been to the lab and found that the delivery that turns the other way requires about 10 degrees extra straightening. Before that date it would be fine, but since that date, every time he bowls it he is intentionally bowling a delivery that requires more straightening.



The key point is the intentional part. If a bowler is doing his best to bowl a delivery with no straightening then it is really irrelevant what degree of unintentional straightening occurs. If the bowler chooses to bowl a delivery that requires more straightening than that, then they are chucking. If the fast bowler throws down an effort ball that is shown to require more straightening then he is chucking that effort ball.

Of course all bowlers should be minimising straightening, but it is the intentional use of deliveries that require more straightening that should be dealt with first.

No, he still gains an advantage by doing it.

And if you are so psyched up about the "intentional" bit, let us get rid of googlies, Warney's flipper, the arm ball, the quicker one, the bouncer, the yorker and all that. Let us just have all bowlers bowl ONE type of ball (their stock ball) and let us watch batsmen murder bowlers.


You have flex, then you have flex. It doesn't matter if it is intentional or not, it is still flex and you gain an advantage by flexing it that many degrees. And the ICC have put a cap on the maximum you can flex your elbow to bowl a ball. Intentional or not doesn't even come into the picture. The rule is now black and white and there are no grey areas. You bowl with a flex of 15 degrees + and is found out through all the high-tech camera and observation and calculating devices, then you are in offence. Else, you are within the rules and can go on.


It is like trying to find out whether a bowler is intentionally bowling no balls or not (like Wavell Hinds against Smith). If your foot is over the line, it is a no ball, whether it is intentional or not doesn't matter. You get penalized. Else, it is alright. Same applies here.

 

[silentstriker]

There's no way to administer justice on the throwing ruling and that's just a fact of life. You can't prove any of what you're saying, you can't prove intentional-vs-unintentional or 14.34degrees or 15.66 degrees. The only way to have a completely fair ruling would be to make sure every bowler was the same, ie everyone bowl with a brace on their arm.

Otherwise you either have an unacceptible ruling that's policeable or you have an acceptible ruling that's unpoliceable. We used to have the former. Now we have the latter.

Agreed completely.

 

[murray]

No, he still gains an advantage by doing it.

Perhaps, but it is an unintentional advantage. Let us worry about the intentional breaches of the laws of cricket first.

And if you are so psyched up about the "intentional" bit, let us get rid of googlies, Warney's flipper, the arm ball, the quicker one, the bouncer, the yorker and all that. Let us just have all bowlers bowl ONE type of ball (their stock ball) and let us watch batsmen murder bowlers.

I have yet to see proof that Warne's flippers or wrongun's require extra straightening, though I am open to the fact that they do so. Please link to the proof thanks.

You have flex, then you have flex. It doesn't matter if it is intentional or not, it is still flex and you gain an advantage by flexing it that many degrees. And the ICC have put a cap on the maximum you can flex your elbow to bowl a ball. Intentional or not doesn't even come into the picture. The rule is now black and white and there are no grey areas. You bowl with a flex of 15 degrees + and is found out through all the high-tech camera and observation and calculating devices, then you are in offence. Else, you are within the rules and can go on.

You are going by ICC rules. The laws of cricket as prescribed by the MCC are the absolute baseline and as they suggest:

3. Definition of fair delivery - the arm
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

Now, we can't do anything about bowlers unintentionally breaking this law. However, a deliberate breaking of this law should be enforced, such as a bowler deliberately bowling a delivery that requires more extension than their stock delivery.

It is like trying to find out whether a bowler is intentionally bowling no balls or not (like Wavell Hinds against Smith). If your foot is over the line, it is a no ball, whether it is intentional or not doesn't matter. You get penalized. Else, it is alright. Same applies here.

Let us be real here. Murali knows if he is bowling a doosra and he knowas it has been shown the doosra needs an extra 10 degrees of straightening. Every time he bowls it he is intentionally breaking Law 24 No 3 of the Laws of Cricket.

 

[Richard]

You are going by ICC rules. The laws of cricket as prescribed by the MCC are the absolute baseline and as they suggest

MCC are nought but the keepers of the laws. They no longer have the power to amend them without consultation.

The real law is the one prescibed by I$C$C.

 

[silentstriker]

Perhaps, but it is an unintentional advantage. Let us worry about the intentional breaches of the laws of cricket first.

That makes no sense. If the doosra was Murali's stock delivery, then it would be OK to bowl?

 

[murray]

MCC are nought but the keepers of the laws. They no longer have the power to amend them without consultation.

The real law is the one prescibed by I$C$C.

Actually it is the other way around. The MCC laws of cricket come first and the cometition (in the case of international cricket, the ICC, in teh case of domestic cricket the local) rules come second. The fact that people think the way you do is an example of how far the ICC has twisted things.

Of course the MCC must consult before amending laws, but we are talking about the unamended laws.

 

[murray]

That makes no sense. If the doosra was Murali's stock delivery, then it would be OK to bowl?

No, because he can bowl a delivery that requires less straightening. I was using a turn of phrase to make it easier for people like yourself to understand, my fault.

 

[Richard]

Almost anyone can bowl a delivery that requires less straightening - because virtually no delivery is bowled with an elbow that doesn't change sinuosity.

 

[Richard]

Actually it is the other way around. The MCC laws of cricket come first and the cometition (in the case of international cricket, the ICC, in teh case of domestic cricket the local) rules come second. The fact that people think the way you do is an example of how far the ICC has twisted things.

Of course the MCC must consult before amending laws, but we are talking about the unamended laws.

I assure you, the throwing laws used in routine club cricket here in Britain are the same as the I$C$C ones, not the outdated MCC draft.

 

[murray]

Almost anyone can bowl a delivery that requires less straightening - because virtually no delivery is bowled with an elbow that doesn't change sinuosity.

Really? Then can you please link to the proof of this statement? I'd like to read it.

 

[Richard]

There are a million pieces out there stating one of the basic findings of the report of 2004 - the fact that a delivery bowled with no straightening of the elbow is an exceptionally rare event.

Therefore, if you bowl a delivery that involved 0.73degrees of straightening, you could have bowled one that involved less.

 

[murray]

There are a million pieces out there stating one of the basic findings of the report of 2004 - the fact that a delivery bowled with no straightening of the elbow is an exceptionally rare event.

Therefore, if you bowl a delivery that involved 0.73degrees of straightening, you could have bowled one that involved less.

Could you please link to one?

 

[Richard]

..............

 

[murray]

That doesn't show that they can bowl deliveries that require less straightening does it?

 

[Richard]

If nearly everyone straightens their elbows every time they bowl then nearly everyone can bowl something which involves less straightening.

Unless you bowl with an elbow that straightens by zero degress (which happens something in the region of never) you could always have bowled with a straigher one.