Jonbrooks chucking Megathread

[The Battlers Prince]

His elbow condition makes it impossible for him to straighten his arm. And the bowling law only states you can't bend a straight arm while into the bowling action OR straighten a bent arm into the bowling action. So its obvious he is the only one who can bowl in that style and still be ok within the laws. Others will end up straightening their arm if trying the same action. Looks like you and Parmar were the only two in the cricketing world unaware of the fact.

That's worded incorrectly. His arm can't become straight I thought. But to go from 40 to 25 degrees for example is still straightening of the allowed 15 degrees. Is that not the argument when it comes to Murali?
I was under the impression that everyone is ok with his non straight arm. But that he straightened from x to y more than permissible.

 

[honestbharani]

That's worded incorrectly. His arm can't become straight I thought. But to go from 40 to 25 degrees for example is still straightening of the allowed 15 degrees. Is that not the argument when it comes to Murali?
I was under the impression that everyone is ok with his non straight arm. But that he straightened from x to y more than permissible.

No he didn't. Amazing ignorance of facts here. When I said straighten in the line you bolded, the contextual meaning was that he can't make it totally straight like bowlers who bowl with a straight arm do. He starts with a bent arm and bowls with a bent arm both of which are fine by the rules as they were when the idiot umpires in Australia called him. Then the worldwide testing happened and everyone was found to have some degree of flex in their elbows and the maximum permissible limit was arrived at as 15 as it was when it apparently became more visible to the naked eye.

 

[jonbrooks]

No he didn't. Amazing ignorance of facts here. When I said straighten in the line you bolded, the contextual meaning was that he can't make it totally straight like bowlers who bowl with a straight arm do. He starts with a bent arm and bowls with a bent arm both of which are fine by the rules as they were when the idiot umpires in Australia called him. Then the worldwide testing happened and everyone was found to have some degree of flex in their elbows and the maximum permissible limit was arrived at as 15 as it was when it apparently became more visible to the naked eye.

This is a total bunch of BS and what people who are clueless and haven't researched chucking always quote. The 15 degrees you mention here, as not visible to the naked eye, is the hyper extension which occurs for most bowlers and NOT conventional bending and straightening of the arm.

The "murali cannot straighten his arm" business is a red herring.

 

[jonbrooks]

Hahahahaha this is amazing. All the rants on Murali's action and you aren't even aware that he can't physically straighten his arm (his elbow was ****ed up as a kid) and has amazingly flexible wrists and shoulders.

Geez, you guys can't even get your stories straight!

 

[wellAlbidarned]

lol

 

[Jono]

Mods change the name of this thread. Nothing mega about it

 

[The Battlers Prince]

No he didn't. Amazing ignorance of facts here. When I said straighten in the line you bolded, the contextual meaning was that he can't make it totally straight like bowlers who bowl with a straight arm do. He starts with a bent arm and bowls with a bent arm both of which are fine by the rules as they were when the idiot umpires in Australia called him. Then the worldwide testing happened and everyone was found to have some degree of flex in their elbows and the maximum permissible limit was arrived at as 15 as it was when it apparently became more visible to the naked eye.

A straight arm and straightening of the arm is not the same thing. The context you were referring to was the rules. The rules are to not straighten your arm. Which is what he was called for by the "idiots you mentioned. But of course he and everyone else were straightening their arms. So it was the correct call by those damn idiots.
I should add that on the Murali case I'm fairly impartial nowadays. The case for or against him is irrelevant as he's retired, AND he has done a lot of good for Sri Lankan and World Cricket. I just think the wording should be correct and devoid of emotion for an argument like this.

 

[cnerd123]

ITT: People who don't understand what chucking is

There isn't any debate here. If you understood the laws and understood the testing process and findings, you would see that Murali was completely clear as a bowler and had always been so.

If there is any 'debate' to be had on chucking, it would be on the new ICC processes and recent crackdown without transparency. But there is no debate on Murali. Its as black and white as it gets. Only idiots see a grey area.

 

[honestbharani]

This is a total bunch of BS and what people who are clueless and haven't researched chucking always quote. The 15 degrees you mention here, as not visible to the naked eye, is the hyper extension which occurs for most bowlers and NOT conventional bending and straightening of the arm.

The "murali cannot straighten his arm" business is a red herring.

Yeah.. tell that to the ICC release that came out and said 15 degrees is when the flex starts to be more visible to the naked eye before you pretend to be the know-it-all about chucking. For a guy who didn't even know what the original chucking law was, its a bit rich...


And the only bunch of BS here in this thread are your posts.

 

[honestbharani]

A straight arm and straightening of the arm is not the same thing. The context you were referring to was the rules. The rules are to not straighten your arm. Which is what he was called for by the "idiots you mentioned. But of course he and everyone else were straightening their arms. So it was the correct call by those damn idiots.
I should add that on the Murali case I'm fairly impartial nowadays. The case for or against him is irrelevant as he's retired, AND he has done a lot of good for Sri Lankan and World Cricket. I just think the wording should be correct and devoid of emotion for an argument like this.

No, the rules specifically mentioned both straightening and bending of the arms. Basically if you start with a bent arm, you bowl with a bent arm and if you start with a straight arm you bowl with a straight arm. Of course it is almost impossible to complete the delivery stride and "bowl" the ball to the batsman with a bent arm unless you have those congenital elbow issues like Murali. Shoaib was the opposite in that he had hyperextension which tended to show that the elbow bent during delivery stride when in reality that is as straight as his elbow could be while delivering the ball. So I still feel those umpires were wrong when calling Murali because they interpreted the law to be "can't start bowling with a bent arm". So that I feel is the gist of it.

The second part of your argument about the degree of flex, that is a different matter altogether because earlier they were allowing more leeway for seamers than spinners and trying to differentiate between how much flex should allowed to what balls etc. THAT was the real mess ICC created. I feel anything we have today is still much better than the shenanigans they pulled then.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

agree with almost everything but the umpires were 100% correct to call murali at the time because the limit was 5 degrees not 15.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Fair enough, I thought the definition was different from that.

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.

 

[cnerd123]

agree with almost everything but the umpires were 100% correct to call murali at the time because the limit was 5 degrees not 15.

It was a weird time in cricket. They were right in calling him because he was beyond the limits stated at the time, but wrong for not calling literally everyone else because they all were past the limits too.

Cricket owes a lot to Murali tbh. Helped us progress loads with regards to understanding chucking and bowling actions. Unfortunately the current ICC secret processes and crackdowns feels like its undoing all this work.

 

[OverratedSanity]

agree with almost everything but the umpires were 100% correct to call murali at the time because the limit was 5 degrees not 15.

Yeah don't understand why more people don't get this.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah don't understand why more people don't get this.

Too bad they didn't call literally every other bowler.

 

[Adders]

agree with almost everything but the umpires were 100% correct to call murali at the time because the limit was 5 degrees not 15.

I don't dispute that but to me it was the perception surrounding the whole thing that was just really bad.

Let not make any bones about this, Murali at the time was treated appallingly in Australia. The crowds were rancid and the fact that it was an Aussie umpire that called him in Melbourne just smacked of an agenda against him. The fact he was also challenging the local lad also added to the conspiracy.

But all that said, I do admire Hair's conviction to his beliefs (at the time anyway, probably shouldn't still be crapping on about it) it was not his job to worry about "perceptions" it was his job to call it as he saw it and then let the ICC deal with the fall out.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Too bad they didn't call literally every other bowler.

Yeah because no one else looked suspicious. Are you honestly saying Murali's action didn't look suspicious to the naked eye? Because of his elbow defect, it gave the illusion of chucking and the on field umpires have only that to go on. Calling him was the right thing to do. Atleast the first time.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah to be honest, I kinda understand why Hair would have called him but that Emerson, he was just an idiot with an agenda.

 

[jonbrooks]

Yeah because no one else looked suspicious. Are you honestly saying Murali's action didn't look suspicious to the naked eye? Because of his elbow defect, it gave the illusion of chucking and the on field umpires have only that to go on. Calling him was the right thing to do. Atleast the first time.

Murali's action for the most part looks just fine. In fact it is a lot better than some of the bowlers out there. It's only certain deliveries when his action changes completely e.g. big off break and doosra.

 

[jonbrooks]

Mods change the name of this thread. Nothing mega about it

Hahahahaha! You dumbass! The mods were the ones who change it to mega chucking thread in the first place!