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

[honestbharani]

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

should have started with McGrath.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But Jack, is this the ONLY thing that players get away with at the club level? In my opinion, there are a number of things players get away with at that level because they never play at a higher level and this is just one of them.

Without any sort of consequences, yeah.

I'm guessing you are referring to stuff like sledging and that, but they can get pulled into line by umpires, disciplined by tribunals, etc. Dissent gets pulled up a fair bit too.

 

[honestbharani]

well, I am not sure how the club scene works in Australia but I am talking about guys getting away due to biased umpiring, using runners etc etc.. Heck, I know of bowlers who take wickets due to biased pitch preparations.. I just think this is like one of those, that are always going to be there at a lower standard..

 

[Doctor]

well, I am not sure how the club scene works in Australia but I am talking about guys getting away due to biased umpiring, using runners etc etc.. Heck, I know of bowlers who take wickets due to biased pitch preparations.. I just think this is like one of those, that are always going to be there at a lower standard...

A lower social-class lady, who one day imagines being some sort of famous actress or celebrity, has many problems. She is addicted to various drugs, including alcohol, and to sustain her addiction she gets her money from selling herself.

Let's not try to help her find a better career, or prevent her drug-use, simply because she has other problems, right? Wrong. Eliminating one problem is better than leaving it there.

 

[Scaly piscine]

A lower social-class lady, who one day imagines being some sort of famous actress or celebrity, has many problems. She is addicted to various drugs, including alcohol, and to sustain her addiction she gets her money from selling herself.

Let's not try to help her find a better career, or prevent her drug-use, simply because she has other problems, right? Wrong. Eliminating one problem is better than leaving it there.

True, but lets leave your [insert female relation here] out of this etc. etc.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Bending ur elbow at point of delivery helps you hurl down the ball faster too.. That is not an unfair advantage?

If you can point out where in this conversation I've said fast bowlers should be able to bend their arm more than the allowable amount I'll be happy to run through CW nude. Unless I'm mistaken, the argument here is against bowlers who consciously bend their arm inwards and then straighten it again, not hyperextension. So I'm assuming you're talking about the former. While we're at it, can someone tell me why we're apparently referring to the current limits for blokes like Ajmal and Murali, but the old limits for McGrath and anyone else who wasn't actually suspected of throwing when we talk about 99% of bowlers throwing? If we're going to go back to saying someone with an action like McGrath 'throws' then we're obviously back at the old limits. Which means Murali's over again, and so is Ajmal. (I'm not one who thinks Murali throws either by the way, since he was tested a number of times and cleared I have no problems with him).

Generally speaking, it's far easier to bend your arm bowling off-spin than it is bowling quick. It's almost impossible bowling leggies. (and by 'bend' I mean your arm moving in towards the shoulder, not out due to hyperextension).

Does anyone know where we can see the ICC report on all this when they declared nearly everyone chucks by the way? Personally I don't believe the original rules were ever supposed to implicate someone with an action like McGrath, Pollock, Gillespie, Malinga. Donald, Lillee, Khan, etc etc. It's interesting that the ICC chose to throw everyone in the pot.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I mean unfair in the sense of being almost unethical in the context of the game. Bowling wides to deny scoring opportunities is almost unethical, hence penalised.

Don't hurt yourself just because someone holds an unorthodox view

BTW who other than me finds Murali's action beautiful and mesmerising?

If you gain an advantage from it then it's unethical. If you can't deliver the ball within the limits allowed then you shouldn't be playing. Given the amount of people that have to be tested I'd suggest most bowlers can bowl within the limits, so those who can't shouldn't receive any leeway.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nice answer

Seems to be the go to picture when the poster doesn't have anything to say. Care to explain? Or would that require scouring the internet for more pictures?

 

[Doctor]

True, but lets leave your [insert female relation here] out of this etc. etc.

In hindsight, my analogy wasn't very accurate, but the sentiment was there.


EDIT:

If you gain an advantage from it then it's unethical.

This, and the fact that bowling as opposed to throwing is a defining quality of cricket, sum up my feelings of this topic aptly. Nonetheless, whether or not Ajmal's delivery exceeds the legal limit shouldn't detract from the skill he has displayed.

 

[BoyBrumby]

:

This, and the fact that bowling as opposed to throwing is a defining quality of cricket, sum up my feelings of this topic aptly. Nonetheless, whether or not Ajmal's delivery exceeds the legal limit shouldn't detract from the skill he has displayed.

I'm not so sure. If he's throwing (and, frankly, he is) he's breaking a rule to gain an advantage. To my way of thinking that must detract from his performance.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm not so sure. If he's throwing (and, frankly, he is) he's breaking a rule to gain an advantage. To my way of thinking that must detract from his performance.

Yeah I agree. I can turn it square if I throw it, and I wouldn't think that should gain any accolades. Given my hand nearly touches my shoulder when I do it's highly unlikely I'd get away with it in a game...although if all they can do is report me after the match, then I'm not sure at what point I'd be stopped from doing so.

If you're using a method outside the rules to do something well then I'd think that surely detracts from what you're doing. Ajmal needs to be tested to clear everything up.

 

[uvelocity]

Does anyone know where we can see the ICC report on all this when they declared nearly everyone chucks by the way?

The ICC's current tolerance of 15 degree elbow straightening (or 'extension'? not really sure of the difference) was based on a study done by Porter, Elliott, and Hurrion during the 2004 Champions Trophy. Unfortunately, the full details of the study haven't been released to the general public.

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

I personally wish we could get past McGrath;

When McGrath was found to be chucking, his 12 degrees did not include hyperextension..

Unless you can find something to back that up. I find that to be baiting Australians. No data has been released, the only quotes I've read say McGrath, along with Pollock and every other bowler in history had some arm flexion, up to 12°. Allowing up to 15° makes nearly every action, including perhaps 75% of properly illegal actions, permissable. To keep saying "McGrath chucks" is just baiting.

Proof that Muttiah Muralitharan does not chuck - YouTube

I can't get my head around Murali. On one hand he can bowl the doosra with an arm brace on, on the other hand he is registered with 14° flex and brings it down to 10° with practice. But I think his freakish shoulder means that maybe he could be the only one to be able to bowl it with no elbow flex - but only under controlled conditions, with the brace on. The flex with it off could be involuntry.

But why exactly is it bad to be allowing this? The definition has always been that if you straighten your arm from bent position or you bend your arm from a straight position, you are chucking. They then did all these tests and figured out everyone is doing one or the other and set a limit of 15 degrees as the maximum allowable flex, either way. Why exactly is the type of action described there suddenly termed as unfair and illegal?

Because maybe the people on the original ICC committee didn't understand the biomechanics of bowling/throwing. Perhaps the test does not determine between the two. Ethically speaking, it's because the intent of the law, and the difference with cricket, is the attempt to bowl with a straight arm. The law has become too loose, and allowed a technique not within the spirit of the game. I'd equate it more with aluminium bats, underarm bowling, deliberate wides and ball tampering.

You do understand that this word "chucking/throwing" has a completely arbitrary definition for cricket. No one ever had to prove anything. They could just as well tell us that we do not count the elbow angle and we simply take the shoulder angle for chucking, and that would be that. I am not sure of any laws that specifically mention the elbow angles.

Fair dinkum. Firstly you haven't seen Ajmal, next you don't know the rule.

3. Definition of fair delivery - the arm
A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler’s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

Law 24 (No ball) - Laws - Laws of Cricket - Laws & Spirit - Lord's

 

[Top_Cat]

Some fairly egregious misunderstanding of what constitutes chucking in this thread. I've said this before but it obviously needs to be said again.

The voluntary motion of the two arm levers between fully bent and fully straight = flexion/extension. The involuntary motion of the arm beyond the fully extended arm = hyperextension. The current rule only refers to the former, not the latter because, being involuntary, it is irrelevant. Anyone claiming otherwise is ****ing wrong.

The UWA study was published years ago but the reason you can't Google it is because it was published in a scientific journal. This means, if you want to read it, you need to pay. And those posting pictures of bowlers, can't think of anything more pointless because it flattens a 3D movement into 2D. Posting the pic below is on par for revelence to the debate;

 

[honestbharani]

If you can point out where in this conversation I've said fast bowlers should be able to bend their arm more than the allowable amount I'll be happy to run through CW nude. Unless I'm mistaken, the argument here is against bowlers who consciously bend their arm inwards and then straighten it again, not hyperextension. So I'm assuming you're talking about the former. While we're at it, can someone tell me why we're apparently referring to the current limits for blokes like Ajmal and Murali, but the old limits for McGrath and anyone else who wasn't actually suspected of throwing when we talk about 99% of bowlers throwing? If we're going to go back to saying someone with an action like McGrath 'throws' then we're obviously back at the old limits. Which means Murali's over again, and so is Ajmal. (I'm not one who thinks Murali throws either by the way, since he was tested a number of times and cleared I have no problems with him).

Generally speaking, it's far easier to bend your arm bowling off-spin than it is bowling quick. It's almost impossible bowling leggies. (and by 'bend' I mean your arm moving in towards the shoulder, not out due to hyperextension).

Does anyone know where we can see the ICC report on all this when they declared nearly everyone chucks by the way? Personally I don't believe the original rules were ever supposed to implicate someone with an action like McGrath, Pollock, Gillespie, Malinga. Donald, Lillee, Khan, etc etc. It's interesting that the ICC chose to throw everyone in the pot.

It was spambot who brought up McGrath and fast bowlers.. And no one is applying different goalposts for McGrath and Murali/Ajmal here, except for spambot a couple of others arguing that very point. They are the ones who, you know, think McGrath has hyperextension and that he never flexed his elbow while bowling, to any degree. Obviously, he is not a chucker and MUrali/Ajmal is.. That is why people here have brought up facts that showed that McGrath was just as much a "Chucker" as Murali/Ajmal, if that is how they define chucking.

 

[honestbharani]

If you gain an advantage from it then it's unethical. If you can't deliver the ball within the limits allowed then you shouldn't be playing. Given the amount of people that have to be tested I'd suggest most bowlers can bowl within the limits, so those who can't shouldn't receive any leeway.

The very point here is that those limits and rules were arbitrary and unfair in the first place.

 

[honestbharani]

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

I personally wish we could get past McGrath;


Unless you can find something to back that up. I find that to be baiting Australians. No data has been released, the only quotes I've read say McGrath, along with Pollock and every other bowler in history had some arm flexion, up to 12°. Allowing up to 15° makes nearly every action, including perhaps 75% of properly illegal actions, permissable. To keep saying "McGrath chucks" is just baiting.

Proof that Muttiah Muralitharan does not chuck - YouTube

I can't get my head around Murali. On one hand he can bowl the doosra with an arm brace on, on the other hand he is registered with 14° flex and brings it down to 10° with practice. But I think his freakish shoulder means that maybe he could be the only one to be able to bowl it with no elbow flex - but only under controlled conditions, with the brace on. The flex with it off could be involuntry.



Because maybe the people on the original ICC committee didn't understand the biomechanics of bowling/throwing. Perhaps the test does not determine between the two. Ethically speaking, it's because the intent of the law, and the difference with cricket, is the attempt to bowl with a straight arm. The law has become too loose, and allowed a technique not within the spirit of the game. I'd equate it more with aluminium bats, underarm bowling, deliberate wides and ball tampering.



Fair dinkum. Firstly you haven't seen Ajmal, next you don't know the rule.


Law 24 (No ball) - Laws - Laws of Cricket - Laws & Spirit - Lord's

I have not seen Ajmal's teesra. I have seen him bowl before you know.. And fair dinkum, the law refers to allowable flex of 15 degrees, either straightening or bending. I am pretty sure of that, even though it is not mentioned in the site.. You just can't hurl a cricket ball down 22 yards without bending a straight elbow or straightening a bent elbow.. I thought that was basic. Oh well.

I am pretty sure sledging does not go with the spirit of the game either. Yet no one raises a stink on that.

 

[Burgey]

I have not seen Ajmal's teesra. I have seen him bowl before you know.. And fair dinkum, the law refers to allowable flex of 15 degrees, either straightening or bending. I am pretty sure of that, even though it is not mentioned in the site.. You just can't hurl a cricket ball down 22 yards without bending a straight elbow or straightening a bent elbow.. I thought that was basic. Oh well.

I am pretty sure sledging does not go with the spirit of the game either. Yet no one raises a stink on that.

Haha what? Plenty of people raise a stink over sledging.

Whether someone throws under the rules, whatever they are, is a pretty central issue to the game.

 

[silentstriker]

Haha what? Plenty of people raise a stink over sledging.

Whether someone throws under the rules, whatever they are, is a pretty central issue to the game.

Haha I definitely do. I'm in the minority on the issue (as with a few other things ) but yea, people definitely raise sledging.

Throwing is fair too, and it's fair to question the teesra and have it (and any others) be tested. That's fine.

And it's also fair to disagree with the current rules, or the current implementation of the rules - I just wish some people would try to understand the issue a little bit besides coming up with the 'they changed the rules to legalize the doosra' which is just patently false.

 

[Migara]

So you're saying we haven't checked everyone!?

This 99.9% of bowlers chuck thing must be a bit of a fallacy then.

yes we have not checked every one.

But there is a term called random, representative sampling. In that sample 99.9% was found to be chucking. We are quite sure that it may be true representation of the whole population of bowlers. The panel did not talk if confidence intervals, and if they did, would have given an even better answer with a range.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Technically speaking, to get a definitive answer to three significant figures like that, you'd have to check at least 1000 bowlers, which I somehow doubt they did.