Cricket faces chucking crisis

[slugger]

I'm terrible sorry but that only hi-lights my point. Thanx for making the fact clear to me mate!!

B.Lee test debut 1999 vs India
Shoiab test debut 1997 vs West Indies
Muralitharan test debut 1992 vs Aust.

ICC in 1992 should have said this, I'm sorry Muralitharan your abnormality of your bowling arm will distort and blur the rules (Must bowl with a straight arm at the point of release) because you can not bowl with a straight arm even though it is not intentional you will not be able to bowl. Your arm does not impeed you to the extent of not being able to bat or field.

Thus Lee and Shoiab would not be bowling to day as their adnormal arms do not allow them to release ball with a straight arm. As it was not possible for Muralitharan 8 or so years before them.

so to conclude the icc should have never bent the rules for bent arms to begin with. Or Murali case ran and hid until 500 wicket later.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yes mate didn't u know that, u should know the facts before u starting from the hips, with ridiculious statments. Sorry if it sounds harsh but it true.

It is a completely different sort of "abnormality". They hyper-extend, they are not incapable of fully straightening their arm. Anyway, if Murali is able to bowl in such a fashion that the field umpire is satisfied he is bowling legally, he should be able to bowl. Otherwise, he should not. This is the same rule which served every cricketer in the history of the game perfectly well until Murali came along, and if Lee and Shoaib were getting called for hyper-extending they should be subject to the same rule as well. They can drop off their pace or change their action or whatever until the umpire is satisfied.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Thus Lee and Shoiab would not be bowling to day as their adnormal arms do not allow them to release ball with a straight arm.

Lee and Shoaib are perfectly capable of releasing the ball with a straight enough arm to not be called for a no-ball. They both hyper-extend their elbows when they bowl, which is part of the reason they can bowl so quickly. If they don't get called however it isn't an issue.

 

[chaminda_00]

It is a completely different sort of "abnormality". They hyper-extend, they are not incapable of fully straightening their arm. Anyway, if Murali is able to bowl in such a fashion that the field umpire is satisfied he is bowling legally, he should be able to bowl. Otherwise, he should not. This is the same rule which served every cricketer in the history of the game perfectly well until Murali came along, and if Lee and Shoaib were getting called for hyper-extending they should be subject to the same rule as well. They can drop off their pace or change their action or whatever until the umpire is satisfied.

It is a different abnormality but it still gives them an advantage over all other bowlers in world. If it wasn't for their hyper-extending do u honesty think that they will be able to ball as fast as they do.

 

[slugger]

well ok but still, if they're not bowling or if anyone is not playing to the rules pior to this 15degree thing the icc should have implemented a rule that all players will be subject to actions on the field if any player has broken the rules regardless of intentional or not the will be banned for x amount of games. Just like every other sports if a player in league preforms a spear tackle etc they get banned for x amount of games.

 

[chaminda_00]

Thus Lee and Shoiab would not be bowling to day as their adnormal arms do not allow them to release ball with a straight arm. As it was not possible for Muralitharan 8 or so years before them.

so to conclude the icc should have never bent the rules for bent arms to begin with. Or Murali case ran and hid until 500 wicket later.

Consider there are bowler who chuck and have straight arms to begin with the ICC didn't change the rules just cus a couple of guys have brent arms or hyper-extend their arms. The old rule was un managable, just like this on is, but it is more realistic to what happens when u bowl then the old one. With the old rule guys with near perfect action like McGarth could techincally be called for chucking, cus they extended their arms more then 10 degrees.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It is a different abnormality but it still gives them an advantage over all other bowlers in world. If it wasn't for their hyper-extending do u honesty think that they will be able to ball as fast as they do.

Plenty of bowlers throughout history have hyper-extended, it gives a minimal advantage at best. Throwing however gives a significant advantage. Hyper-extension is, for all intents and purposes, the elbow bending a small amount in the wrong direction during delivery, it is not the same as throwing and does not convery the same advantages.

However, if they were called by an umpire then fair enough.

 

[SJS]

It is a completely different sort of "abnormality". They hyper-extend, they are not incapable of fully straightening their arm. Anyway, if Murali is able to bowl in such a fashion that the field umpire is satisfied he is bowling legally, he should be able to bowl. Otherwise, he should not. This is the same rule which served every cricketer in the history of the game perfectly well until Murali came along, and if Lee and Shoaib were getting called for hyper-extending they should be subject to the same rule as well. They can drop off their pace or change their action or whatever until the umpire is satisfied.

I have heard so much about hyper extension. But we must understand that the doosra has NOTHING to do with hyperextension.

Lets say, Murali has two separate problems. One he has this hyper extension, SECOND he wants to bowl the doosra.

Now the doosra, with or without the hyper extension, CAN NOT be bowled without bending from the elbow. Bending not , as we are told by Mr Gavaskar even MacGrath and Bedi bend their elbows but bending as you and I have always understood it. Bending which one has to CONCIOUSLY DO in order to bowl the doosra.

For all those who dont understand this, I can only say, go to the nets and try to bowl the doosra and you will see in a second what I am saying.

So mixing this hyper extension mumbo jumbo with Murali's bowling of the doosra is extremely mischevious to put it mildly.

If ICC had at least handled these two issues separately at least one aspect of this messy affair would have been settled once for all. The doosra would have been banned as contravening the laws of the game as they then stood and were understood.

Saqlain and Harbhajan have a problem only when they bowl the doosra and it has NOTHING to do with hyper extension.

 

[chaminda_00]

well ok but still, if they're not bowling or if anyone is not playing to the rules pior to this 15degree thing the icc should have implemented a rule that all players will be subject to actions on the field if any player has broken the rules regardless of intentional or not the will be banned for x amount of games. Just like every other sports if a player in league preforms a spear tackle etc they get banned for x amount of games.

a spear tacke is dangerous and can cus a player to be in a wheel chair, by braking his neck, there two completely different things.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

With the old rule guys with near perfect action like McGarth could techincally be called for chucking, cus they extended their arms more then 10 degrees.

But they never WOULD be called, which is why it is so absolutely idiotic to castrate the umpires and bring in lab testing which comes back the the ridiculous assertion that everybody in the world is a chucker. Clearly the likes of McGrath, Pollock, Warne, Vettori and so on have flawless actions and aren't chuckers or even remotely close to it. If you can't see why an umpire called Ian Meckiff and not Glenn McGrath you need to think things through a bit more.

 

[chaminda_00]

Plenty of bowlers throughout history have hyper-extended, it gives a minimal advantage at best. Throwing however gives a significant advantage. Hyper-extension is, for all intents and purposes, the elbow bending a small amount in the wrong direction during delivery, it is not the same as throwing and does not convery the same advantages.

However, if they were called by an umpire then fair enough.

Hyper-extend gives fast bowlers a lot more advantage then u think, it adds 5-10 km/h on any delivery.

 

[slugger]

Consider there are bowler who chuck and have straight arms to begin with the ICC didn't change the rules just cus a couple of guys have brent arms or hyper-extend their arms. The old rule was un managable, just like this on is, but it is more realistic to what happens when u bowl then the old one. With the old rule guys with near perfect action like McGarth could techincally be called for chucking, cus they extended their arms more then 10 degrees.

i like the last bit techincally could be called for chucking, where as people like Murali, shoiab, lee the doosa bowlers could all be identified with the naked eye.

 

[chaminda_00]

But they never WOULD be called, which is why it is so absolutely idiotic to castrate the umpires and bring in lab testing which comes back the the ridiculous assertion that everybody in the world is a chucker. Clearly the likes of McGrath, Pollock, Warne, Vettori and so on have flawless actions and aren't chuckers or even remotely close to it. If you can't see why an umpire called Ian Meckiff and not Glenn McGrath you need to think things through a bit more.

Think of it this way Fuller, if McGarth extends his arm by 10 degrees, how much would Mackiff extend it by, most likey 16 or 18 degrees. Under the old rules any one who extend their arm by 10 degress plus was a chucker, which isn't correct as that doesn't take into natural extends at all. Im not saying Glen McGarth a chucker just that under the old rules he was and that why they needed to be changed.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Think of it this way Fuller, if McGarth extends his arm by 10 degrees, how much would Mackiff extend it by, most likey 16 or 18 degrees. Under the old rules any one who extend their arm by 10 degress plus was a chucker, which isn't correct as that doesn't take into natural extends at all. Im not saying Glen McGarth a chucker just that under the old rules he was and that why they needed to be changed.

The "old rules" were just as stupid as the new rules, in every respect except for that an umpire could still make a call on the pitch. The new rules have taken the stupidity of the old rules in putting a specific number of degrees available which can clearly never be measured outside a lab at this time and is therefore utterly useless, and added a new stupidity in giving the bowlers even more leeway and allowing the threat of real chuckers coming into the game, and removing the umpires from the equation and therefore any chance of stopping chuckers from taking wickets with illegal deliveries. The original rules by which it was a judgement of the umpire about whether or not he was satisfied that the action of the bowler was legal are by far more sensible than placing an impossible-to-enforce law in place like it has been recently.

 

[chaminda_00]

i like the last bit techincally could be called for chucking, where as people like Murali, shoiab, lee the doosa bowlers could all be identified with the naked eye.

You also add all those fast bowlers that try and bowl at over 140 km/h like Brett and Shoaib, but don't have hyper-extention or the right action to allow them to. Lawson, Dilhara would both be in that boat, since they were forced to change their action they ball a lot slower.

 

[chaminda_00]

The "old rules" were just as stupid as the new rules, in every respect except for that an umpire could still make a call on the pitch.

Yeah but how many umpires had the balls to enforce, two in recent time, so the rules haven't changed.

 

[Dasa]

But they never WOULD be called, which is why it is so absolutely idiotic to castrate the umpires and bring in lab testing which comes back the the ridiculous assertion that everybody in the world is a chucker. Clearly the likes of McGrath, Pollock, Warne, Vettori and so on have flawless actions and aren't chuckers or even remotely close to it. If you can't see why an umpire called Ian Meckiff and not Glenn McGrath you need to think things through a bit more.

Sure, they can't be called on the field, but put them in a lab and they might be found out. Thus, to me it seems unfair to only call those who have actions that only look dodgy, as others may be commiting the same... crime, just without being caught for it.

 

[SJS]

Sure, they can't be called on the field, but put them in a lab and they might be found out. Thus, to me it seems unfair to only call those who have actions that only look dodgy, as others may be commiting the same... crime, just without being caught for it.

No Dasa. Thats the beauty of it.

its exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

All those who try anything "fishy" are the one's whose actions WILL appear doubtful to the umpires and these are the one's they are supposed to call.

Its NOT possible to intentionally try a dodgy action and for it not to LOOK dodgy.

What wont show is the "angle of flex" which we are told is 4% for say McGrath and 5% , say for Vettori. This angle of flex WONT show in the case of all these bowlers who have never ever, anyway, tried to do anything "dodgy" nor been seen to be doing so.

It was much simpler and it has been made complex now.

By saying that others like McGrath and Vettori also flex, a false justification is being sought for the new law. I call it false because the flex of McGrath Vettori and Pollock was not what the rule was made for 150 years ago and that still holds !!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Brett lee seems to be the bowler who have been bowling faster (than ever before) with a shorter run up.... interesting!

I think you're oversimplifying thoughts here...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Hyper-extend gives fast bowlers a lot more advantage then u think, it adds 5-10 km/h on any delivery.

I think you'll find most bowlers hyperextend to some degree - the difference with Lee and Shoaib is the extent to which they are able to hyperextend. According to what I've heard re: the ICC report on testing during the Champions Trophy it wasn't taken into account when measuring the 15 degrees. Then again, I've read other articles which give the impression it was.....so, who knows.