Jonbrooks chucking Megathread

[honestbharani]

Degree coupled with velocity is visible to naked eye, not just degree. Ten degree with higher velcoty would be visible as well.

We are back to velocity folks.. Pratters would tell me only he understands this.

 

[honestbharani]

He's not providing proof but he is right. If you have a go at bowling a few doosras next time you're at the nets, especially if you're trying to turn them and I guarantee you will have a sore elbow if you're not used to it lol

And if you bowl quick for a few overs, you won't have a sore elbow? Of course he is not right. He is just an idiot who has no idea how you can actually "bowl" a cricket ball.

 

[honestbharani]

Source? Or are you inventing 'facts'?

He just refuses to accept the real ones exist. So he has gotta invent something in its place.

 

[honestbharani]

My sore elbow disagrees.

No its just blaming your brain for not being able to comprehend basic facts of how to "bowl" a cricket ball.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And if you bowl quick for a few overs, you won't have a sore elbow?

I will, because I'm a ****ing chucker.

 

[Pratters]

We are back to velocity folks.. Pratters would tell me only he understands this.

It's not difficult to understand at all.

 

[honestbharani]

Ah I see what you are saying. Yeah I was exaggerating a bit regarding the sore elbow.

But an increased flexion of the elbow is ubiquitous with bowling of the doosra. It's just the physiology of the movement. It's much easier to bowl an off-break, leg-break or a medium-pace delivery with less flexion than a doosra.

And 140+ balls, yorkers and bouncers can't be bowled with a greater flexion too. Too bad you don't seem to be aware of the physiology of movement when bowling those balls.

 

[Shady Slim]

i am a legspinner and i'm just wondering, how does a leggie chuck it?

 

[honestbharani]

I will, because I'm a ****ing chucker.

Well, so is every other bowler who is bowling in international cricket.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

This completely falls apart because the whole point about someone like Murali's action was that it looked worse than it actually was because of the illusion caused by his pre-existing bent in the elbow. "If it looks like a chuck it is one" is total BS. Which is why we need measures to be brought in to find out who actually gains an unfair advantage, not just just call people whose actions look aesthetically terrible. Without bringing measures like degrees into the picture, we'd be stuck with an outdated, unfair law which punishes guys like Murali who have bad looking actions but who in actuality aren't chucking any more than most other bowlers.

 

[Pratters]

He just refuses to accept the real ones exist. So he has gotta invent something in its place.

I do refuse to accept the current law as it is. It allows chuckers in cricket.

 

[honestbharani]

i am a legspinner and i'm just wondering, how does a leggie chuck it?

It is a very basic fact that you need to use your elbow to propel the cricket ball at the zenith of your bowling action. Ergo, everyone does "chuck" by the old stupid laws which had not tried to understand the science behind "cricket bowling". Now they studied bowlers around the world and devised a better method (still not the best) but some people still waaaah because they think they know better than science. It is a bit of a Galileo/Copernicus story here.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And 140+ balls, yorkers and bouncers can't be bowled with a greater flexion too. Too bad you don't seem to be aware of the physiology of movement when bowling those balls.

where does this even come from. I haven't said anything even remotely related

you are literally the worst poster I have seen in my life. It's like you've got some weird fetish for abusing people but no one in real life will go near you so you have to do it on the internet.

 

[honestbharani]

I do refuse to accept the current law as it is. It allows chuckers in cricket.

So did the old laws. You just again refuse to accept facts.

 

[honestbharani]

where does this even come from. I haven't said anything even remotely related

you are literally the worst poster I have seen in my life. It's like you've got some weird fetish for abusing people but no one in real life will go near you so you have to do it on the internet.

So why call out the doosra when you know so many other types of deliveries can't be bowled without the same amount of flexion too? Nice try.

Yeah... go ahead insult me coz you have no idea about what you are posting.

 

[Pratters]

This completely falls apart because the whole point about someone like Murali's action was that it looked worse than it actually was because of the illusion caused by his pre-existing bent in the elbow. "If it looks like a chuck it is one" is total BS. Which is why we need measures to be brought in to find out who actually gains an unfair advantage, not just just call people whose actions look aesthetically terrible. Without bringing measures like degrees into the picture, we'd be stuck with an outdated, unfair law which punishes guys like Murali who have bad looking actions but who in actuality aren't chucking any more than most other bowlers.

Are you fine with degrees without velocity? I have already said most people wouldn't like going back to the old law. That's okay. However having just degrees is completely nonsensical.

 

[OverratedSanity]

And 140+ balls, yorkers and bouncers can't be bowled with a greater flexion too. Too bad you don't seem to be aware of the physiology of movement when bowling those balls.

Heh, seriously it's weird how much focus there is on Murali's doosra and effort ball while the same people barely raise a word against say, Courtney Walsh, whose effort bouncer routinely looked like the most blatant chuck ever. Some strange bias involved there methinks.

 

[Pratters]

So did the old laws. You just again refuse to accept facts.

So how many chuckers had flourishing careers in the decade after Meckiff and co were banned then?

 

[Pratters]

So did the old laws. You just again refuse to accept facts.

Also if you agree the new law is flawed giving basis of old laws being flawed, you are agreeing with me basically that the current laws are flawed.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So why call out the doosra when you know so many other types of deliveries can't be bowled without the same amount of flexion too? Nice try.

Yeah... go ahead insult me coz you have no idea about what you are posting.

every post you make is abusing someone

it's ****ing pathetic