And here we go again....

[C_C]

So biomechanics can only determine a chuck in the lab and are hopeless on the field in a game of cricket.

They can determine with excellent accuracy whether you chuck or not under lab conditions.
They can determine with lesser accuracy(but significantly better than the umpires) upon viewing the footages of the match(es) concerned to say if you chucked or not.

 

[SJS]

Where do we stand ?

Just to recapture the scenario so far so as to avoid duplication :-

Scenario : Suppose Harbhajan had not bowled any doosras but had thrown some of his off spinners in the last test.The umpire feels these balls appeared to be having more than 15 % flex but he isnt sure. What happens in this case with the present rule ?

He gets referred to the biomechanical committee who then conduct tests....If he is found to be flexing BEYOND the statistical margin of error, he is guilty of throwing and then the appropriate ICC laws apply to him to determine what happens to him.
if he is found NOT to be flexing BEYOND the statistical margin of error, he is declared clear and allowed to resume his on-field duties.[

They will also use the match video to determine if he was throwing in the match ?



Situation : Since it is a delivery which, unlike the Doosra, doesnt HAVE to be thrown, the bowler does not throw in the lab test and thus the flex appears under 15 degrees.

The match video ( to the best of my limited, primitive, illogical and old fashioned thinking ) does not YET allow the angle of flex to be determined. In fact that is why they need to go to the lab in the first place. Thus even the video does not give the angle of flex.

The law defines the illegal delivery as one in which the angle of flex is greater than 15 degrees.

PROBLEM :How to prove that Harbhajan bowled illegal deliveries in the match ?

 

[Scallywag]

he has found a flaw ?
thou art too hasty.... Chris broad has ZERO qualifications to find a flaw in harby's bowling...
all he has done (assuming perfect honesty and integrity) is noticed that something is different....whether it is a flaw or a totally unrelated biomechanical motion to elbow flex, Chris Broad has no authority or credibility to claim.

Are you saying that the ICC have not given Broad the authority to determine if a bowler has a suspect action. A person who is an accredited umpire familiar with the relevent rules regarding playing cricket is qualified to make that assesment whether you agree with it or not.

You have absolutely no idea why Broad made the report and have no qualifications to even question his authority. The laws of cricket give him the qualifications and authority and just because you cant accept this has no bearing on his qualifications.

 

[SJS]

They can determine with excellent accuracy whether you chuck or not under lab conditions.
They can determine with lesser accuracy(but significantly better than the umpires) upon viewing the footages of the match(es) concerned to say if you chucked or not.

Define "chucking "

What is it AS PER THE LAW if not flexing beyond 15 degrees ?

If there is another definition (acceptable to ICC, I would like to know what it is. If there isnt then its not a question of deternmining whether he chucked (whatever that may mean) but what was the angle of flex.

 

[C_C]

Are you saying that the ICC have not given Broad the authority to determine if a bowler has a suspect action.

Thinking 'this doesnt look right' and finding a flaw, like you claimed, are two totally different things....for the former,it is subjective and doesnt require anything but two functional eyes...the latter requires educated fact-finding in the field concerned.

Like i said, i think your english needs some polishing, mate.

 

[Scallywag]

Like i said, i think your english needs some polishing, mate.

I know what you are polishing.

 

[C_C]

The match video ( to the best of my limited, primitive, illogical and old fashioned thinking ) does not YET allow the angle of flex to be determined. In fact that is why they need to go to the lab in the first place. Thus even the video does not give the angle of flex.

Incorrect supposition.
The match video DOES allow you to determine the angle of flex. This is how, along with biomechanical theory, it was said that almost every bowler in the past and present flex their elbows.

It is just not AS ACCURATE as lab-testing.... with current players,they do both...to assertain whether 1. a bowler is an indeliberate chucker or 2. a bowler is a deliberate chucker or 3. he is both.

To simplify matters...lab testing can give you an answer accurate to within 1 degree....
frame-by-frame analysis gives you a less accurate result with a bigger uncertainty.... i dont know the actual figure....but lets say(for argument's sake) that it is 4 degrees.

Therefore, if one measures the flex angle of say McGrath in the lab and finds it to be 12.5 degrees, they can say that his flex is 12.5 ± 1 degree...meaning it can be as low as 11.5 and as high as 13.5 degree but NOT outside that range....
If from video analysis, it was found to be 13 degrees, it means that it is 13 ± 4 degrees...meaning it can be as low as 9 degrees and as high as 17 degrees....
since the actual result is within the limit (15 degrees) and goes outside the limit only due to uncertainty, it is scientifically acceptable and authentic...ie, the person does NOT chuck.

I hope that this is clear enough.

 

[SJS]

Define "chucking "

What is it AS PER THE LAW if not flexing beyond 15 degrees ?

If there is another definition (acceptable to ICC, I would like to know what it is. If there isnt then its not a question of deternmining whether he chucked (whatever that may mean) but what was the angle of flex.

So, the question remains, how to prove Harbhajan bowled some illegal deliveries in the match where he flexed more than 15 degrees !!

 

[C_C]

I know what you are polishing.

You dont wanna go down that route mate...trust me....

 

[C_C]

So, the question remains, how to prove Harbhajan bowled some illegal deliveries in the match where he flexed more than 15 degrees !!

Are you reading ?
I have said a few times now that you CAN determine the angle of flex from video replay(frame by frame analysis), given you have the proper qualifications...but it wont be as accurate as in-lab conditions.
TO prove whether harby is flexing or not IN MATCHPLAY, you can frame-by-frame analyse the said delivery(ies) from the said match(es).

 

[SJS]

Incorrect supposition.
The match video DOES allow you to determine the angle of flex. This is how, along with biomechanical theory, it was said that almost every bowler in the past and present flex their elbows.

It is just not AS ACCURATE as lab-testing.... with current players,they do both...to assertain whether 1. a bowler is an indeliberate chucker or 2. a bowler is a deliberate chucker or 3. he is both.

To simplify matters...lab testing can give you an answer accurate to within 1 degree....
frame-by-frame analysis gives you a less accurate result with a bigger uncertainty.... i dont know the actual figure....but lets say(for argument's sake) that it is 4 degrees.

Therefore, if one measures the flex angle of say McGrath in the lab and finds it to be 12.5 degrees, they can say that his flex is 12.5 ± 1 degree...meaning it can be as low as 11.5 and as high as 13.5 degree but NOT outside that range....
If from video analysis, it was found to be 13 degrees, it means that it is 13 ± 4 degrees...meaning it can be as low as 9 degrees and as high as 17 degrees....
since the actual result is within the limit (15 degrees) and goes outside the limit only due to uncertainty, it is scientifically acceptable and authentic...ie, the person does NOT chuck.

I hope that this is clear enough.

1. Show me where it says you can check the angle of flex from a video ?

2. What to do if the lab shows ten degrees flex only in this case.

Please answer both not one.

 

[SJS]

Hi Slow Love.

I see you are on this thread. Let me know what you think ?

 

[Slow Love™]

Hi Slow Love.

I see you are on this thread. Let me know what you think ?

Holy Christ, busted!!!!

I've been thinking about responding, but I have a young boy on my lap and he wont let me type much. I'll come back with something when my wife gets home from work...

 

[C_C]

1. Show me where it says you can check the angle of flex from a video ?

I know this from two sources. One, with logical deduction from some of the articles i've read(one of which you've posted) and two, what i am talking about is standard modus operandi in the department of kinesiology and biomechanics.

This is the quote i am referring to:

However, while we watched the likes of McGrath, Pollock, Harmison and Donald, we quickly realised that the levels were far too low. All those bowlers possessed actions any youngster would be wise to copy, we thought, yet their bowling arms were nowhere near as straight as we anticipated. Sitting mesmerised, we listened to an expert in biomechanics state the results of his research. "On this delivery the bowler's arm has straightened by 11 degrees," Dr Portus said. "On this one it straightened by eight; and on this it was 10."

Now, McGrath, Pollock,Harmison and Donald have never been reported and never undergone lab-work like Murali, Brett Lee, Akhtar,Mahwire and Harbhajan have gone through.
The article also mentions that they sat around watching the likes and the professor was assigning concise numerical flex to the said bowlers.
That leads to the conclusion that you CAN measure flex angles from video analysis...albeit it is less accurate than lab-work.

2. What to do if the lab shows ten degrees flex only in this case.

That is perfectly natural and normal.
A bowler will not have exactly the same flex every single time he bowls.... that is against mechanical principles...even in high precision equipments, which is why all mechanical equipments come with a note on levels of tolerance and error.
The lab work wont show 10 degrees flex every single time..it cannot...if your action is remarkably consistent, the actual figures will read something like this :
10, 10, 10, 11, 10, 9, etc....if it is not a consistent action but legal, it will probably read as somehting like this : 9,10,10, 14, 6, 10, 4, etc....

As long as you dont have more deliveries than the statistical margin of error that violates the limit ( 15 degrees), you are deemed eligible.

however, if there is significant discrepancy between lab and video analysis then all it means is that video evidence suggests that the bowler flexes more in match conditions than lab conditions- which again is not a problem as long as his match condition flex is on or below 15 degrees.(bear in mind that video analysis carries a larger margin of error, so significant discrepancy would have to be higher than the error margin..ie, lab work showing 9 deg and field work showing 12 on average/worst case is not significant if the field work carries an error margin of ± 4 degrees....but if the lab work shows 5 and the field work shows 12 with the same error margin, then it is significant)

 

[C_C]

I've been thinking about responding, but I have a young boy on my lap and he wont let me type much. I'll come back with something when my wife gets home from work...

or you can do what my friend, who is a new mom does....learn to type with one hand

 

[SJS]

I know this from two sources. One, with logical deduction from some of the articles i've read(one of which you've posted) and two, what i am talking about is standard modus operandi in the department of kinesiology and biomechanics.

I am not the technical whizz kid that you are, sir, but I am afraid, this may not be enough so till such time we have a more authentic/official confirmation of the assumption that degree of flex can be determined by video films we wil keep this aside.

Thus we do not know the degree of flex in the match and the lab results show 10 degrees.

Hence Mr Harbhajan Singhs deliveries were legal.

Thank you, your honour,

I rest my case

 

[SJS]

With this done I would like to request you, dear CC to put my name on your ignore list. As I am doing with yours forthwith.

 

[C_C]

Thus we do not know the degree of flex in the match

So how do you think the professor/doctor got the numbers ( 7 degrees/10 degrees whatever) in regards to McGrath/Donald/Pollock etc ?
Pulled em outta the hat ?

If they couldnt find from video evidence and McGrath/Donald/Pollock have NEVER taken part in a laboratory testing, how can he get those figures ?
Answer sil vous plait .

 

[SJS]

Answer sil vous plait .

Désolé. je ne l'apprécie pas

 

[C_C]

Bien