Last edited:
-
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.
Ajmal Action Reported
- Thread starter LegionOfBrad
- Start date
Migara
International Coach
It is fun to see how prurists getting ********* repeatedly by science.
First it was, bowlers should bowl with a straight arm - proven wrong
Doosra cannot be bowled legally - proven wrong
Naked eye can pick cbhucking - proven wrong it is not possible within 15 degrees.
Next will be this, even with clean actions you can chuck. I will be there to laugh at the stupid prurists on that day.
First it was, bowlers should bowl with a straight arm - proven wrong
Doosra cannot be bowled legally - proven wrong
Naked eye can pick cbhucking - proven wrong it is not possible within 15 degrees.
Next will be this, even with clean actions you can chuck. I will be there to laugh at the stupid prurists on that day.
Last edited by a moderator:
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
It's not possible for a straight arm to look like anything other than a ****ing straight arm no matter how you rotate it. There's no "optical illusion" that allows someone to chuck whilst appearing clean to the naked eye, it's just not physically or logically possible.
It is however possible for a bent arm to look like a straight one by rotating it 90 degrees and looking at it from the side, creating the illusion of a chuck from a two dimensional perspective.
Thereby, all actions that appear clean are guaranteed to be legal but not all actions that appear dodgy are illegal. Clear?
It is however possible for a bent arm to look like a straight one by rotating it 90 degrees and looking at it from the side, creating the illusion of a chuck from a two dimensional perspective.
Thereby, all actions that appear clean are guaranteed to be legal but not all actions that appear dodgy are illegal. Clear?
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Stranger things have been proven by science. I am thinking quantum stuff. "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
the devils advocate is strong in this one. A straight line is a ****ing straight line unless you've discovered a way to see into a fourth dimension.
If you have, then I am intrigued and wish to hear more.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well, for starters, there is no such thing as a straight line. We need just 3 dimensions for that
Migara
International Coach
no. That's what you think. But not proven
indiaholic
International Captain
I think he has a point there Migara. Where do you think he is going wrong?
indiaholic
International Captain
Should be tested. Will be cleared I think.
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Someone who has an itch that they just love to scratch.
wellAlbidarned
International Coach
are you for real. Straight lines look straight from any angle - IT'S NOT PROVEN GUISE
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
But given that the definition of chucking now allows a 15 degree straightening, all we're concerned about is straightening in excess of that. So, as the term is now defined, the naked eye can pick chucking.
We all thought Senanayeke chucked it, because he looked as though he did. When the tests were done we were all proven right, not by a pure and staggering coincidence, but because he was in fact chucking and we could see that he was chucking. Same could be said for every one of the others who've been banned over the years.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Now it is late, but where in this article does Darren Berry even mention still images?
Darren Berry: We need sophisticated technology to deal with chucking | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
Last edited:
indiaholic
International Captain
Probably written in jest but saw this on the comment thread to the article: "All we need is an elbow band, that does not allow for straightening of the arm more than prescribed by the ICC rules. This will require a mechanism that is activated by the arm velocity. Arm velocity increases from the point when the ball is at the lowest point in the arm trajectory, thats when a mechanism locks the elbow band in its current state, such that the elbow would not move. The locking is released when the arm comes to zero velocity". 
Migara
International Coach
the current system is good to screen bowlers with dodgy actions only. What is the certainty that bowlers with clean action don't chuck?. We can have positive illusions (illusions of chucking when actions are clean) ss well as negative illusions. McGrath and Pollock were extending up to 12 and these guys had so called cleanest of actions. What would be the certainity that bowlers with less classical actions but not regarded as dodgy does not go beyond 15? There can be negative illusions too. We need to test for this, and my humble opinion is that human eye cannot pick extension in some bowlers even it is greater than 15. The threshold for the naked eye is bowler or action specific imo. For a fair appraisal both the above facets of the problem has to be addressed.
Migara
International Coach
it applies only to Sarwan. All others extend their elbows and some hyperextend.
