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

[Spark]

Buahahaa!

Come on. Debate reasonably or don't debate at all.

 

[uvelocity]

Here's a well written blog post related to the heavy reading study I posted earlier. This isn't so heavy.

Pappus' plane - cricket stats: What is a chuck?

Now we get onto the other problem of the 15-degree rule: you can chuck without straightening your elbow 15 degrees.

 

[Migara]

Here's a well written blog post related to the heavy reading study I posted earlier. This isn't so heavy.

Pappus' plane - cricket stats: What is a chuck?

Have read it and had made all the queries from the author, who found no concrete answers. It's another method, worth trying, but should be tried on everybody.

 

[Migara]

Come on. Debate reasonably or don't debate at all.

He has no answer to what I've asked. just beating about the bush and looking like a joke. When scientific evidence is asked, this bloke says eyes are the evidence. How do you expect to react to such a person than laughing off.

 

[Prince EWS]

When scientific evidence is asked, this bloke says eyes are the evidence.

Are we talking about Spambot or Cevno?

 

[uvelocity]

Ha, and here's something quite perceptive, before the fact. from Mukul Kesavan.

Degrees of guilt | Old Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Should the ICC not have the stomach for the uproar that will follow, it can go the more permissive route and peg the tolerance limit at 10 degrees for everyone. It will change bowling as we know it by encouraging the Lees, Akhtars, Harbhajans and Muralitharans at the expense of more orthodox bowlers....

 

[a spambot]

you asked how i could tell hyper extension from flexing. i answered. i have a working pair of eyes and a basic knowledge of how the human arm works. you apparently don't

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Do you actually have any solutions, though? The crux of the problem is that a key law of the game is totally unenforceable. And as a result, players that are willing to break that rule have a huge unfair advantage over players that aren't, and that situation devalues the entire sport. Legalising chucking solves the problem. I know it's a radical and brash change to a game that we love the way it is, but do you have a better idea? Seems to me the only other options are to put it entirely at the discretion of the umpire and litter the game with disgustingly arbitrary rulings or do nothing and let chucking ruin the game from the lower levels up.

 

[a spambot]

Do you actually have any solutions, though?

extremely harsh punishments. i guarantee you'll see much less chucking at all levels the moment someone cops a life ban for doing it.

 

[silentstriker]

you asked how i could tell hyper extension from flexing. i answered. i have a working pair of eyes and a basic knowledge of how the human arm works. you apparently don't

lol no.

Human eyes are notoriously easy to fool. You can look online for all sorts of things that'll mislead the human eye.

Actual evidence please.

 

[a spambot]

lol no.

Human eyes are notoriously easy to fool. You can look online for all sorts of things that'll mislead the human eye.

Actual evidence please.

this again? if you can't tell hyperextension from flexing then you are literally blind.

 

[Prince EWS]

Isn't the difference between flexing and hyper-extension merely whether or not the starting point is greater than 180 degrees though? Have I got that right? For example (and it's only an example; these aren't facts) McGrath could be straightening from 190 degrees to 179 degrees while Ajmal's straightening could be from 170 degrees to 180 degrees. Despite McGrath straightening his arm more, technically, it definitely sits a lot better with me in terms of the spirit of the original bowling law (which was technically flawed but not IMO spiritually flawed) and what I think cricket is than what Ajmal does in that example.

I mean it's hard to tell in live motion sometimes but I fail to believe a distinction couldn't be made when looking at someone's action in super slow motion. Could that not be tested independently - could we not move the limit from 15 to 10 or 8 or something but only make straightening of a flex count and not straightening of a hyper-extension?

I'm not bleating about specific actions here (probably shouldn't have used names in my example tbh); merely asking why we couldn't do that if it fit in more with what we traditionally saw as a legal bowling action.

 

[silentstriker]

this again? if you can't tell hyperextension from flexing then you are literally blind.

The fact that you think you can by watching it on TV:

 

[silentstriker]

Isn't the difference between flexing and hyper-extension merely whether or not the starting point is greater than 180 degrees though? Have I got that right? For example (and it's only an example; these aren't facts) McGrath could be straightening from 190 degrees to 179 degrees while Ajmal's straightening could be from 170 degrees to 180 degrees. Despite McGrath straightening his arm more, technically, it definitely sits a lot better with me in terms of the spirit of the original bowling law (which was technically flawed but not IMO spiritually flawed) and what I think cricket is than what Ajmal does in that example.

I mean it's hard to tell in live motion sometimes but I fail to believe a distinction couldn't be made when looking at someone's action in super slow motion. Could that not be tested independently - could we not move the limit from 15 to 10 or 8 or something but only make straightening of a flex count and not straightening of a hyper-extension?

I'm not bleating about specific actions here (probably shouldn't have used names in my example tbh); merely asking why we couldn't do that if it fit in more with what we traditionally saw as a legal bowling action.

Yes but hyperextension is NOT included in the 15 degree rule.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes but hyperextension is NOT included in the 15 degree rule.

We already do exactly what I just said then?

So why are we talking about hyper-extension?

 

[a spambot]

cool 4chan meme bro

 

[silentstriker]

We already do exactly what I just said then?

So why are we talking about hyper-extension?

AFAIK, the limit is 15 degrees plus hyperextension, and has been from the beginning. When McGrath was found to be chucking, his 12 degrees did not include hyperextension.

I didn't bring up hyperextension, I have no idea why we are talking about it.

 

[honestbharani]

i maintain that any straightening of a flexed arm is chucking. straightening a hyperextended arm ala shoiab/lee is fine but straightening from a flexed position is chucking, always has been chucking and always will be in my mind.

Thank God both the ICC and most people who follow the game have more sense than to follow your stupid definitions..

 

[a spambot]

Thank God both the ICC and most people who follow the game have more sense than to follow your stupid definitions..

same definition that was followed for 100 years by people twice as smart as you and worked fine until you know who came along

 

[Prince EWS]

AFAIK, the limit is 15 degrees plus hyperextension, and has been from the beginning. When McGrath was found to be chucking, his 12 degrees did not include hyperextension.

I didn't bring up hyperextension, I have no idea why we are talking about it.

Fair enough.

It makes all of Spambots posts entirely redundant. The ICC actually agrees with his definition! Like the one hb just quoted:

i maintain that any straightening of a flexed arm is chucking. straightening a hyperextended arm ala shoiab/lee is fine but straightening from a flexed position is chucking, always has been chucking and always will be in my mind.

The ICC evidently agrees 100%, but McGrath was found to straighten 11 degrees even when you took his hyper-extension out of it.