Jonbrooks chucking Megathread

[honestbharani]

You are refusing to even attempt to explain why "velocity" is a good measure. Is it only because you read it on that paper that actually shows you can't bowl any type of delivery in cricket without elbow flex?

 

[Pratters]

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.

Haha yeah. If doosra gives a sore elbow and so does bowling millions of deliveries at full pace, obviously they mean the same thing some how.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Careful. TheJediBrah will threaten to report your posts and then insult you personally...

 

[honestbharani]

every post you make is abusing someone

it's ****ing pathetic

You should know that, given that is what your posting has been. BTW, thanks for reading ALL my 15+ posts. Some life you must have.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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.

I am going to ask this very clearly. Donot respond with an unrelated statement to the following:

How does you wanting "velocity" to be included as a parameter to the chucking laws prove in any way that Murali was a chucker? What you've been saying for a pages is that you want the chucking law to be improved. Fine. Has nothing to do with whether Murali was a chucker or not.

 

[honestbharani]

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

Every other bowler as shown by the studies. Of course, go ahead and refuse to accept facts more.

 

[Pratters]

You are refusing to even attempt to explain why "velocity" is a good measure. Is it only because you read it on that paper that actually shows you can't bowl any type of delivery in cricket without elbow flex?

What? I have already explained. Read my earlier reply to os post.

 

[Pratters]

Every other bowler as shown by the studies. Of course, go ahead and refuse to accept facts more.

They are not chuckers.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

And it took you this long to figure it out??? Of course the current law has its flaws but its a million times better than the old junk which had no idea what it was even attempting to do.

 

[honestbharani]

Haha yeah. If doosra gives a sore elbow and so does bowling millions of deliveries at full pace, obviously they mean the same thing some how.

Haha yeah. Coz that is what I said. Do you even read the posts you are responding to?

 

[honestbharani]

They are not chuckers.

By the old laws they were.

 

[Pratters]

And it took you this long to figure it out??? Of course the current law has its flaws but its a million times better than the old junk which had no idea what it was even attempting to do.

Nah, the new law is much worse than the old one. The old one wouldn't allow chucking to prevail like now. Murali would have been no balled out of cricket.

 

[Pratters]

By the old laws they were.

Not really. Umpires never called them, did they? You forget what a chuck is. Think back to when you started playing cricket.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I am going to ask this very clearly. Donot respond with an unrelated statement to the following:

How does you wanting "velocity" to be included as a parameter to the chucking laws prove in any way that Murali was a chucker? What you've been saying for a pages is that you want the chucking law to be improved. Fine. Has nothing to do with whether Murali was a chucker or not.

Yo Pratters

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think Muchuckah Muralithrowan was a great cricketer

 

[Pratters]

I missed that os. Velocity at elbow limits would mean doosra for murali and every one else who bowls it would be outlawed.

 

[honestbharani]

I missed that os. Velocity at elbow limits would mean doosra for murali and every one else who bowls it would be outlawed.

IN other words, you have NFI what it is and why it is a good measure and you just want it to be used coz it suits your stupid biased baseless point.

 

[Pratters]

IN other words, you have NFI what it is and why it is a good measure and you just want it to be used coz it suits your stupid biased baseless point.

Haha, no.

 

[honestbharani]

Not really. Umpires never called them, did they? You forget what a chuck is. Think back to when you started playing cricket.

And you better get back to starting to play cricket and find out what bowling actually is and why the old law was totally wrong.


And BTW, if the umpire does not give a batsman who is plumb LBW, does it mean the law states he was not LBW?

 

[Pratters]

And you better get back to starting to play cricket and find out what bowling actually is and why the old law was totally wrong.


And BTW, if the umpire does not give a batsman who is plumb LBW, does it mean the law states he was not LBW?

Let us also invent degrees for lbw like for chucking then?