Senanayake banned

[harsh.ag]

On this, whilst your question is presumably for rhetorical purposes, from a biomechanical point of view it is much harder not to flex one's elbow bringing the arm over the shoulder at any kind of speed whilst one's elbow is bent rather than locked straight.

Try it.

Obviously chaps like Murali who cannot straighten their arms muddy the waters, but the Venn diagrams of those who bowl with bent arms and those who exceed the flexion limits will have some degree of overlap.

I agree with you there. Obviously the non-overlap part of the Venn Diagram is the reason we can't treat the two things as synonymous, but I know you know that.

 

[watson]

The umpire isn't empowered to call a bowler for having a bad action on the field anyway. The immediate no-ball call is for when Jimmy Anderson runs up and pegs it at Ravindra Jadeja's smug face, not when an off spinner's action looks a bit dodgy.

Everybody knows that an umpire can't tell whether a bowler's action exceeds 15 degrees in real time. It isn't their job, and never has been since the throwing law was reformed to be something that is scientifically testable (accuracy of the testing process notwithstanding). The no-ball call remains there so that cases of bowlers pitching the ball at the stumps can be sanctioned immediately.

Yeah fair enough. But here is one authors interpretation of Law 24;

Time to enforce Law 24 July 6, 2014

Law 24 governs the legality of a delivery. It includes rules for overstepping and throwing. The answer to Dujon's question is given here. Law 24 authorises an umpire to require that a bowler be withdrawn for throwing after two warnings. The umpire has to call the delivery on which the warning was given a no-ball. .....

Currently the ICC has basically set aside Law 24 when it comes to throwing. Under this Law, umpires must call a no-ball if they think a bowler is throwing. This might be easier if they could simply look at each delivery on its own terms and have their expertise in the matter trusted. Backed by the review process, this would be a better system.

Currently, a bowler who gets reported could well ask why he has been reported, given that he was not called on the field. Perhaps one way for the ICC to curb the perceived proliferation of bowlers with illegal actions in international cricket would be to actually apply Law 24 as it is written, and explain to the cricket-watching public that throwing is a technical violation and not a moral one. Chuckers are not cheats. Not until it has been established that they are in fact chucking. But they ought to be called for throwing if cricket wants fewer chuckers in the game.

Blogs: Kartikeya Date: Time to enforce Law 24 | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Dan]

Set up a simple semantic distinction between 'throwing' and 'suspect action' and boom, crisis averted.

On-field umpires simply cannot apply Law 24 consistently and accurately. Good umpires can do that with every other law -- including LBW -- but using their eyes to try and assess biomechanics in real time is far beyond them, unless we do end up with robots (or change to an unscientific "well his action looks a bit dodgy, therefore he must be a chucker" metric).

 

[Migara]

What you say is right*, but then you turn around and talk about people "deliberately" chucking occasionally. How can you know another's subjective intent in a situation like that?


*This week's edition of "Things you never thought you'd type".

I clearly said we cannot find the intent. But when we can see the results, which is not usually visible, they can be caight too. If your arm snaps occasionally during a effort ball, OK, that's bad luck, or the authorities can have a percentage tolerance limit. But once onfield testing is available, deliberate chucking would be more appareant.

 

[watson]

I hate to admit it but Migara has a point with respect to 'one-off chucks' - which are just another consequence of an overly complex system that resembles a dogs breakfast;

Beware an epidemic of chucking

Lax laws and a complicated reporting process mean the threat is all too real

Ian Chappell
May 5, 2013

....Sir Donald Bradman, then a selector and an Australian Cricket Board member, started a purge to eradicate dubious actions from Australian cricket. This resulted in Australian fast bowler Ian Meckiff being made the scapegoat when he was no-balled from square leg at the Gabba Test in 1963-64. He never played Test cricket again.

That cut-throat approach is a far cry from the modern stance. The officials got themselves in a bind when they misguidedly bent over backwards to accommodate Muttiah Muralitharan's unorthodox action. This shortsighted approach has resulted in all kinds of bends and flexes being allowed in bowling actions. This will lead to an escalation in the epidemic that will eventually force the administrators to either take drastic action or declare the game an elongated form of baseball....

It's a nightmare for a batsman when someone chucks the odd delivery. That makes it difficult to adjust, and often a batsman becomes so aware of the dubious delivery, he's fooled by a legal one. No batsman wants a bowler thrown out of the game but he is entitled to be protected by a call from square leg when a bowler transgresses. Under the current law, with all the piffle about 15 degrees of flex and a long drawn-out notification process, this isn't possible.

A bowler is no-balled when he oversteps the front line by a fraction, which makes absolutely no difference down the other end. Yet a batsman isn't protected when a dubious delivery (that gives a bowler a huge advantage) abbreviates his innings. This is a denial of a batsman's basic rights.

The law needs to be modified to something really simple so the legal people can't get their teeth into it in a court. This way the umpire at square leg will feel comfortable calling a no-ball on the field, knowing he won't finish up in court defending his judgement against a barrister who doesn't know the difference between a no-ball and no man's land.

Any modification of the law will require a 12-month lead-in time so the current crop of bowlers can iron out any kinks in order to comply with the new regulations. In the meantime, officials need to be vigilant and strict in youth tournaments, and any bowler with a doubtful action should be told to fix his delivery or find another profession.

If these remedies aren't adopted soon, the copycat syndrome will ensure the market is flooded and then it'll be difficult to tell the difference between the delivery of a bowler and that of a baseball pitcher. If that occurs, the stormy late '50s-early '60s period will be looked back on as one of relatively pure bowling actions.

Ian Chappell: Beware an epidemic of chucking | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[hendrix]

An Ian Chappell quote doesn't exactly bring much to the table.

 

[Migara]

Umpiires cannot get line decisions 100% correct. No point it going back to the old rule which is extremely subjective and error prone. Current system is better, but I ma for checking everyone anually in a lab.

 

[watson]

Umpiires cannot get line decisions 100% correct. No point it going back to the old rule which is extremely subjective and error prone. Current system is better, but I ma for checking everyone anually in a lab.

I agree as I'm not a complete luddite. However, I do think that modern cricket Law makers have created a destabilising imbalance by placing too much emphasis on what goes on in the Laboratory as opposed to what happens on the cricket field. Hence, they have effectively stripped Umpires of their historical powers.

This never used to be the case as indicated by the (interesting) evolution of the throwing Law itself. Note that the specific word 'straightening' wasn't used till 1961;

MCC Law: 1828

“The ball shall be bowled. If is be thrown or jerked, or any part of the hand or arm be above the elbow at the time of delivery, the umpire shall call “no-ball.”

MCC Law: 1864

“The ball must be bowled; if thrown or jerked the umpire shall call ‘no-ball’ ”.

Law 26: 1947

“For a delivery to be fair the ball must be bowled, not thrown or jerked; if either umpire be not entirely satisfied of the absolute fairness of a delivery in this respect, he shall call and signal ‘no-ball’ instantly upon delivery”.

Law 26: 1961

“A ball shall be deemed to have been thrown, if in the opinion of either umpire, there has been a sudden straightening of the bowling arm, whether partial or complete, immediately prior to the delivery of the ball. Immediately prior to the delivery of the ball will be taken to mean at any time after the arm has risen above the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing. The bowler will not be debarred from the use of the wrist in delivering the ball”.

Law 26: 1967

“A ball shall be deemed to have been thrown, if in the opinion of either umpire, the bowling arm having been bent at the elbow, whether the wrist is backward of the elbow or not, is suddenly straightened immediately prior to the instant of delivery.”

Law 24.3: 2000

“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 the bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.”

History of Cricket: The History of Chucking - Part One
History of Cricket: The History of Chucking - Part II

 

[G.I.Joe]

Note that the specific word 'straightening' wasn't used till 1961

They employed the word 'jerk' earlier. Jerking the arm is what straightening is.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

MCC Law: 1828

“The ball shall be bowled. If is be thrown or jerked, or any part of the hand or arm be above the elbow at the time of delivery, the umpire shall call “no-ball.”

um wat

 

[Prince EWS]

um wat

Yeah, overarm bowling was banned for much of the 19th century.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah, overarm bowling was banned for much of the 19th century.

which is why the argument that straightening shouldn't be the definition is ridiculous, given that it's been in law for over 50 years, which is quite a long time.

 

[Adders]

I'd love to know how much time watson has spent on research this week.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Yeah, overarm bowling was banned for much of the 19th century.

duhr, that's what i get for not reading the post properly.

 

[marc71178]

I clearly said we cannot find the intent. But when we can see the results, which is not usually visible, they can be caight too. If your arm snaps occasionally during a effort ball, OK, that's bad luck, or the authorities can have a percentage tolerance limit. But once onfield testing is available, deliberate chucking would be more appareant.

The thing is, how do you know that that the odd one off ball is deliberately chucked and not an accident?

 

[Migara]

I agree as I'm not a complete luddite. However, I do think that modern cricket Law makers have created a destabilising imbalance by placing too much emphasis on what goes on in the Laboratory as opposed to what happens on the cricket field. Hence, they have effectively stripped Umpires of their historical powers.

This never used to be the case as indicated by the (interesting) evolution of the throwing Law itself. Note that the specific word 'straightening' wasn't used till 1961;

All above laws have no value other than historical when it comes to analysis of bowling. Still doesn't change what I say. Umpires are inept in such decisions. What are the evidence to say that naked eye can pick a marginal chuck from a clean action? Is elbow extension the only parameter for a action to look dodgy? How sensitive and specific are umpires judgement? Umpires have been found out badly in line decisions which needs lesser skills. Judging extension from naked eye would be a nothing short of a disaster. And if a conspiracy comes in that will be end of cricket.

 

[Migara]

The thing is, how do you know that that the odd one off ball is deliberately chucked and not an accident?

There are enough statistical models to make an allowance for "accidental" throws as it has to follow basic rules of probability and distributions. If needed new model can be drafted to create an allowance. extra degrees of extension x percentage of such deliveries = constant would be a good model to start with. If extra degrees are occurring too often, then it can be concluded something is going on.

 

[91Jmay]

There are enough statistical models to make an allowance for "accidental" throws as it has to follow basic rules of probability and distributions. If needed new model can be drafted to create an allowance. extra degrees of extension x percentage of such deliveries = constant would be a good model to start with. If extra degrees are occurring too often, then it can be concluded something is going on.

Jesus wept.

Why don't we just no ball blokes who break the current regulations rather than needing a Maths PhD rather than an umpire to officiate the game?

 

[watson]

All above laws have no value other than historical when it comes to analysis of bowling. Still doesn't change what I say. Umpires are inept in such decisions. What are the evidence to say that naked eye can pick a marginal chuck from a clean action? Is elbow extension the only parameter for a action to look dodgy? How sensitive and specific are umpires judgement? Umpires have been found out badly in line decisions which needs lesser skills. Judging extension from naked eye would be a nothing short of a disaster. And if a conspiracy comes in that will be end of cricket.

You're kind of right. But let's not forget that the human eye CAN detect a 15 degree straightening. Therefore, Umpires can make some kind of objective ruling on a bowler chucking. It's not all incompetent subjectivity as you seem to make out;

The old laws effectively allowed spinners to legally straighten their arms by five degrees. The measurement was set at 7.5 degrees for medium pacers and 10 for fast bowlers.

However, the panel found those measurements were all undetectable to the naked eye so they recommended the levels be standardised at 15 degrees, the first point at which it is visible to the naked eye.

ICC changes chucking laws - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Perhaps for the good of the game in the long run we should leave Umpires alone to back themselves and yell "no ball" more often than they currently do. That way, bowlers might think more about cleaning up their action before they walk onto the pitch.

Or as Martin Crowe put it;

"I just want to say ... that I have zero tolerance of "chucking" in cricket," Crowe said. "I'm sick to death with the hypocrisy of the last 10 years."

"I don't care about talk of 15 degrees here or 10 degrees there ... if with the naked eye a bowler is clearly chucking -- even by one degree -- he should be chucked out.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=cricket&id=2517994

 

[viriya]

Maybe the solution to this is to get every new bowler to go through testing regardless of whether he has action issues. During that time they have to go through their full repertoire of deliveries in match conditions. After passing the tests he can only bowl balls that have been tested or he is no-balled during the match (the umpires are made aware of different variations a bowler has). Maybe an annual mandatory testing requirement is also in order to ensure there has not been any deterioration in action. Considering the Sena case it seems that the testers mimic match conditions well enough.

All the findings can then be made public so there is no confusion when it comes to what the public thinks about degrees of flexion etc. This would also ensure that illegal actions get screened before it happens in an actual match more often than not - the whole point of no-balling throwing in the first place.