Chuckers

[uvelocity]

i'm not trying to wind up anyone but we've had this discussion 48 times in the last couple of years, and i got really interested and looked into everything i could find about it. nowhere was any figure on mcgrath, pollock or anybody else mentioned (except sarwan) the actual quote (which i have probably quoted half a dozen times on cw is

According to Derek Pringle in the Daily Telegraph, Murali is no different from the vast majority of his fellow players. The current law states that there should be no straightening or partial straightening of the bowling arm during delivery, and in-depth research has revealed that even bowlers like Glenn McGrath and Shaun Pollock, usually considered examplars of the classical action, occasionally go over the prescribed tolerance limit, bending their arms by as much as 12 degrees.

the key part being bowlers like

but yet migara keeps ****ing warmongering trying to say these guys chucked, to somehow make his countryman seem more legit.

when i was about 12 or something i was listening to the test where daryl hair noballed murali. we were on a family holiday in myall lakes and instead of swimming i had the car radio going with abc on listening to the cricket and i was cheering so hard that he was getting no-balled, absolutely loved it. years later i watched the video with him bowling in an arm brace and i can see now that he didn't ever cheat at all, and i'm completely convinced by murali's action. plus he is such a seeminly top bloke and nice fella you can only wish him the best.

but i think the biomechanics have it wrong, and again something that ive posted repeatedly is some nz research that suggests its not the amount of elbow flexion, but rather the rate or speed of elbow flexion that determines a chuck. at the end of the day the worst part about it all is the as usual lack of info that comes out of cricketing governing bodies, keeping fans in the dark about the facts and the process and creating controversies.

 

[Maximas]

The point Migara was making was that people who say the rules were changed for Murali are wrong, because it was found the old rules were being broken all the time. You earlier said Migara was telling a lie when he pointed out that Murali was straightening about the same as Pollock and Mcgrath, however in 2004 Murali's doosra was down to 10 degrees straightening - and McGrath was said to fluctuate between 8-10. How can you argue that other players were not cheating and that Murali was when the evidence showed everyone was breaking the rules? That is essentially the question that seems to be glossed over when people call Murali a cheat

 

[uvelocity]

i didnt say murali was cheating ****, read what i wrote

nowhere have i ever seen an official figure quoted for mcgrath

 

[uvelocity]

and anyway i still think they have the rules wrong

 

[Adders]

Am I missing something here but isn't it implied when they say "bowlers like", that McGrath, Pollock as well as others were exceeding the old 5 degrees rule??

What does it matter whether they have given them an official figure?? They were either within the limits or over it.

And Mr Cranky Pants Uvo, don't think Max ever said you called Murali a cheat..........but plenty the world over have and plenty still to this day believe the rules were changed to accommodate him, which is total BS.

 

[Maximas]

i didnt say murali was cheating ****, read what i wrote

nowhere have i ever seen an official figure quoted for mcgrath

Haha, right back at you mate, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about this, but what I was trying to say was that myself and others are annoyed at people who call Murali a cheat and other bowlers who 'chuck' legit. That question about calling Murali a cheat while not others wasn't meant to be directed at you, sorry.

I haven't seen an official figure on McGrath but I've heard everything from 8-10, 8-12 and even 14 degrees, so I don't know what to believe but the ICC seemed to think 99% of bowlers were exceeding their limits and McGrath wasn't mentioned as one who was within the old limits so I can only assume he was above it.

 

[uvelocity]

it matters when 'mcgrath and pollock extend their arms as much as murali' and 'mcgrath extends his arm 12 degrees' is written, because im yet to see that written with any kind of evidence to back it up. the only way mcgrath and pollock have been mentioned ever is that they happened to be playing in the same tournament (as everybody else) when the testing was done. half of the bowlers tested at that tournament were found to not be exceeding the limits in place at the time (5/7.5/10) & no individual results (except sarwan) were ever made public so far as i can tell, yet this clown keeps wheeling out the same barrow of smelly bait every time

 

[Maximas]

That's interesting, so was I simply mis-interpreting the headline of this article then? I assumed it meant by "throwing" that bowlers were exceeding the limit, however upon closer reading it seems it could simply mean that they weren't bowling with a perfectly straight arm - in that case I was wrong to some degree by saying almost all bowlers were illegal.

However in the same article it mentions the Derek Pringle thing, where he says Pollock and McGrath extend "up to 12 degrees", while in another article I found it said Murali's doosra was 14 degrees which was then reduced to 10 after remedial work, so I don't know what to believe tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It was always quite apparent to me that the whole "McGrath and Pollock do it too" was more of a throw-away line by the ICC targeting the public to encourage acceptance of Murali, in a time where a lot of people were doubting him. Suggesting that McGrath and Pollock were straightening their arms the same amount as Murali is absurd.

The rules were changed for Murali, no one else, and whether or not this takes anything away from him is up to you to decide as a fan. Personally I don't think it does. Neither does it mean that "chucking" is not an issue right now more than ever. With professionalism increasing and everyone trying to get every little advantage they can it is embarrassingly ignorant to think that certain guys aren't pushing the envelope at certain times during games, even if not consistently.

You can all stick your fingers in your ears and go on "nah nah we have testing they are proven legal" as much as you want but I'm sure all but the most naïve knows that we probably need to develop some in-game observation, or at least be more vigilant.

 

[uvelocity]

thats the whole point. nobody knows.

 

[Maximas]

well, I think two things stand.

- Firstly, the laws were not changed just because of Murali, they were changed because as Uvo said, only about half of the tested bowlers back in the CT of 2004 were within the throwing laws, so the laws needed a change regardless of Murali.
- Secondly, Uvo's point about transparency holds true, we wouldn't be having this debate if the ICC had released the figures for every bowler so we would know if people like Migara are actually correct when they say "Murali doesn't bend more than Pollock/McGrath" ect.

 

[Adders]

It was always quite apparent to me that the whole "McGrath and Pollock do it too" was more of a throw-away line by the ICC targeting the public to encourage acceptance of Murali,.

Really JDB, that depends on which side of the fence you sit. From your pov you "want" to dismiss that is a throw away line with no real merit, from my side I "want" to accept that as a fact. Neither of us know and neither are right nor wrong.

You can all stick your fingers in your ears and go on "nah nah we have testing they are proven legal" as much as you want but I'm sure all but the most naïve knows that we probably need to develop some in-game observation, or at least be more vigilant.

I asked you earlier in this thread why this is such a big deal for you. I don't claim to be any expert on this so I am "naively" (as you say) happy to accept the ICC findings.........the one thing I do know with 100% certainty is that the game is better for having had Murali for all of those years and I believe the same can be said for Ajmal. How would cricket have benefited if we banished these incredible talents??

 

[TheJediBrah]

well, I think two things stand.

- Firstly, the laws were not changed just because of Murali, they were changed because as Uvo said, only about half of the tested bowlers back in the CT of 2004 were within the throwing laws, so the laws needed a change regardless of Murali

Maybe true, I'm not sure what the laws before were, but what they were changed to was to suit Murali

- Secondly, Uvo's point about transparency holds true, we wouldn't be having this debate if the ICC had released the figures for every bowler so we would know if people like Migara are actually correct when they say "Murali doesn't bend more than Pollock/McGrath" ect.

If "Murali doesn't bend more than Pollock/McGrath" why would they have not released the figures? Because they know it would just cause more controversy with people saying "Why did the laws get changed just for Murali". At least this way fans have doubt.

Like you said "so I don't know what to believe tbh".

Really JDB, that depends on which side of the fence you sit. From your pov you "want" to dismiss that is a throw away line with no real merit, from my side I "want" to accept that as a fact. Neither of us know and neither are right nor wrong.

I want to accept it as fact. But from what I've seen myself I just can't believe it no matter how hard I try.

I asked you earlier in this thread why this is such a big deal for you. I don't claim to be any expert on this so I am "naively" (as you say) happy to accept the ICC findings.........the one thing I do know with 100% certainty is that the game is better for having had Murali for all of those years and I believe the same can be said for Ajmal. How would cricket have benefited if we banished these incredible talents??

Whoa man. Let's not get hasty. Not sure if I actually said anything like that at all, but if I did I certainly don't mean it.

Like I said, there are rules and laws for a reason, or else everyone would just do whatever they want, come out with metre wide bats, field with baseball mits etc. In the modern game, "chucking" is just one issue that has arisen in much the same way for which the monitoring and enforcement of laws is insufficient, even if the laws themselves don't need to be changed.

 

[Maximas]

The laws before were
- up to 10 degrees for fast bowlers
- up to 7.5 degrees for medium fast bowlers
- up to 5 degrees for spinners

It was just unfair that the faster you bowled the more leeway you got. But in any case the laws were arguably changed to suit a lot of bowlers, I just don't accept that Murali was such a big factor behind these law changes as you say he was, and without the official findings of the testing we can only speculate in any case.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The laws before were
- up to 10 degrees for fast bowlers
- up to 7.5 degrees for medium fast bowlers
- up to 5 degrees for spinners

It was just unfair that the faster you bowled the more leeway you got. But in any case the laws were arguably changed to suit a lot of bowlers, I just don't accept that Murali was such a big factor behind these law changes as you say he was, and without the official findings of the testing we can only speculate in any case.

Those old laws actually make a lot more sense. the faster you bowl, the faster your arm action, the more you are vulnerable to unavoidable flexion as a result of the end your arm being left behind as you bring it over the shoulder.

And I'm going to have to disagree entirely about why the laws being changed. At the time it was all about Murali. He was the only reason there was ever a perceived issue in the first place. I'm torn between whether or not I believe many of the current bowlers should be allowed.

Part of me thinks that a lot of these spinners should not be legal, but another part of me enjoys the spectacle they bring to the game, and after all the rules are the same for everyone so is it really even an "advantage". But regardless what side you fall on, it's obvious there is an issue now. For reasons I explained several times.

 

[smash84]

Chucking is what the ICC says it is. So **** off

 

[akilana]

Those old laws actually make a lot more sense. the faster you bowl, the faster your arm action, the more you are vulnerable to unavoidable flexion as a result of the end your arm being left behind as you bring it over the shoulder.

And I'm going to have to disagree entirely about why the laws being changed. At the time it was all about Murali. He was the only reason there was ever a perceived issue in the first place. I'm torn between whether or not I believe many of the current bowlers should be allowed.

Part of me thinks that a lot of these spinners should not be legal, but another part of me enjoys the spectacle they bring to the game, and after all the rules are the same for everyone so is it really even an "advantage". But regardless what side you fall on, it's obvious there is an issue now. For reasons I explained several times.

Can we have zero tolerance and ban all of those so called bowlers except Sarwan ? It would be so much better and we won't have to argue who chucks more.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can we have zero tolerance and ban all of those so called bowlers except Sarwan ? It would be so much better and we won't have to argue who chucks more.

Do you mean zero tolerance to breaking the rules, or zero degrees flexion allowed? Because from the rest of your barely-decipherable post indicates you mean the latter, which would be silly. But I think we should absolutely have zero tolerance if a player is caught exceeding the laws in-game.

 

[Maximas]

In-game? At the discretion of the on-field umpire? I think umpires usually only report dodgy actions and then it's left to the scientists. What exactly do you mean by "zero tolerance" anyway?

 

[TheJediBrah]

In-game? At the discretion of the on-field umpire? I think umpires usually only report dodgy actions and then it's left to the scientists. What exactly do you mean by "zero tolerance" anyway?

Of course not, on-field umpire can't monitor that. Something like, the umpire reviews if they think it's suspicious, and it's looked at post-game. If rules broken, player suspended.

I suppose you could have someone doing it during the game and have them removed from the attack but I don't think that's feasible at all.