Johan Botha's action

[TT Boy]

Slight irony that the umpire who reported and took issue with Botha's action/doosra was Asoka Da Silva.

 

[Goughy]

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.

As far as I see it, he can be both.

The arm can start bent, straighten and continue past straight and hyperextend.

Murali throws the ball as his arm is bent and straightens (has improved though) and his doosra (others are equally bad with this delivery) is dirty.

 

[King Pietersen]

Murali's arm doesn't straighten, he can't physically get his arm fully straight, and the illusion of him throwing is purely because of the 2D TV image. I've seen Murali bowling with a cast on his bowling arm, which stops him bending his arm and he was able to go through his complete repetoire of deliveries with no problem. What appears on TV to be a bending of the arm is infact the rotation of his shoulders, and the way he manipulates his double jointed wrists iirc. He does not chuck.

 

[Richard]

Murali's arm doesn't straighten

It does - but no more than many others' do. It's just that, because the maximum straightening his elbow can manage is less straight than that which others' do, his straightening is much more superficially apparent to the naked-eye than many other bowlers' is.

No bowler ever bowls without straightening his elbow at all. It's completely implausible and with hindsight it's absolutely incredible that this utter myth lasted until 2004.

 

[King Pietersen]

I meant that it doesn't straighten completely, as it's physically impossible for him to hold his arm completely straight. I know that all bowlers have some degree of straightening.

 

[Top_Cat]

As far as I see it, he can be both.

The arm can start bent, straighten and continue past straight and hyperextend.

So? At the point of delivery for someone who hyper-extends, the momentum is caused by the hyperextension, which is perfectly legal. That's why I said 'for practical purposes'.

It's a theoretical possibility which, in practice, means little because anyone who is able to start with a bent arm, straighten it then hyper-extend it between the time the whole arm reaches shoulder height and delivery, won't be bowling very well. Think about how little power and momentum you'd be able to generate from that point. Anyone able to do that and generate decent pace is a physiological freak and I've never seen anyone do it.

Anyway, it's moot. As soon as the arm reaches the point of hyper-extension, no matter what happens from that point, it's a legal ball. That is unless the bowler (another physiological freak) was able to hyper-extend first, then flex > 15 degrees past 'straight' THEN extend in delivery of the ball, with the extension only happening above shoulder height to make it illegal and carefully ensuring they didn't hyper-extend again. This is assuming, of course, that they were actually able to bowl after they pulled their shoulder out of its socket or dislocated their elbow or bowled slow enough so they could pull it off, making them a totally useless bowler anyway.

The point is, above shoulder height, if there's a greater than 15 degree difference between the flexed arm and the straightened one between that point and delivery, it's a throw. Murali falls within the limit.

Murali throws the ball as his arm is bent and straightens

Within the limits it does, as it does for many bowlers. Well within the limits, as it happens (12 degrees or less, if memory serves).

 

[King Pietersen]

YouTube - The Island Cricket Show - Episode 2 - Part 1 of 2

Here's the video of Murali bowling with a brace on his bowling arm.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

Well, regardless of what people think, I don't think you can build a case when they someone fails a test that this person has repeatedly passed. If you have a set standard, and one person passes while another doesn't - I don't see what legal recourse you have for discrimination?

Of course, you can think the test is not legitimate, but in a court, ICC can simply say this is the standard, and here is where this guy passed and this guy didn't. Twice.

 

[Goughy]

YouTube - The Island Cricket Show - Episode 2 - Part 1 of 2

Here's the video of Murali bowling with a brace on his bowling arm.

Good stuff. Id never seen that before. Proof positive that he throws.

He clearly has a naturally bent arm but it bends far further without the brace than with it and the stress on the brace is clearly visible as the arm strains to bend.

Wearing a brace is the most stupid thing ever. Of course he isnt going to flex the arm as he has a ****ing brace on it. There is no doubt he throws.

 

[Top_Cat]

Good stuff. Id never seen that before. Proof positive that he throws.

He clearly has a naturally bent arm but it bends far further without the brace than with it and the stress on the brace is clearly visible as the arm strains to bend.

There is absolutely no way you can know that from 2-D images, especially from a grainy UToob. This is getting silly now.

 

[silentstriker]

There is no doubt he throws.

Again, you are talking about showing that in a court. He was tested by University of Western Australia twice, and he was found within the 15 degree rules. He was bowling with an illegal action prior to the new rules, then he was found bowling within the new rules. Botha wasn't. Your defense can't be just 'Well I think he looks dirty'.

 

[Goughy]

Again, you are talking about showing that in a court. He was tested by University of Western Australia twice, and he was found within the 15 degree rules. He was bowling with an illegal action prior to the new rules, then he was found bowling within the new rules. Botha wasn't. Your defense can't be just 'Well I think he looks dirty'.

Tested? Why would anyone throw when they are being tested?

Cricket people know he throws as we know what a throw looks like. Botha chucked (I have not recently seen him to comment on him now). Everyone understood what was allowable and what wasnt.

Murali certainly chucked. There was a fine system in place until people wanted to complicate it with a 15 degree thing that is impossible to enforce and just muddys the water.

The current system is a mess.

If this is as far as his arm straightens then the poor boy cant even sratch his balls without having to bend down.

 

[Top_Cat]

Tested? Why would anyone throw when they are being tested?

Predicated on the assumption there was no-one at the Tests who could tell the difference between a bowler putting in the big ones and going through the motions. Demonstrably false.

Cricket people know he throws as we know what a throw looks like. Botha chucked (I have not recently seen him to comment on him now). Everyone understood what was allowable and what wasnt.

No they didn't. That was easily the most significant finding to be revealed. Whatever anyone thought constituted a throw, generally, were wrong. And, again, with your edit you're relying on a 2D image. Why are you doing this? May as well use a ruler to measure bond lengths.

Murali certainly chucked. There was a fine system in place until people wanted to complicate it with a 15 degree thing that is impossible to enforce and just muddys the water.

Oh of course; umpire, usually an older gentleman, from 20 metres away with only a side-on view assesses a bowler's bending/straightening, no-balls a bowler who is then barred from bowling and, in many cases, barely heard from ever again, totally abandoned due to being branded with the scarlet letter of 'cheat'.

So you have a judge with no serious knowledge of how human movement works being asked to judge in real-time the merits of a bowler's deliveries and essentially deciding the course of the cricketer's career. Fantastic system.

 

[silentstriker]

Why would anyone throw when they are being tested?

Botha did. And was banned for it.

Again, I'm not arguing about who you or I think chuck or not. I have my own thoughts - what I am saying how are you going to prove discrimination in court. You'd have to show a different set of standards being applied. E.g, Botha being tested with a different methodology than Murali.

Otherwise, what is the basis for your case?

 

[Goughy]

Predicated on the assumption there was no-one at the Tests who could tell the difference between a bowler putting in the big ones and going through the motions. Demonstrably false.

Absolutely not.

You can only test what is being shown. It is impossible to assume that the balls were being bowled how they are in games.That is a massive and dangerous assumption.

As for the 2D images, they look different with the brace and without. Shouldnt they be the same?

The current system is all over the place. It helps noone. Especially as these things need to be worked out in the school and club system where we are depending on "an older gentleman, from 20 metres away with only a side-on view assesses a bowler's bending/straightening"

We are causing large scale damage to the game by not properly addressing this issue.

Ive seen people throw the ball and umpires and coaches answer "Well they get away with it at the International level so why start enforcing it here?"

It is a cancer.

 

[vic_orthdox]

To me, bowling never meant "not throwing". Bowling meant sending down the ball with the straightest arm possible. That's where I don't like the new rules, it changes the parameters of what is legal from "having a straight arm" to "not flexing the arm".

 

[Top_Cat]

Absolutely not.

You can only test what is being shown. It is impossible to assume that the balls were being bowled how they are in games.That is a massive and dangerous assumption.

Depends on what supports it. If a pace bowler, for example, bowls at a similar pace to matches, bowls similar sorts of deliveries, similar action (as best as can be determined with video analysis) and you have a cricketer on hand to give all that criteria the once-over, that's enough to assume assume the bowler is bowling very similarly.

And a decent experimentalist will be able to get past someone who is gaming. By not telling them which balls they're having a look at, for example. There are heaps of anti-gaming strategies used in psychology, for example. Psychologically and physically, it's pretty likely no-one could maintain a bowling style significantly different for too long anyway. That's the way it goes in many psych tests, for example, with people who have a vested interest in faking.

As for the 2D images, they look different with the brace and without. Shouldnt they be the same?

You can't properly tell what's differing from a 2D image, is my point.

The current system is all over the place. It helps noone. Especially as these things need to be worked out in the school and club system where we are depending on "an older gentleman, from 20 metres away with only a side-on view assesses a bowler's bending/straightening"

We are causing large scale damage to the game by not properly addressing this issue.

Ive seen people throw the ball and umpires and coaches answer "Well they get away with it at the International level so why start enforcing it here?"

It is a cancer.

It's logical that at the highest level, the best tools to assess bowling actions will be available. If you have a system in mind which works at all levels, let's hear it. You'd be solving a problem which has existed since time immemorial so good luck.

 

[Top_Cat]

To me, bowling never meant "not throwing". Bowling meant sending down the ball with the straightest arm possible. That's where I don't like the new rules, it changes the parameters of what is legal from "having a straight arm" to "not flexing the arm".

The reason why is because the parameters of what constitutes a straight/bent arm changed. A big reason for this was greater knowledge in the area too. The addition of hyper-extension to the mix, for example.

 

[vic_orthdox]

The reason why is because the parameters of what constitutes a straight/bent arm changed. A big reason for this was greater knowledge in the area too. The addition of hyper-extension to the mix, for example.

The point is that now there is no emphasis on trying to maintain as straight an arm as possible; as long as you don't extend the arm that's fine. If you can get an advantage out of rotating a bent elbow, then that constitutes a legal delivery. To me, that's against the spirit of the law from how it was first intended. Ref: the mischief rule.

 

[Top_Cat]

The point is that now there is no emphasis on trying to maintain as straight an arm as possible; as long as you don't extend the arm that's fine. If you can get an advantage out of rotating a bent elbow, then that constitutes a legal delivery. To me, that's against the spirit of the law from how it was first intended. Ref: the mischief rule.

Big if and I'd argue you won't. Like I said, from what I've read, the 15 degree limit is an attempt to strike a balance between allowing for the fact that everybody flexes/straightens to a degree and setting an upper limit so that there's no significant advantage gained. 15 degrees isn't all that much to work with if you're trying to flex and extend without anyone raising any questions. The spirit of the law was to prevent people from gaining an unfair advantage, yeah? That's pretty much the direction the 15 degree limit goes in.

I would definitely argue that the emphasis is still on being as straight as possible. Seriously, have you heard any different in your travels? I've not come across any coaches attempting to coach people into flexing/extending just enough to gain what's likely to be an insignificant advantage anyway.