Migara
International Coach
Nah, this is not I wanted. You said McGrath and Murali's extension differ. I want to know how it differ, using measurements that are reliable and repeatable.
Not opinions FFS.
-
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.
Jonbrooks chucking Megathread
- Thread starter jonbrooks
- Start date
Not opinions FFS.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Try bowling both the deliveries. One would be called by the umpires as per old law as a chuck, the other wouldn't as one has clear violation of laws as far as umpires go. That's why Emerson and Hair called Murali's doosra. In game practical evidence for you.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
More like PratPrat Binks
cnerd123
likes this
OMG. We've gone the whole circle.
You have had three arguments against the Doosra. Let me break them down.
Lets start with your first assumption - you say that all the force and energy behind the doosra is generated by the elbow joint. This is conclusively false. As stated by every poster in this forum, and as is evident from all scientific analysis done on Murali's action, the energy behind every doosra bowled is generated through Murali's extraordinarily strong shoulder, wrist and fingers. Saqlain Mushtaq was never once reported for a suspect action and he ****ing invented the delivery, and bowled it beautifully. He himself describes it as being all shoulder and wrist.
We can safely say you are completely wrong on this one basic assumption, and any attempt to continue to hold on to it on your behalf is idiocy.
Then lets go into your three arguments against the Doosra:
1) The 'Old Laws' defence. You say that since the original laws of cricket said that flexing the elbow is illegal, all bowlers who do this should be banned. However, science has shown us that every single bowler in the history of the game straightens their arm when bowling. Therefore, this argument is stupid and and doesn't hold up. This defence fails
2) The 'we don't measure chucking accurately' defence - the defence you linked to the Cricket Monthly article for. This was a weird defence to make - saying that because we cannot accurately tell what a chuck is yet, we therefore must ban the doosra. I fail to see the logical connection here. It's a huge assumption to make that every doosra that was considered legal under the current laws would be found as a chuck under newer, more accurate laws. You provided 0 scientific evidence to back up that massive assumption, and not only that, the very article you linked to had an expert in the field claiming that the doosra CAN be bowled legally. Not by everyone, but by those with the genetic gifts to do it (IE, Murali). So this defence fails.
3) The FaapDeOid rant about the origins of the chucking law. It says the law was made in order to stop the people from baseball-pitching the ball from one end to another. It doesn't matter how many degrees of straightening occurs as long as the player runs in and bowls with a 'proper' cricketing action. The rule is just to avoid people from gaining an unfair advantage by throwing rather than bowling. And fair enough, all this makes sense. None of this applies to Murali, or Doosra bowlers in general. As mentioned in the rebuttal to your initial assumption, the doosra is not meant to be bowled with the elbow. There will be bowlers who attempt to do so with excessive straightening, and they rightfully get called up and get banned. But Murali wasn't doing that. Saqlain wasn't doing that. These guys bowled it legally and fair. So, by Faap's own stance, these bowlers were perfectly legal and therefore the Doosra was and can be bowled perfectly legally. This defences fails too.
So whats the end score here? 1 wrong assumption and 3 failed defences.
Do you still actually believe the Doosra cannot ever be bowled legally and that Murali is a chucker? Is there a defence you made that I am missing from the list? Or are you going to continue to believe what you want to believe in spite of what the truth actually is?
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I've been asking this for a while now... do you honestly then want there to be zero straightening? I'd like you to provide a new law in the form of a simple statement which aligns with your views. Because "not using third joint force" is a very, very vague statement. Vague statements without actual values attached to them donot make for good laws.
cnerd123
likes this
A) Laws said third joint shouldn't be used to throw the ball
B) Science proved that every bowler ever used/uses their third joint to throw the ball
C) A fifteen degree law was brought in to ensure everyone currently bowling without deliberate, conscious straightening of their arm could continue to do so.
How is this difficult to understand Pratters?
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
As Fuller mentioned, it doesn't matter if there is 16 degrees or 5 degrees straightening. I'll get back to this..
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
OS,
The old law was as follows:
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.
As far as this goes, any one using the elbow joint to throw the ball would be called for the same. This worked well for over 100 years. Some one like McGrath would never be called a chucker as far as this law goes as it was not visible to the umpires whatever straightening he did. However, when the Murali issue came up, they brought in degrees which just confused the matter.
What is a chuck? A chuck is essentially using the third joint to 'throw' the ball. An umpire could see it visibly because the elbow is used to give force to the ball. Force = m x a.
So where a new law is concerned, we have two ways to go about it -
a) Use the old laws. I can see a lot of people not liking it but I like it.
b) Use one which has velocity at elbow included because that's what brings in chucking.
The old law was as follows:
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.
As far as this goes, any one using the elbow joint to throw the ball would be called for the same. This worked well for over 100 years. Some one like McGrath would never be called a chucker as far as this law goes as it was not visible to the umpires whatever straightening he did. However, when the Murali issue came up, they brought in degrees which just confused the matter.
What is a chuck? A chuck is essentially using the third joint to 'throw' the ball. An umpire could see it visibly because the elbow is used to give force to the ball. Force = m x a.
So where a new law is concerned, we have two ways to go about it -
a) Use the old laws. I can see a lot of people not liking it but I like it.
b) Use one which has velocity at elbow included because that's what brings in chucking.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
The sad bit, as I mentioned before, was Hair and Emerson had their careers affected for just doing their job. Recently when Hair wrote his book, Harbhajan called him mad and threatened to sue him. Hair had been an umpire for more than a decade. Any thing which was called against subcontinent players always was a case of us v them some how. It still is in many quarters, sadly. Chucking is a serious issue and by wrongly making the law allow people who 'throw' within 15 degrees, the game is compromised. It's important to change the law. The game has no place for chuckers.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
They use it. However, they don't chuck it in the traditional (true) sense. They would never be called by the umpires as per the old laws.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
What part am I ignoring?
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Dude you are giving Cal a bad name.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Would it be fair to characterize your stance as the old adage "If it looks like a chuck, it is a chuck"?
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
To a certain degree but not completely. Akhtar chucked a few of his deliveries but it wasn't always visible except super slow mos. Its possible for some chuckers to escape at times as per old law. Doesn't mean we allow more chuckers in by relaxing the law.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Haha. WTF.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Alright, this has gone too far guys. Let's all just agree that Murali's records don't count Shane Warne is the most prolific bowler in Test history.
/thread
/thread
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
The issue is beyond Murali. Murali's career is over. It doesn't matter too much now. However, the kids learning to bowl the doosra, that's what I am concerned about.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Okay, so read the next few lines and tell me what you think:
"So, to return to the question, why 15 degrees? The ICC's answer seems to be that up to 15 degrees, a straightening arm is invisible to the naked eye. The new rule will be aimed at the egregiously illegal bowling action, visible to the umpire's eye. Inquiries will only be initiated into actions that seem illegal to the umpires in the middle."