• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

BoyBrumby migrates to Australia. Develops gadget.

zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
No need - I asked the question confidently expecting that some knowledgable scientific type here would be able to explain. Which you have. Thanks.
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
BackFootPunch said:
If this technology proves that, say, 40% of bowlers chuck according to current laws (including some who look to have clean actions) should the laws get changed or should all those bowlers have to fix their actions?
Click to expand...
That's a very interesting question - I think it would depend on how much the difference is - e.g do the 40% generally bowl within another value which could then be the new standard? On the other hand, if 20% bowl within 17 degrees but another 20% bowl at 45 degrees - that would make the system unworkable. Or maybe they could come up with another metric for judging a chuck, for example elbow extension angular velocity.

However, this won't be the case because by now many, many bowlers have been analysed and it's found that most of them do in fact bowl less than 15.5 degrees or so.
 
Last edited:
benchmark00

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
marc71178 said:
That's no different from previous law changes then really is it?
Click to expand...
I would say that it's a little bit more significant than others.

A good analogy would be how all the swimming world records which were recorded using, the now outlawed, speed suits have a * next to them.
 
Agent Nationaux

Agent Nationaux

International Coach
So let me get this right marc. You think that if the ICC does change the 15 degree rule, no one will complain and everyone will be happy about it, hold hands and smile. I doubt it, hence why I think it will create a problem. For example the DRS being a problem at the moment and that isn't even relating to a rule change.
 
Last edited:
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
It would be interesting if bowlers like Anderson and Steyn, who have clean looking actions and have never been under any scrutiny whatsoever were found to be over the 15 degree limit.
 
wellAlbidarned

wellAlbidarned

International Coach
Dunno about Anderson, but Steyn is one guy who I definitely reckon will be a fair bit closer to the limit than most would've thought.
 
Top_Cat

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm firmly in the Murali camp on the issue of throwing but a few things do come to mind when it comes up on a regular basis;

1) Flexion and extension are completely different things to hyper-extension. The 15 degrees only relates to the former because they are the only ones somewhat under voluntary control and so are exempt from being included in the measurement (aside from quantifying where one begins to measure). If some freakish bowler's arm bends 30 degrees behind the join of his elbow at the point of delivery and he's able to bowl 150Km because of it, it may look like a chuck but it's not. This is why still photos were, remain and always will be totally pointless in threads like this and I take it as a marker of an agenda at play when someone posts one.

2) Call me cynical but I'm always somewhat dumbfounded when people are surprised that all bowlers throw to a degree or, worse, deny that some do. I mean, really, you're moving flexible levers with more flexible connective tissue joined together with bendy and stretchy muscles through a non-vacuum as fast as possible (most of the time). What else would you expect? It's impossible for a human not to have some degree of flex/extend in their delivery and it would be helpful if people abandoned that fiction.

3) The 15 degrees was developed with respect to when a throw becomes visible, the implicit assumption being that at that point, the advantages that come with throwing the ball, instead of bowling it, align with that measurement. But what if it doesn't? What if, in reality, spinners are able to gain enough of an 'unfair' advantage at 10 degrees of flexion to make them international standard bowlers? Is it the same for everyone or largely an individual thing? Can this advantage be be measured and, if so, should it and bowlers sanctioned? Is it 'unfair'?

4) On the device itself, although voluntary at the moment, will all players have to wear it all the time eventually? If not, and, say, you only make bowlers who are being investigated wear it, won't this have the same problems as measuring them in a lab (read: gaming) if they feel they do have something to hide? Hot day 5, two wickets to win, oppo needs 20, will a bowler hold back if they're wearing these sensors?
 
Last edited:
benchmark00

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Top_Cat said:
I'm firmly in the Murali camp on the issue of throwing but a few things do come to mind when it comes up on a regular basis;

1) Flexion and extension are completely different things to hyper-extension. The 15 degrees only relates to the former because they are the only ones somewhat under voluntary control and so are exempt from being included in the measurement (aside from quantifying where one begins to measure). If some freakish bowler's arm bends 30 degrees behind the join of his elbow at the point of delivery and he's able to bowl 150Km because of it, it may look like a chuck but it's not. This is why still photos were, remain and always will be totally pointless in threads like this and I take it as a marker of an agenda at play when someone posts one.

2) Call me cynical but I'm always somewhat dumbfounded when people are surprised that all bowlers throw to a degree or, worse, deny that some do. I mean, really, you're moving flexible levers with more flexible connective tissue joined together with bendy and stretchy muscles through a non-vacuum as fast as possible (most of the time). What else would you expect? It's impossible for a human not to have some degree of flex/extend in their delivery and it would be helpful if people abandoned that fiction.

3) The 15 degrees was developed with respect to when a throw becomes visible, the implicit assumption being that at that point, the advantages that come with throwing the ball, instead of bowling it, align with that measurement. But what if it doesn't? What if, in reality, spinners are able to gain enough of an 'unfair' advantage at 10 degrees of flexion to make them international standard bowlers? Is it the same for everyone or largely an individual thing? Can this advantage be be measured and, if so, should it and bowlers sanctioned? Is it 'unfair'?

4) On the device itself, although voluntary at the moment, will all players have to wear it all the time eventually? If not, and, say, you only make bowlers who are being investigated wear it, won't this have the same problems as measuring them in a lab (read: gaming) if they feel they do have something to hide? Hot day 5, two wickets to win, oppo needs 20, will a bowler hold back if they're wearing these sensors?
Click to expand...
Cliffs???
 
benchmark00

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The common sense interpretation of what a chuck constitutes is not that there must be 0 degrees flexion, nor is it that 14.99 degrees is a legal delivery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top