Johan Botha's action

[Top_Cat]

I think the point is that a 'chuck' never has, and never will be regarded as something that appears like the epitomy of a normal action by a lot of people. Whether that appearance is correct or not is another thing. Saying that McGrath etc chucked it under the old rules and therefore can be compared to Botha et al is adding a little bit of irrationality to the subject in my opinion.

I've always thought it's a bit of a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A large majority of bowler's actions over the years haven't been called into question, and usually those that have look quite unusual to the naked eye. Now we have the technology to judge whether they actually are breaking the rules I don't see the problem. Saying bowlers like McGrath and Pollock 'disguise their chucks' is silly really. You'd think technology would help things, but it seems to muddy the waters on certain occasions.

It only muddies the waters if you have a pre-conceived notion of what a 'chuck' is. It's been defined and it can be measured. The problem isn't in definition, it's in acceptance of both the definition and the results of analysis.

 

[silentstriker]

Saying bowlers like McGrath and Pollock 'disguise their chucks' is silly really. .

I don't imply intent. I am saying that it is a fact that by the old definition, they chucked. It is also a fact that somewhere around 0% of umpires watching McGrath would ever call him for chucking. Therefore, the chuck is disguised. That's all. That's why the old rule did not make sense. Basically, he was getting the advantage of a bent arm straightening without having it appearing to be so. And that's unfair.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I don't imply intent. I am saying that it is a fact that by the old definition, they chucked. It is also a fact that somewhere around 0% of umpires watching McGrath would ever call him for chucking. Therefore, the chuck is disguised. That's all. That's why the old rule did not make sense. Basically, he was getting the advantage of a bent arm straightening without having it appearing to be so. And that's unfair.

Dammit! Just lost my reply post to that

Yeah, I just think statement originally made by the ICC that 'all bowlers chuck' is nonsensical - under the old definition the degree of flexion was generally arbitrary as we went on the naked eye and if it looked funny then it was called. Under the new rules we had a measurement that was considered to be fair for all and again most players fitted in under that measurement. The ICC's statement implies that bowlers with near perfect actions are to be included in this definition when that was clearly never the case (at least to me anyway). The difference between the large number of bowlers who have what appear to be good actions and those that don't is still the same, it's just that we can now put a figure on it. With the exception of Murali, who was clearly a different case, most avid cricket watchers will look at a bowler who has a bit of a shaky action and think 'gee that's looks a bit strange' and be right 9 times out of 10 it seems. And I think the same bowlers you have being reported today would have been reported back in the days before we had the technology to measure their degree of flexion.

I'm not saying the naked eye is better than the technology we now have available, as it clearly isn't and some people have been unjustly tarred with the 'throwing' label when it wasn't deserved. But now a player has to be reported to be tested for throwing anyway, and to be reported someone in a position of power has to look at their action and go 'gee, that looks a bit strange'.

I also don't think anyone was getting any advantage from what looked like a normal action before we adjusted the degree of flexion. There's still a difference between their actions and those that get reported now. As there would have been in the past. The only difference is we can now put an exact figure on it. I don't think you'll ever see someone with an action like a Lillee, Holding, McGrath, Pollock etc etc get reported for testing. The good thing about it is that now those who are borderline have an avenue for testing to see if they're over or under the permitted level.

I certainly don't agree with player's careers being potentially ruined by an incorrect decision, but I don't agree with letting someone play on either while we work it out. I guess until/if we can measure limits in real time this is the best we have.

Not sure if that makes any sense...I feel like I'm in labour trying to push out the correct words

 

[BoyBrumby]

Actually, I do have a problem with it, but obviously that's another discussion.

That's as maybe, but the fact remains that umpires still do give decisions on LBWs and their calls, even if they're proven to be wrong after the fact, are generally accepted without the accusations of bias or worse we get with chucking.

It only muddies the waters if you have a pre-conceived notion of what a 'chuck' is. It's been defined and it can be measured. The problem isn't in definition, it's in acceptance of both the definition and the results of analysis.

It can be measured under laboratory conditions, but not during the course of a game. I'd have no problem accepting the definition if it could be, but until the technology exists we're left with a law that is, to all intents and purposes, both uninforceable and an ass.

Is there any other major sport where such a fundamental tenet cannot be applied during a game?

 

[silentstriker]

That's as maybe, but the fact remains that umpires still do give decisions on LBWs and their calls, even if they're proven to be wrong after the fact, are generally accepted without the accusations of bias or worse we get with chucking.

It's not that it's biased that I care about, it's that it gives the wrong result. The same reason I'd be happy as soon as LBWs are decided by more by fact and less subjective opinion.

It can be measured under laboratory conditions, but not during the course of a game. I'd have no problem accepting the definition if it could be, but until the technology exists we're left with a law that is, to all intents and purposes, both uninforceable and an ass.

Any other version of it would be much more unfair. So the only other option is to remove it, which I wouldn't want either.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's as maybe, but the fact remains that umpires still do give decisions on LBWs and their calls, even if they're proven to be wrong after the fact, are generally accepted without the accusations of bias or worse we get with chucking.

Not for much longer.

Anyway, the angst is probably more to do with intent. Chucking has a stigma because people reckon it's a deliberate act to gain pace/spin. The same hate is directed at umpires who are perceived to be giving/not giving LBW's unfairly.

It can be measured under laboratory conditions, but not during the course of a game. I'd have no problem accepting the definition if it could be, but until the technology exists we're left with a law that is, to all intents and purposes, both uninforceable and an ass.

Got a solution? Letting the umpires decide at international level isn't acceptable any more.

Is there any other major sport where such a fundamental tenet cannot be applied during a game?

Provokes another question, really; is there any other sport which has rules dictating technique in the same way? There's no rules on how to pitch a ball in baseball, hit a puck in hockey or whether there's 15 degrees of bend in your arms when you throw a pass in rugby. There's no rule that says it's unfair to kick a football with the side of your foot instead of the toes.

If you have a shoulder abnormality which means you can throw a ball with freakish curve in baseball, you're celebrated as unique but in cricket, you're a cheat because you're not bowling 'properly'. Who dictated that the only way to bowl a cricket ball is over-arm with a straight arm? Cricket is unique in that what constitutes unfair play in the sport a lot of the time has little to do with stuff like safety/injury.

Even the LBW law seems ridiculous when you compare it to other sports. So what if a batsman gets his legs in in the way of the wicket? If you're not good enough to bowl him or get him out other ways, too bad really. I, for one, would think it highly entertaining if the LBW law was discarded and batsmen could use their pads to score. Imagine someone kicking a ball for six. That'd be awesome!

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's not that it's biased that I care about, it's that it gives the wrong result. The same reason I'd be happy as soon as LBWs are decided by more by fact and less subjective opinion.

Really? Bowlers taking wickets with chucks must surely fall into the "wrong result" bracket too, tho?

Any other version of it would be much more unfair. So the only other option is to remove it, which I wouldn't want either.

Got a solution? Letting the umpires decide at international level isn't acceptable any more.

You're both making value judgements there; presupposing the correctness of your argument and using it to support itself.

Why would another rule be more unfair? Why isn't umpires deciding acceptable? It's because of the perceived stain on a bowlers reputation.

Provokes another question, really; is there any other sport which has rules dictating technique in the same way? There's no rules on how to pitch a ball in baseball, hit a puck in hockey or whether there's 15 degrees of bend in your arms when you throw a pass in rugby. There's no rule that says it's unfair to kick a football with the side of your foot instead of the toes.

If you have a shoulder abnormality which means you can throw a ball with freakish curve in baseball, you're celebrated as unique but in cricket, you're a cheat. Cricket is unique in that what constitutes unfair play in the sport a lot of the time has little to do with stuff like safety/injury.

Well, let's take the rugby pass as it was one of your suggestions. Passes in both codes have to be backwards. There's an interesting video on YouTube that shows a lot of passes that appear backwards to the naked eye, in fact actually go forwards because of the momentum of the players running, but refs are still allowed to call on forward passes in game time and, in fact, the video (made to instruct trainee referees) advocates adopting a common-sense approach.

 

[silentstriker]

Really? Bowlers taking wickets with chucks must surely fall into the "wrong decision" bracket too, tho?

Sure. It definitely is. But since there is no way to tell on the field who chucked.....I'm not sure what you do about that right now. Got any idea of a method which would have rightly given not out to a McGrath wicket and a Murali wicket under the old law?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not for much longer.

Anyway, the angst is probably more to do with intent. Chucking has a stigma because people reckon it's a deliberate act to gain pace/spin. The same hate is directed at umpires who are perceived to be giving/not giving LBW's unfairly.



Got a solution? Letting the umpires decide at international level isn't acceptable any more.



Provokes another question, really; is there any other sport which has rules dictating technique in the same way? There's no rules on how to pitch a ball in baseball, hit a puck in hockey or whether there's 15 degrees of bend in your arms when you throw a pass in rugby. There's no rule that says it's unfair to kick a football with the side of your foot instead of the toes.

If you have a shoulder abnormality which means you can throw a ball with freakish curve in baseball, you're celebrated as unique but in cricket, you're a cheat because you're not bowling 'properly'. Who dictated that the only way to bowl a cricket ball is over-arm with a straight arm? Cricket is unique in that what constitutes unfair play in the sport a lot of the time has little to do with stuff like safety/injury.

Even the LBW law seems ridiculous when you compare it to other sports. So what if a batsman gets his legs in in the way of the wicket? If you're not good enough to bowl him or get him out other ways, too bad really. I, for one, would think it highly entertaining if the LBW law was discarded and batsmen could use their pads to score. Imagine someone kicking a ball for six. That'd be awesome!

That's not really true anymore though with the new rules, and that's a good thing in my opinion. Obviously, this was an area that needed to be addressed.

I'd love to see a batsmen kick it for six too, and then be given out LBW I can only imagine the spectacle as the match winds into the late hours of the fifth day and a tailender from Team A stands in front of his stumps not offering a shot as ball after ball thuds into his pads. haha You'd find spinners hanging from every rafter.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, let's take the rugby pass as it was one of your suggestions. Passes in both codes have to be backwards. There's an interesting video on YouTube that shows a lot of passes that appear backwards to the naked eye, in fact actually go forwards because of the momentum of the players running, but refs are still allowed to call on forward passes in game time and, in fact, the video (made to instruct trainee referees) advocates adopting a common-sense approach.

I don't think that's analogous. No-one polices what the players are doing before they let go of the ball in rugby whereas in cricket, and bowling, that's what umpires have been asked to do. A more relevant one would be if there was a rule which said you have to throw the ball using arms only and we'ren't allowed to do the rugby 'twist' to make the ball sail in a straight line at the receipient and not scrambled. Could be ruled that the curve a rugby ball displays backwards when passed like that circumvents the forward pass rule so is unfair. Just as unenforceable too.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'd love to see a batsmen kick it for six too, and then be given out LBW I can only imagine the spectacle as the match winds into the late hours of the fifth day and a tailender from Team A stands in front of his stumps not offering a shot as ball after ball thuds into his pads. haha You'd find spinners hanging from every rafter.

SS just jizzed in his pants.

 

[silentstriker]

SS just jizzed in his pants.

Nah, I don't wear them when at the computer.

 

[Top_Cat]

Nah, I don't wear them when at the computer.

Too far.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It only muddies the waters if you have a pre-conceived notion of what a 'chuck' is. It's been defined and it can be measured. The problem isn't in definition, it's in acceptance of both the definition and the results of analysis.

Well, it's been redefined. And that redefinition happened in cross-over period where initially a majority of bowlers didn't chuck...then they did...then they didn't again. Basically, a majority of bowlers don't chuck and never have, under either definition. Obviously the new definition is more scientifically correct than the earlier one. We've become better at defining it...not spotting it. Obviously there's nothing we can do about it though until we have the technology.

Given the current system, you still need at least some notion of what a chuck is to get it identified and send a player for review.

 

[silentstriker]

Plus, despite my over-the-top defense of the real bowlers, I don't necessarily want the spinners to dissappear. Sometimes, like Warne was, they are fantastic to watch. But not as good as, say, Malcolm Marshall was. And that I think people have a massively over-inflated opinion of their ability in Tests. But good spinners really can be great to watch.

 

[cricman]

Bowlers should just wear elbow braces that extend up to 15 degrees.

 

[Son Of Coco]

SS just jizzed in his pants.

Nah, I don't wear them when at the computer.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Plus, despite my over-the-top defense of the real bowlers, I don't necessarily want the spinners to dissappear. Sometimes, like Warne was, they are fantastic to watch. But not as good as, say, Malcolm Marshall was. And that I think people have a massively over-inflated opinion of their ability in Tests. But good spinners really can be great to watch.

Yeah I agree. I used to always say spinners are there to give the real bowlers a rest, but it's great to watch someone like Warne operating. I could sit there and watch him bowl for hours knowing something was likely to happen.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Bowlers should just wear elbow braces that extend up to 15 degrees.

That'd be funny to watch

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't think that's analogous. No-one polices what the players are doing before they let go of the ball in rugby whereas in cricket, and bowling, that's what umpires have been asked to do. A more relevant one would be if there was a rule which said you have to throw the ball using arms only and we'ren't allowed to do the rugby 'twist' to make the ball sail in a straight line at the receipient and not scrambled. Could be ruled that the curve a rugby ball displays backwards when passed like that circumvents the forward pass rule so is unfair. Just as unenforceable too.

Not physically, perhaps; but from the standpoint of a sporting phenomenon where the appearance to the naked eye differs from the reality I'd say it's at least in the same ball park.

The big difference is how the governing bodies have decided to deal with the discrepancy between reality and appearance. One has unproblematically left the call to the officials; the other recourses to expensive after the fact testing. Not saying one course is necessarily better than the other, but it is rather sad that the sport whose very name used to be a synoym for fair play has been forced into adopting the latter for whatever reason.