So the ICC evidence is finally in - and apparently even Glen McGrath chucks...

[a spambot]

now, are you telling me that a flexed arm is outside the arm/elbows natural range of motion?

 

[honestbharani]

Bio-mechanist Rene Ferdinands added, in disagreement with Speed (July 22, 2004):

World-leading biomechanist Rene Ferdinands believes the International Cricket Council will soon be forced to change their regulations on calling spinners for chucking.
​

The Waikato University research fellow, who has a doctorate in the biomechanics of bowling, says the current regulations, which allow 10 degrees elbow-straightening for quicks, 7.5 for medium pacers and five for spinners, have no factual basis for the slow bowlers.
​

"It's not based on any studies," he said.
​

"I think future studies will show the possible elbow extension for slow bowlers will be 10 degrees or more."
​

Ferdinands said studies on pace bowlers had led to previous law changes in the game.
​

"Before the law change to 10 degrees everybody was throwing according to the laws," he said.
​

"There was no elbow extension allowed.
​

"Every bowler basically bends and straightens their arm. You have to, you can't do it otherwise."
​

"We need studies so the laws can better reflect the mechanics of bowling."1.22​

The Murali Mystery - An analysis of the bowling controversy


Read up. You might just understand.
​

 

[a spambot]

you didn't answer my question

 

[honestbharani]

now, are you telling me that a flexed arm is outside the arm/elbows natural range of motion?

no, it just means you are able to flex that particular joint beyond the normal possible angles for any person who actually doesn't have hyperextension.. Again, the angles and degrees are based on how much the joint/arm deviates from its starting position. No one has said that the starting position has to be a perfect straight line.


You do understand that angles exist and can be measured outside of deviation from straight lines, don't you?

 

[a spambot]

no, it just means you are able to flex that particular joint beyond the normal possible angles for any person who actually doesn't have hyperextension.. Again, the angles and degrees are based on how much the joint/arm deviates from its starting position. No one has said that the starting position has to be a perfect straight line.

i think we're arguing about 2 separate things now. my point is that murali's arm is in a flexed position whereas mcgrath's arm and imo likely the arm of most every other bowler is fully extended and any straightening comes from a hyperextension of the elbow.

fully extended arm =

(i couldn't find a better picture, sory.)
hyper extension =

flexed arm =

 

[Scaly piscine]

Seriously, that's your argument against the Doosra?

Similar arguments were used against reverse swing when all countries couldn't do it a while back(Mostly by fans/players of countries who couldn't themselves). Game evolves and new variations come in and rightly so as long as they are within the rules.

And the rules evolve over the time too, like almost all the rules have right from LBW to playing conditions. And this thread in itself is a example of why this specific rule had too.

Reverse swing was never illegal 99.99999...% of the time like bowling a doosra was. Ball tampering was illegal and still is.

You've yet to come up with a reason why the rules should have been changed to allow an otherwise average bowler like Ajmal to suddenly become the most effective spin bowler around because he's prepared to chuck and see what he can get away with. That is not an evolution of cricket. Hell why not just do away with the 15 degrees altogether, just run up and throw it at the stumps like Ajmal does with his 'teesra'.

Stick your hand up folks if you want more bowling like Botha instead of proper spin bowling like Swann.

 

[zaremba]

Why? EIther it's chucking, or it's not. Who cares what it "looks" like?

This is true.

However it leads to a funny point, which has bothered me for some time, which is why have they settled on 15 degrees as the acceptable limit? The answer is that this is what's apparently perceptible using the naked eye. Yet as you've rightly pointed out, whether or not it "looks" like chucking with the naked eye is simply irrelevant. The truth is, therefore, that the 15 degree allowance is wholly arbitrary.

 

[Doctor]

To revisit what was said a few pages earlier, only Murali, to our naked eyes, creates the illusion that he is chucking. Yet the rules dictate that, because his deliveries are within the fifteen degree limit, that he is legal. On the other hand, McGrath doesn't appear to be chucking, yet he comes very close to the legal limit. Because of the flaws of the human-eye, it is difficult for on-field umpires to adjudicate the legality of deliveries correctly, and moreover and more importantly, to adjudicate them fairly.

If one young cricket hopeful were to model his or her action on Murali, or perhaps Ajmal, then there a serious risk that is carried regarding him or her chucking in an attempt to copy their idol, or, at least, create the illusion of it. Now, I'm not Sri Lankan, but I imagine there are a large number of people attempting to emulate his action in that nation alone, and it would not be viable to rigorously test all of these people to test the legality of the delivery.

I'm not sure my message is being conveyed as how I want it to, because I'm feeling the effects of last-nights endeavors, so I'll be a little more precise: the rules should be altered so that 'chucking' is able to be detected with the human eye, so that the integrity of scorecards is not tampered. To be perfectly honest, I don't believe that this is practical in any way, but in all merits neither is calculating the bends of the 3D-planes and other mathematical jargon for every delivery.

 

[silentstriker]

Stick your hand up folks if you want more bowling like Botha instead of proper spin bowling like Swann.

You're making an unfair comparison -Swann is a better player. It's would be like me asking if you want more Muralis or more Swanns (well I would want more Muralis, regardless of the fact that I know many wouldn't).

Frankly, I don't give a **** if you bowl like Botha or Swann (in terms of aesthetics).

 

[Cevno]

Reverse swing was never illegal 99.99999...% of the time like bowling a doosra was. Ball tampering was illegal and still is.

You've yet to come up with a reason why the rules should have been changed to allow an otherwise average bowler like Ajmal to suddenly become the most effective spin bowler around because he's prepared to chuck and see what he can get away with. That is not an evolution of cricket. Hell why not just do away with the 15 degrees altogether, just run up and throw it at the stumps like Ajmal does with his 'teesra'.

Stick your hand up folks if you want more bowling like Botha instead of proper spin bowling like Swann.

See the first post of this thread. That is why the limit was raised.

Basically your argument is that Glenn Mcgrath should be allowed to bend his arm to 12 degrees even if he is bowling quicker as a result, but Saeed Ajmal shouldn't because he turns it away from a right hander as a result.
And your logic behind that is - Because nobody else has done it in the history of the game before recent times, nobody should now either, even if the law allows it. And if he does, then the law should be changed for spinners to ensure he doesn't, but not for seamers because they have apparently gone over the limit longer.
This i find hypocritical tbh and somewhat nonsensical.


And btw, that Botha comparison isn't right as SS pointed out and as far as reverse swing is concerned similar suggestions that working on the ball so much is illegal and never been done before/everyone is tampering/ should be outlawed etc.... were made when not all countries had learnt it.

 

[Cevno]

To revisit what was said a few pages earlier, only Murali, to our naked eyes, creates the illusion that he is chucking. Yet the rules dictate that, because his deliveries are within the fifteen degree limit, that he is legal. On the other hand, McGrath doesn't appear to be chucking, yet he comes very close to the legal limit. Because of the flaws of the human-eye, it is difficult for on-field umpires to adjudicate the legality of deliveries correctly, and moreover and more importantly, to adjudicate them fairly.

If one young cricket hopeful were to model his or her action on Murali, or perhaps Ajmal, then there a serious risk that is carried regarding him or her chucking in an attempt to copy their idol, or, at least, create the illusion of it. Now, I'm not Sri Lankan, but I imagine there are a large number of people attempting to emulate his action in that nation alone, and it would not be viable to rigorously test all of these people to test the legality of the delivery.

I'm not sure my message is being conveyed as how I want it to, because I'm feeling the effects of last-nights endeavors, so I'll be a little more precise: the rules should be altered so that 'chucking' is able to be detected with the human eye, so that the integrity of scorecards is not tampered. To be perfectly honest, I don't believe that this is practical in any way, but in all merits neither is calculating the bends of the 3D-planes and other mathematical jargon for every delivery.

Spinners are always more easily detectable to the Human eye than seamers, so that isn't a completely fair comparison.

 

[Burgey]

Stick your hand up folks if you want more bowling like Botha instead of proper spin bowling like Swann.

As someone who doesn't support England, the more we see of Swann the better tbh.

 

[Jono]

Just with regard to "we want actions that look conventional", does that mean you don't like Malinga? We all know he doesn't chuck, but nevertheless you probably don't want your kid trying to emulate his style of bowling. Does that mean we outlaw it? Obviously not.

(ftr I've heard random hack cricket fans call Malinga a chucker, so annoying).

 

[Pothas]

Just with regard to "we want actions that look conventional", does that mean you don't like Malinga? We all know he doesn't chuck, but nevertheless you probably don't want your kid trying to emulate his style of bowling. Does that mean we outlaw it? Obviously not.

(ftr I've heard random hack cricket fans call Malinga a chucker, so annoying).

The bloody Malinga thing is such a pain, sat behind someone last year who kept banging on about it and he wasn't even playing.

Could not care less about the looking conventional thing at all, Ajmal can do a handstand, face the wrong way and bowl like Paul Adams if he wants. Just think this new delivery looks worse than the Doosra and has to be tested.

 

[Scaly piscine]

See the first post of this thread. That is why the limit was raised.

Basically your argument is that Glenn Mcgrath should be allowed to bend his arm to 12 degrees even if he is bowling quicker as a result, but Saeed Ajmal shouldn't because he turns it away from a right hander as a result.
And your logic behind that is - Because nobody else has done it in the history of the game before recent times, nobody should now either, even if the law allows it. And if he does, then the law should be changed for spinners to ensure he doesn't, but not for seamers because they have apparently gone over the limit longer.
This i find hypocritical tbh and somewhat nonsensical.


And btw, that Botha comparison isn't right as SS pointed out and as far as reverse swing is concerned similar suggestions that working on the ball so much is illegal and never been done before/everyone is tampering/ should be outlawed etc.... were made when not all countries had learnt it.

I find a lot of that nonsensical, and you seem to have ignored what has already been said and parrots queries I've already answered. McGrath occasionally bends his arm 12 degrees because it's not possible to bowl fast without it happening. 99% of fast bowlers occasionally bend their arm past 10 degrees. Do we want all 99% of fast bowlers banned? Of course not they're part of the game. But the game doesn't need artificial deliveries introduced to make spinners more effective. Doosras are not cricket and not good for cricket.

Botha's bowling is hideous. That he's worse than Swann is not the point. You will see more of guys like him and less of people who are bowling spin as how it was bowled for over a century. The rulings from 2004 make it perfectly acceptable to chuck like Botha, there are lots of doosras about already but there's going to be an epidemic when the next generation sees Ajmal throwing his team to victory.

There are plenty of legitimate ways to bowl, we don't need chucking in cricket.

 

[Doctor]

Just with regard to "we want actions that look conventional", does that mean you don't like Malinga? We all know he doesn't chuck, but nevertheless you probably don't want your kid trying to emulate his style of bowling. Does that mean we outlaw it? Obviously not.

(ftr I've heard random hack cricket fans call Malinga a chucker, so annoying).

It's not necessarily the conventional or unothordox styles that irk me, and perhaps others as well. In fact, unconventional styles can be very intriguing, and it's not just limited to bowling. Unconventional batsman somehow make use of their style to succeed, and I'm sure it wouldn't bother anyone. It's when the delivery actually looks like it was bowled with a crooked arm that people start to question.

 

[Migara]

Can't say as I have studied McGrath's arm bend tbh. It never looked like chucking live, the title of this thread is actually the first time I've ever considered such a suggestion. Will need to inspect further.

Spin vs Pace is probably as ridiculous as you consider comparing Ajmal to Murali. And really, I'm no physician. I'm not even a bowling technique officianado. If you want me to disect the actions of each bowler and explain the mechanics, I'm afraid I'll disappoint you.

Don't think that makes my thoughts irrelevant though.

Once again massive misconception. It was shown Murali's arm speed was much more than McGrath's. Close to Shoaibs. So different amounts based on different bowling styles is another massive fail. Most of these dodgy bowlers do have exceptionally high arm speeds easily larger than fast bowlers.

 

[TNT]

Interesting point here is that the ICC had the technology in 2004 to declare that McGrath chucks without testing him in the lab, they just used a 250frames per second camera but now in 2012 they dont have the technology to determine if bowlers chuck unless the test them in a lab.

 

[ankitj]

ah the same old debate about spinners chucking. Its the biggest non issue out there. Spinners don't threaten physical injury if they chuck or throw, so I don't think there's any real need to have rules preventing that. Get me more bowlers that can bowl doosras, teesras, carrom balls etc and leave batsman look stupid.

 

[Pothas]

Its cricket, its batting and bowling.