Chuckers

[Top_Cat]

Yeah but they won't. Doing it in a lab will always provide more accurate measurements and changes in behaviour can be allowed for in testing and experimental design. It would take quite a system to get over what's in place and, unless the ICC is demanding it, who would bother developing it? That there's been nothing from Elliot's group on the matter for years speaks volumes in my book.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah but they won't. Doing it in a lab will always provide more accurate measurements and changes in behaviour can be allowed for in testing and experimental design. It would take quite a system to get over what's in place and, unless the ICC is demanding it, who would bother developing it? That there's been nothing from Elliot's group on the matter for years speaks volumes in my book.

Completely disagree. Can't possibly be controlled for to any significant degree, unless you had exactly the kind of in-game measurements to compare it too that you are saying is impossible to do!
Lol.

I don't know why they supposedly aren't doing it. But it's the best option, and they did do it with Cameron Gannon as mentioned earlier anyway so what is your point exactly?

 

[Top_Cat]

You're completely mischaracterising what I said. Forget it and read the goddamn paper.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can you just spell out what your point is because I honestly don't understand what you disagree with? A paper reviewing studies down a decade a go is hardly relevant in determining whether we can develop the necessary technology for in-game testing, especially since they have already used it for Cameron Gannon so it obviously is possible and reliable enough to use.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Maximas]

I don't think they can do in game testing when the player wears a shirt and all, I still don't see why all other evidence should be discounted simply because it isn't strictly under match conditions

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't think they can do in game testing when the player wears a shirt and all, I still don't see why all other evidence should be discounted simply because it isn't strictly under match conditions

I don't think anyone does.

 

[JBMAC]

"Chuckers" aside from one obvious one, Charlie Griffith(WI),Rourke,Meckiff(AUS),Botha(SA)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Among spinners of days gone by, Tony Lock and Jasu Patel looked pretty bad

 

[the big bambino]

Ok, we'll just eliminate Glenn McGrath, Richard Hadlee, Brett Lee and plenty more from the bowling records...

Watch Glen McGrath bowl, then watch Murali bowl. And try to tell me that they are bending their arm the same amount...

This exchange encapsulates the possibly faulty logic leading to the 15 degree rule and the justification the change was to save all bowlers, not just Murali. Its possible that bowling and throwing are distinct but share common traits one of which is bending the arm. The human eye only seems capable of detecting the bend in throwing which seems reasonable enough as the law against chucking was instigated before modern photo/film technology. When technology arrived and detected the flexion in bowling, faulty reasoning conflated the shared trait of bending present in both bowling and throwing and incorrectly labelled all bowlers as throwers. So we'd better change the law for everyone's sake...

There are other characteristics to throwing that make it distinct to bowling but are hard to define or codify. An arbitrary 15 degree rule is easier to legislate and enforce but fails to distinguish the likes of McGrath and Hadlee from Murali or Botha. A distinction any law maker and umpire before the change in the rule could.

 

[Migara]

This exchange encapsulates the possibly faulty logic leading to the 15 degree rule and the justification the change was to save all bowlers, not just Murali. Its possible that bowling and throwing are distinct but share common traits one of which is bending the arm. The human eye only seems capable of detecting the bend in throwing which seems reasonable enough as the law against chucking was instigated before modern photo/film technology. When technology arrived and detected the flexion in bowling, faulty reasoning conflated the shared trait of bending present in both bowling and throwing and incorrectly labelled all bowlers as throwers. So we'd better change the law for everyone's sake...

There are other characteristics to throwing that make it distinct to bowling but are hard to define or codify. An arbitrary 15 degree rule is easier to legislate and enforce but fails to distinguish the likes of McGrath and Hadlee from Murali or Botha. A distinction any law maker and umpire before the change in the rule could.

Which once again brings us back to square one. Pick and choose the parameter which makes dodgy actions have highest or lowest values. What ever the other parameters say, then treat the selected one as gold standard fot detecting chucking.

 

[hendrix]

This exchange encapsulates the possibly faulty logic leading to the 15 degree rule and the justification the change was to save all bowlers, not just Murali. Its possible that bowling and throwing are distinct but share common traits one of which is bending the arm. The human eye only seems capable of detecting the bend in throwing which seems reasonable enough as the law against chucking was instigated before modern photo/film technology. When technology arrived and detected the flexion in bowling, faulty reasoning conflated the shared trait of bending present in both bowling and throwing and incorrectly labelled all bowlers as throwers. So we'd better change the law for everyone's sake...

There are other characteristics to throwing that make it distinct to bowling but are hard to define or codify. An arbitrary 15 degree rule is easier to legislate and enforce but fails to distinguish the likes of McGrath and Hadlee from Murali or Botha. A distinction any law maker and umpire before the change in the rule could.

a few thoughts on this:
1. To be honest, I never thought McGrath or Hadlee's actions were beautiful, smooth bowling actions. Much like, say, Southee or Hilfenhaus' actions, there is a little bit of imperfection. But I think it's reasonable to allow this level of leeway.

2. Botha's action is bloody ugly, but his doosra has been deemed illegal and his stock delivery is undergoing re-testing, whereas none of Murali's deliveries have ever been deemed illegal. So I don't think it's fair to group these two together.

3. I'm not a biomechanic specialist but I do think that straightening the arm is the distinction between bowling and throwing. Some degree of straightening may occur but I think it's perfectly fair to set an arbitrary boundary.

Arbitrary boundaries are set in terms of length of pitch, size of bat, size of boundaries, size of inner circle, size and weight of ball, LBW laws etc etc. They make things easier to legislate and easier to judge.

 

[outbreak]

yulp not the players fault, the icc say this is an ok action now which is stupid.

 

[harsh.ag]

I know this thread isn't just about Murali, but I am in a benign mood. So anybody who hasn't seen this long back, go ahead and do it now:

A closer look at Muttiah Muralitharan's bowling action - YouTube

If you still believe the experts can be "fooled" in any way, then you see, I have this bridge.....

 

[fredfertang]

I didn't realise Shastri was that tall

 

[Maximas]

There's also this one with Mark Nicholas.Is Muralitharan's bowling action legal? - 2004 (Part 1) - YouTube

This is where it really hits home with me, seeing when he demonstrated his action from side-on was incredible, it's all just an illusion, he actually looks like a lot of other bowlers just rolling their arm over normally. Really worth a watch for people like thejedibrah who are basing everything off the illusion of a chuck

 

[hendrix]

back in the days in which Shastri was actually a decent commentator.

 

[the big bambino]

a few thoughts on this:
1. To be honest, I never thought McGrath or Hadlee's actions were beautiful, smooth bowling actions. Much like, say, Southee or Hilfenhaus' actions, there is a little bit of imperfection. But I think it's reasonable to allow this level of leeway.

2. Botha's action is bloody ugly, but his doosra has been deemed illegal and his stock delivery is undergoing re-testing, whereas none of Murali's deliveries have ever been deemed illegal. So I don't think it's fair to group these two together.

3. I'm not a biomechanic specialist but I do think that straightening the arm is the distinction between bowling and throwing. Some degree of straightening may occur but I think it's perfectly fair to set an arbitrary boundary.

Arbitrary boundaries are set in terms of length of pitch, size of bat, size of boundaries, size of inner circle, size and weight of ball, LBW laws etc etc. They make things easier to legislate and easier to judge.

The grouping of McGrath and Hadlee opposed to Murali and Botha is based on one set being called for throwing and is plausible. I am in laymen's agreement that the straightening of the arm is the distinction which is why I think the eye can pick that up but not what I describe as flexion.

The point about arbitrary boundaries is fair but not as far as it goes as many decisions in cricket are based on subjective judgment (though assisted by technology as much as possible). Comparing the role of measurements in determining the length of pitch with the degree of angle a bowler's arm produces at delivery isn't strictly the same thing. There are no doubts about pitch measurement whereas the 15 degree rule measures the angle but doesn't distinguish btwn straightening and flexion which is an important distinction.

It might be the 15 degree rule is a happy compromise not exceeded by flexion and where the advantage obtained by throwing isn't so great. Most of all it is justified bcos all parties accept it and the process enforcing it. Removing controversy from this issue is the rule's greatest asset even when netted against the perceived dimunition of the ump's authourity and its encouragement of some bowlers prone to throwing; usually those who attempt the doosra.

 

[uvelocity]

how has controversy been removed

 

[the big bambino]

What controversy has there been similar to the rancour, threatened walk off, strained relations and lingering bitterness btwn the reporting of Botha compared to the no balling of Murali for instance?

 

[Top_Cat]

Doubt many people would lose their lunch over Klinger, et al doing a walk off in solidarity with their beleaguered skipper.....

(I agree with your point, I just wanted to bring up SA)