The difference between bowling and chucking.

[Migara]

Not if you were using the law of bloody common sense:

Common sense does not need to be correct. Actually here it was bull****. McGrath extended that elbow up to 12 degrees. That was more than Murali's off breaks, and was fine because of bull**** common sense.

 

[Migara]

The old law was the umpire's judgement so the only people who were chuckers were those the umpire called. There was no set amount you could bend your arm that I can recall.

It was set at 10 degrees for fast men, 7.5 for fast medium and 5 for spinners some where in mid 90s if I am not mistaken.

And bolded part, 3rd umpire would give a good reason why it is flawed.

 

[Bun]

Might wanna read up.. There were limits of 5 for spinners and 7.5 for fast bowlers and then did tests during the ICC Champions Trophy that showed everybody flexed it greater than those figures and they arrived at 15 as a consensus maximum.. Then again, what have facts gotta do with rants?



And for those of you who don't trust the technology on this one but believe the human eye is good enough (would LOVE to know how many of you are sure these are the ONLY guys who chuck or flex their elbow while bowling), how come the same argument ain't good enough when it comes to DRS?

: Win.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm not saying we shouldn't use the science available, as if we didn't we'd have never found out Murali was ok. But I don't agree with labelling all bowlers chuckers 'under the old rule', as if there was a scientific basis for coming up with the previous limits in the first place. It's pretty clear they were arbitrary numbers that were never properly tested to begin with. I doubt those in charge of making the rules at the time ever intended bowlers with actions like Donald, McGrath, Gillespie, Pollock, Akhtar () to be able to be labelled 'chuckers' because they got their calculations wrong regarding how many degrees an arms bends in a normal action.

Re: Akhtar, there's no flexion in his action at all and the testing proved it. His 'problem', as with many bowlers who look doubtful is hyper-extension. The difference is that one is obviously voluntary but many years ago, he'd have been hounded out of the game as a chucker. Yet another tick for the science.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

What category does Ian Meckiff fall into?

Illegitimate flexing or natural hyperextension?

Would love to see the same question answered for Charlie Griffith as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't think it's possible to tell.

 

[fredfertang]

Meckiff himself always maintained that his arm simply wouldn't fully straighten

Griffith's problem were his bouncer and yorker when he was trying for a bit of extra speed and gave himself some help from the wrist and elbow

The interesting one was Eddie Gilbert who seems to have had the hyperextension problem - if that had been recognised in 32/33 as it is today the Bodyline series could have been even more explosive

 

[Top_Cat]

Dubious, myself. It's said that Eddie Gilbert came off only a couple of steps and used a similar action to throwing a kaya with a woomera and I doubt it's possible to do that without flexion. The alternative is that he moved his arms fast enough to induce hyper-extension but, again, considering how much of that hyper-extension is caused by the run-up and being in motion at the time you hit the crease, with his short run-up I have doubts as to whether that's possible with virtually no run-up too.

 

[fredfertang]

I'm only going from what I've read and the opinion of David Frith - I'd certainly like to believe his action was fair, but I don't think there is any film of it - what is obvious from photos is that his arms were remarkably long, which strikes me as relevant, though I can't really articulate why

 

[Top_Cat]

Long levers matter in terms of pace so you're not wrong.

I guess I'm just saying it's a fairly popular story within the Nunga community that Gilbert was hounded out of a white game for being black. No doubt he suffered at the hands of institutionalised racism but I get the feeling his action would have been an issue regardless.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That post of Migara that you were replying to, was a response to Riggins; post. Spot the connection.

Read my earlier post.

Common sense does not need to be correct. Actually here it was bull****. McGrath extended that elbow up to 12 degrees. That was more than Murali's off breaks, and was fine because of bull**** common sense.

Read my earlier post.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Re: Akhtar, there's no flexion in his action at all and the testing proved it. His 'problem', as with many bowlers who look doubtful is hyper-extension. The difference is that one is obviously voluntary but many years ago, he'd have been hounded out of the game as a chucker. Yet another tick for the science.

I realise this, but the point was it looked bad enough to be tested whereas the others didn't.

And I did say earlier that it was good science can now prove bowlers who we think look bad actually are ok. I'm not sure how I came around to arguing from a position that apparently disagrees with the science we now have. The initial point was that early rule-makers didn't have the assistance of capable scientific procedures (or didn't ask for them) to put a credible number on the amount of bend in an average bowler's elbow. They went on what they thought that number would be and guessed too low. The intention was to go with what looked bad. This has now been proven to be an ineffective way of catching 'chuckers'.

My point was applying the 5 degrees (or 7.5) to all bowlers now as if the earlier limits were scientifically arrived and and thus correct is a bit of a folly. McGrath etc would've been fine under the old system as actions were checked according to how they looked. And they're fine now that we have a system with measurements that are actually correct.

I don't see any value in saying, "Well all bowlers were proven to throw under the old system" every time someone brings up someone with a dodgy action now. The mistake was in the measurements applied, not in the actions of the bowlers.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yep, spot. I did mean my post to be in support of your point.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Awww

Maybe I need to work on my reading then!

 

[Migara]

What category does Ian Meckiff fall into?

Illegitimate flexing or natural hyperextension?

Would love to see the same question answered for Charlie Griffith as well.

From what I've heard that Mekiff was not a "habitual chucker" apparently. He had a fine action in most of the deliveries compared to a certain Ruchira Perea whose every ball was a chuck. Mekiff selected few special moments to chuck it seems. And I am quite sure Mekiff is not the only one who do it in international cricket. Habitual chucker is far more "innocent" than bowler who pick and choose when to chuck.

 

[Migara]

My point was applying the 5 degrees (or 7.5) to all bowlers now as if the earlier limits were scientifically arrived and and thus correct is a bit of a folly. McGrath etc would've been fine under the old system as actions were checked according to how they looked. And they're fine now that we have a system with measurements that are actually correct.

Many LBWs and run out would have been given not out (or out) without the 3rd umpire when there was no technology around. But that doesn't make no 3rd umpire decisions superior to 3rd umpire decisions, and people wrongly given out were in fact received wrong decisions. There's no where to hide about it. It doesn't matter a bowler looks right in naked eye. To label him as clean, he should be tested. Now only people with "dodgy actions" are tested. For me every single bowler must be tested before debut.

I don't see any value in saying, "Well all bowlers were proven to throw under the old system" every time someone brings up someone with a dodgy action now. The mistake was in the measurements applied, not in the actions of the bowlers.

And I don't see any value in saying "Bowler A was a chucker because he was called" forgetting later that he was cleared by science and still refusing to accept it.

 

[honestbharani]

Read my earlier post.



Read my earlier post.

I did and I have no problems with most things you said there.. Just answered your question reg. bringing up Riggins...

 

[Cruxdude]

An interesting video on Shoaib Akthar's hyperextension. Michael Holding on Shoaib Akhtar's hyperextension - YouTube

 

[Top_Cat]

Many LBWs and run out would have been given not out (or out) without the 3rd umpire when there was no technology around. But that doesn't make no 3rd umpire decisions superior to 3rd umpire decisions, and people wrongly given out were in fact received wrong decisions. There's no where to hide about it. It doesn't matter a bowler looks right in naked eye. To label him as clean, he should be tested. Now only people with "dodgy actions" are tested. For me every single bowler must be tested before debut.

Yeah but surely simple economics take over here. Think it's fair to say that the vast majority of blokes would be under the 15 degree limit so to make every international bowler be tested would be a fairly expensive and time-consuming process to solve a problem which isn't really a problem. If it was cheap and quick, no reason not to do it, though.

And I don't see any value in saying "Bowler A was a chucker because he was called" forgetting later that he was cleared by science and still refusing to accept it.

Absolutely. For some reason it sounds like you're telling him off when he's pretty much agreeing with all you said....

 

[Debris]

It was set at 10 degrees for fast men, 7.5 for fast medium and 5 for spinners some where in mid 90s if I am not mistaken.

And bolded part, 3rd umpire would give a good reason why it is flawed.

Oh yeah, forgot about that abortion of a law that they had for a year or two. I believe that you are correct, although if anyone could pass it McGrath could.