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

[Spark]

Buahaha!

3D action on 2D films are the ones that apologetics post not scientific evidence. McGrath extended it 12 degrees and so was Pollock. Murali straightened it less than that for the off break.

You do know he used the word flexing, right?

 

[Migara]

if you can't tell just by watching him bowl that he isn't flexing his arm then i'm sorry but i just don't know what to tell you.

So this guy has a super fine eye that could exactly measure the extension of 10 degrees in a bowler who bowls 85mph?

mate go and replace the 3rd umpire for beginning. Then we can use you as the hotspot and hawkeye with few upgrades

 

[a spambot]

You do know he used the word flexing, right?

that's the key right there. i don't have any problems with guys who's elbows bend beyond their normal range of motion and then straighten under the stress of bowling, not even guys like shoaib. what i do have a problem with are bowlers who, deliberately or not, straighten their arms from a flexed position because that is 100% controllable.

 

[ankitj]

Nah disagree. Chucking isn't just about nullifying advantage, it's a fundamental tenet of the sport. It's one of the most important things about cricket that makes it cricket. I'm all for variations, and I have no real issues with the law as it stands but we should be absolutely hammering in that the idea that cricket is about as straight an arm as possible.

There was a time when under-arm bowling was 'fundamental tenet' of cricket, now it's illegal. That's a much bigger change over time than bowling a doosra leading to more bending of arm. I am cool with this. If others are not, I guess it's a matter of taste.

To be fair, there are some other changes that I detest, example T20. Though that I just consider a different sport that I don't particularly like.

 

[a spambot]

So this guy has a super fine eye that could exactly measure the extension of 10 degrees in a bowler who bowls 85mph?

mate go and replace the 3rd umpire for beginning. Then we can use you as the hotspot and hawkeye with few upgrades

that's a pretty good strawman but if you actually read what i'm posting you'll discover that i'm not actually talking about angles here, i'm talking about the very definition of chucking.

 

[Migara]

You do know he used the word flexing, right?

Nah he used the following.

mcgrath never straightened his arm from a flexed position. the perfect bowling arm.

Exactly what rule states and exactly what scientifically prove. Mcgrath extended it 12 degrees from flexed [position during his bowling stride. End of story.

 

[Spark]

There was a time when under-arm bowling was 'fundamental tenet' of cricket, now it's illegal. That's a much bigger change over time than bowling a doosra leading to more bending of arm. I am cool with this. If others are not, I guess it's a matter of taste.

To be fair, there are some other changes that I detest, example T20. Though that I just consider a different sport that I don't particularly like.

So what do you reckon we should teach kids? "You can throw it a little bit, that's alright so long as the result is better"?

Can't accept that at all tbh.

My concern isn't really over Ajmal, over whether this delivery is technically chucking or that and whether that's fair at the Test level. My main concern is the stuff vic, Marcuss etc. was posting about where people at lower levels are merrily chucking it down.

 

[Migara]

that's a pretty good strawman but if you actually read what i'm posting you'll discover that i'm not actually talking about angles here, i'm talking about the very definition of chucking.

That is pretty much the point. if you eye is good enough to disgnose hyperextension from normal extension with good accuracy, line decisions of cricket should be a piece of cake.

No 3rd umpire please!

 

[Spark]

That is pretty much the point. if you eye is good enough to disgnose hyperextension from normal extension with good accuracy, line decisions of cricket should be a piece of cake.

No 3rd umpire please!

Hyperextension is not flexing. It is fairly obvious what the difference is.

 

[a spambot]

telling hyper extension from flexing is like telling left from right. any one can do it, i'm not claiming to be able to measure exact angles or anything but you feel free to continue arguing against a point nobody even made if you'd like.

 

[uvelocity]

End of story.

I'm a bit disappointed you can't be bothered to open your mind, Migara. Here's a tidbit from what you haven't been bothered to read;

The elbow angle profile of the animated delivery of Thrower 6 shows an elbow that is flexed initially up to 63º and then extends through release. This action has the properties of a throw despite the bowler only having an elbow extension of 12.6º from shoulder height to ball release. Under any proposed bowling law that only stipulates an elbow extension limit of 15º, this delivery would be perfectly legal. Such an action has the potential to generate higher ball speeds than the conventional bowling action, and does not have the mechanical characteristics of bowling.

 

[Migara]

I'm a bit disappointed you can't be bothered to open your mind, Migara. Here's a tidbit from what you haven't been bothered to read;

A bowler who keeps the ball in front of his face with a fully flexed elbow, will extend in 180 degrees when he releases the ball. That is the reason why to consider extension from the shoulder height. There are problems with it I admit (like people who finish their extension 45 degrees before the release of the ball and the rest arm is ram rod straight), but these are finer points to be discussed in a broader frame work.

 

[Migara]

telling hyper extension from flexing is like telling left from right. any one can do it, i'm not claiming to be able to measure exact angles or anything but you feel free to continue arguing against a point nobody even made if you'd like.

heck, still you are wromg. prove that McGrath hyper extended.

I thought teaching a cow how to do calculus was difficult.

 

[Migara]

Hyperextension is not flexing. It is fairly obvious what the difference is.

It's obvious when it is gross. But the point is to prove that McGrath's 12 degree extension was hyper extension, not normal extension. And the apologetic keep failing this.

 

[a spambot]

look mate if you can't tell the difference by watching him bowl then i'm not going to bother arguing the point any further because nothing i say will change your mind.

 

[uvelocity]

There are problems with it I admit (like people who finish their extension 45 degrees before the release of the ball and the rest arm is ram rod straight), but these are finer points to be discussed in a broader frame work.

I don't understand what you mean here. But what I am getting at is comparing the action of McGrath or Holding or Fraser to Murali & Ajmal doosra and saying they are within a couple of percent of one another surely leads to the possiblility that the test is not relevant.

The article I linked to shows that the current method of testing cannot seperate what looks like chucking from what looks like bowling. But they propose an alternative which does work.

That the ICC firstly utilised a system (5, 7.5, 10) which was fundamentally flawed surely leaves their subsequent solutions open to inspection.

 

[Migara]

look mate if you can't tell the difference by watching him bowl then i'm not going to bother arguing the point any further because nothing i say will change your mind.

What I ask is you to prove McGrath's 12 degree extension found by ICC panel was hyper extension. Without beating about the bush bring out the evidence you have.

 

[a spambot]

a working pair of eyes

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hyperextension isn't included in the calculations, as far as I am aware. That's why Shoaib was allowed, as his total flexion included hyperextension with his crazy elbow was more than 15 degrees, but the amount to the point of a dead straight arm was less than 15.

 

[Migara]

a working pair of eyes

Buahahaa!