-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Johan Botha's action
- Thread starter Craig
- Start date
Evermind
International Debutant
Yep.
In my reckoning, if you were to view the baseball pitcher's action front-on, Akhtar's action would have more in common with it than with McGrath's.
Last edited:
GeraintIsMyZero
Banned
Evolution?Yep.
In my reckoning, if you were to view the baseball pitcher's action front-on, Akhtar's action would have more in common with it than it would with McGrath's.
GeraintIsMyZero
Banned
The one on the left.
Evermind
International Debutant
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Really? On what possible grounds?
Jakester1288
International Regular
I went to an ODI in 2006 that we lost against South Africa, and the crowd was going crazy whenever he bowled there was no ball calls and chucker calls everywhere.
EDIT: I just saw one of my earlier posts in this thread, and I believe Shaun Taits bouncer has a bend, but as I said, it would be within the rules, so it's ok.
EDIT: I just saw one of my earlier posts in this thread, and I believe Shaun Taits bouncer has a bend, but as I said, it would be within the rules, so it's ok.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Indeed. Though it must be said that when looking at still photos, one has to be careful
The one on the left.
. For example, the photo on the right of Lee may be the same ball, or bowled with the same action as the one on the left, and it looks okay. Yet from t'other side it looks a shocker. Which is whyi suppose they need to do the testing.
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
His doosra has caused some concern and that would be the delivery of course which Harbhajan bowls 75% of the time. Botha maybe should try bowling with long sleeves next time.
Pretty sad to see him called, considering some of the actions of his contemporaries but there is no reason why he won’t be cleared. It isn’t Marlon Samuels offensive or even Razzaq bad. The South African bowling coach just thinks he needs a few tweaks…
Cricinfo - Botha needs minor tweaks, says SA bowling coach
Pretty sad to see him called, considering some of the actions of his contemporaries but there is no reason why he won’t be cleared. It isn’t Marlon Samuels offensive or even Razzaq bad. The South African bowling coach just thinks he needs a few tweaks…
Cricinfo - Botha needs minor tweaks, says SA bowling coach
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Exactly. A flat image of a three-dimensional object inherently introduces perception errors.
Langeveldt
Soutie
FFS.. Not again
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
That for 17 years someone has been completely immune to the laws and been allowed to continue to bowl and build a career when they continually break the rules.
Fill a courtroom and have a court case and there is only one possible result.
Langeveldt
Soutie
King Pietersen
International Captain
That's not Muralitharan you're referring to, is it?
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
The thing with Akhtar is that, from my understanding, hyperextension or regular bending, 15 degrees is the limit and Akhtar sometimes appears to go far beyond that. Does the hyperextension not count as a regular bend? It should.
It raises the point of whether the hyperextension is involuntary and occurs when the elbow is put under great pressure. Surely then, he must be given a Murali-esque pardon?
It raises the point of whether the hyperextension is involuntary and occurs when the elbow is put under great pressure. Surely then, he must be given a Murali-esque pardon?
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
I have little problem with hyper extention. It isnt natural or intentional. The spirit of the law revolves around the straightening of the arm at the joint from bent to straight.
The illegal act is termed "throwing" and noone throws by bending the arm backwards against the joint with hyperextention. They throw with the elbow joint bending as normal and then straightening.
The force of bowling fast means there will be some hyperextention. It cannot be avoided and isnt a problem.
This was never what the law was meant to address.
The question is whether the kinks in Akhtar's action are 100% due to hyperextention.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It doesn't and neither should it because it's involuntary. The law is pretty clear;
Law 24 (No ball) - Laws - Laws of Cricket - Laws & Spirit - Lord's
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.
It's talking about extension and implies a deliberate act, even if it doesn't explicitely say so. Hyper-extension has been cleared by the ICC. No 2-D photo is good enough to evaluate the movement of a bloke's arm/joint through 3-D space. Why? Hyperextension doesn't move through only one plane, there's movement past the extension limits of the joint but there's also extension left or right depending on the arm being bowled with. On a 2-D surface, this gives the illusion of a throw. This is what the science has shown.
No, Murali hasn't been given a 'pardon' because if he flexes during delivery, he's still subject to the law even with his being unable to full straighten the arm. The issue isn't whether the arm is in a flexed position during delivery but whether there's flexion and extension going on, which is the reason for the 15 degrees of tolerance the reasoning being that everyone does it to a degree. Shoaib's (and everyone else's) hyper-extension has been cleared.
Last edited:
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes and no because, for practical purposes, you can only have either extension or hyper-extension not both. If he's hyper-extending at all, he's clear. If he straightens his arm and it doesn't go past the joint limits, he has a 15 degree limit for how far he can extend his arm once the arm passes shoulder-height. The difficulty isn't in understanding that, the issues are whether the 15 degree limit is justified and whether it should be less.
The papers I've read on it concern the question less of at what point a 'throw' becomes visibly such and more at what degree of extension the bowler gains an unfair advantage by being able to bowl there. The 15 degrees is seen as the mid-point between allowing for natural human flexion/extension and disallowing the extra spin/pace achieved by being able to bowl with, say, 20 degrees of extension. The people who claim Murali gets a ton of extra spin by being able to bowl the way he does neglect that he gets a ton of spin with his offie and that it's well within the limits (from memory, 12 degrees is the highest by a fair bit it's been tested at) so it's a pretty strong assertion that he'd get big turn anyway and it's hs wrist/fingers doing most of the work there. This was suggested even more strongly when he bowled in braces and still ripped them square. It's the doosra which causes the most problems because it's still debateable whether it's physically able to be bowled with the off-spin action without an unfair amount of extension.
Last edited: