Jonbrooks chucking Megathread

[Agent Nationaux]

All the bowlers. The extension does not depend on how clean the action looks. McGrath and Pollock extended more than murali's off break.

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

[91Jmay]

mmmmmkkaay.

Glad I could educate you.

 

[Burgey]

They need to ban bowling in long sleeve shirts. It lets the cheats hide the 45 degree flexion/ extension in their actions.

 

[Adders]

They need to ban bowling in long sleeve shirts. It lets the cheats hide the 45 degree flexion/ extension in their actions.

What were Graeme Swann and Michael Clarke hiding then??

These chucking threads should just be banned IMO, I've seen them across multiple forums and they never end well. Seems it is an impossible subject to discuss rationally and without emotion and both sides of fence end up letting themselves down.

Essentially I'm pro these "suspect" bowlers, a bit like a little ball tampering to get the ball reversing........gets everyones knickers in a knot but at the end of the day the game is all the better for it. I'm sure some of these bowlers are pushing the envelope but I just can't care about it like some of you seem to.........I would hate to see any of Ajmal or Senanayake etc banned from the game.

And Miagra, seriously........you need to lose that chip on your shoulder son.

 

[Furball]

What were Graeme Swann and Michael Clarke hiding then??

These chucking threads should just be banned IMO, I've seen them across multiple forums and they never end well. Seems it is an impossible subject to discuss rationally and without emotion and both sides of fence end up letting themselves down.

Essentially I'm pro these "suspect" bowlers, a bit like a little ball tampering to get the ball reversing........gets everyones knickers in a knot but at the end of the day the game is all the better for it. I'm sure some of these bowlers are pushing the envelope but I just can't care about it like some of you seem to.........I would hate to see any of Ajmal or Senanayake etc banned from the game.

And Miagra, seriously........you need to lose that chip on your shoulder son.

That's part of the fun.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

What I'd like to understand is what controls there are over testing to ensure that the bowling action displayed during testing is similar enough to the one used in match conditions to enable the test to be fair. I'd imagine it's all to easy to tweak your action to reduce your flexion whilst undergoing testing to sneak under the radar; if one was so inclined.

The whole thing seems unsatisfactory to me. Too arbitrary. Some hawkeye type device needs to be invented to test actions during matches so we can avoid the feelings of unfairness around reporting of suspect actions and to ensure that suspect actions are reported on a timely basis.

 

[Howsie]

What I'd like to understand is what controls there are over testing to ensure that the bowling action displayed during testing is similar enough to the one used in match conditions to enable the test to be fair. I'd imagine it's all to easy to tweak your action to reduce your flexion whilst undergoing testing to sneak under the radar; if one was so inclined.

The whole thing seems unsatisfactory to me. Too arbitrary. Some hawkeye type device needs to be invented to test actions during matches so we can avoid the feelings of unfairness around reporting of suspect actions and to ensure that suspect actions are reported on a timely basis.

Yeah, testing in a lab is a complete waste of time.

Mark Richardson has spoken in the past about guys who have been accused of chucking, player's he's spent playing day's with and he's seen an action get worse and worse throughout the day. You either test during the game or don't bother with it at all.

 

[Furball]

Anyone who wants to bowl in long sleeves has to wear some sort of measurement device.

 

[Burgey]

What were Graeme Swann and Michael Clarke hiding then??

These chucking threads should just be banned IMO, I've seen them across multiple forums and they never end well. Seems it is an impossible subject to discuss rationally and without emotion and both sides of fence end up letting themselves down.

Essentially I'm pro these "suspect" bowlers, a bit like a little ball tampering to get the ball reversing........gets everyones knickers in a knot but at the end of the day the game is all the better for it. I'm sure some of these bowlers are pushing the envelope but I just can't care about it like some of you seem to.........I would hate to see any of Ajmal or Senanayake etc banned from the game.

And Miagra, seriously........you need to lose that chip on your shoulder son.

I don't recall saying only blokes from the SC should wear short shirts. It should apply to everyone. If they're worried about skin cancer they can whack sunscreen on or field in long sleeves when they aren't bowling.

It would also prevent blokes like Imran from hiding the bottle top in their shirt sleeves before they gouge the ball with it.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Anyone who wants to bowl in long sleeves has to wear some sort of measurement device.

On what part of their body?

 

[the big bambino]

Shane Warne would now be the leading wickettaker, no?

So wouldn't have in been in Australia's interests to keep Murali banned, so they could claim the greatest batsman and greatest bowler? And Australia had quite a lot of power in the 1990s ICC.

Not much logic behind a pro-Murali conspiracy, and even less evidence.

You don't need much more evidence of a powerful clique advocating for Murali than the changing of a rule to suit a bowler based on a report (that I don't think has ever been released - has it?) that conflates the bend of the arm when bowling with that achieved while throwing to justify the change. Australia's desire to have the world's highest wicket taker had nothing to do with it.

 

[viriya]

These are some tired arguments given here:

"Changing the rules for one bowler"
"Pro-Asian bloc in ICC"
"Report wasn't released"

It's been almost 10 years guys - time to read up/give up/get with the program.

 

[Burgey]

Look, assume for a moment what's being said about Murali and the rule change is correct, it doesn't detract from his achievements. If things happened as is being suggested (and I'm not saying it was) it's hardly his fault and he did his best with the considerable gifts he had.

 

[viriya]

I have no problem believing scientists if these bowlers pass, and I also have no problem with someone like Satchi being cited. Can any SL fan honestly look at his action and say he isn't very suspicious on a few of his variations?

I think he bowls with a bent arm, so a lot of uninformed viewers think that it's an automatic throw. That said, I do think he should stop bowling his "effort-spin" ball - he doesn't actually get much more turn from it, and that's possibly over the degree of tolerance. His regular off-spinner and carrom ball don't seem any different from what Ajmal would bowl tbh.

 

[viriya]

I do think though that spinners in South Asia and West Indies are actively attempting to bring in more variation to their bowling, while Aussie/NZ/English boards tend to kill any spinner who tries something remotely questionable. I think experimentation benefits cricket in the long run, and spinners should actively try to come up with new variations.

The only clear and infallible way to prevent throwing in a match setting is to have a comfortable, adjustable arm brace that doesn't allow any flex above a threshold - if such a thing was invented (I think it should be possible), the ICC could require all bowlers to wear it => no more action issues in the game.

 

[Adders]

You don't need much more evidence of a powerful clique advocating for Murali than the changing of a rule to suit a bowler based on a report (that I don't think has ever been released - has it?) that conflates the bend of the arm when bowling with that achieved while throwing to justify the change. Australia's desire to have the world's highest wicket taker had nothing to do with it.

Yes it has. Google it, it's there for everyone to read.

Nothing against you personally TBB, but there is one of the most frustrating things about this discussion..........so many people with such strong opinions but so few have ever educated themselves and actually read this report (or even know it exists)

 

[Adders]

while Aussie/NZ/English boards tend to kill any spinner who tries something remotely questionable.

Very true, and I believe it is to our detriment. The day the county system embraces these mystery spinners will be a huge step forward for English cricket IMO.

 

[hendrix]

The only clear and infallible way to prevent throwing in a match setting is to have a comfortable, adjustable arm brace that doesn't allow any flex above a threshold - if such a thing was invented (I think it should be possible), the ICC could require all bowlers to wear it => no more action issues in the game.

No, this would mean players couldn't field.

The solution is for lightweight, stick-on monitors to be placed above and below the flexion points of the elbow, and to have software that monitors the change in flexion through the bowling action. Once a ball is bowled, the software gives a green light, or a red light - in which case it's a no ball.

of course, that would require a lot of investment, so it's not going to happen.

 

[viriya]

No, this would mean players couldn't field.

The solution is for lightweight, stick-on monitors to be placed above and below the flexion points of the elbow, and to have software that monitors the change in flexion through the bowling action. Once a ball is bowled, the software gives a green light, or a red light - in which case it's a no ball.

of course, that would require a lot of investment, so it's not going to happen.

Good point - I forgot about the fielding part. Your suggestion sounds good but it would be quite hilarious if it's faulty. It definitely sounds like it's workable - maybe 5 years from now?

 

[Burgey]

No, this would mean players couldn't field.

The solution is for lightweight, stick-on monitors to be placed above and below the flexion points of the elbow, and to have software that monitors the change in flexion through the bowling action. Once a ball is bowled, the software gives a green light, or a red light - in which case it's a no ball.

of course, that would require a lot of investment, so it's not going to happen.

Can't agree with this tbh. I'd prefer players to play and cyborgs remain the provenance of sci fi.