Ending chucking controversies once and for all

[vvk]

This problem never seems to go away in modern day cricket, irrespective of how many panels or processes are developed to rid the game of the problem.

One solution, that would solve the problem, would be to change the rules of the game. It would be akin to the transition from underarm to overarm, why don't we let all actions pass as a legal delivery?

Everybody will be on a level playing field and actions will not have to be scrutinized as it is. The current process is waste of resources. This may seem as an eye opener for some, but it could rid the game of the recent chucking controversies that have given cricket a bad name...

 

[age_master]

and what to the people that gain an advantage out of it, surely this would be unfair to those who dont chuck

 

[tooextracool]

This problem never seems to go away in modern day cricket, irrespective of how many panels or processes are developed to rid the game of the problem.

One solution, that would solve the problem, would be to change the rules of the game. It would be akin to the transition from underarm to overarm, why don't we let all actions pass as a legal delivery?

Everybody will be on a level playing field and actions will not have to be scrutinized as it is. The current process is waste of resources. This may seem as an eye opener for some, but it could rid the game of the recent chucking controversies that have given cricket a bad name...

so u would like to see every bowler either turning the ball half a mile or bowling at 120 mph??

 

[vvk]

It's not really my opinion, just trying to give the issue a new perspective...

But why not? It's a game dominated by batsman as it is...

 

[Kent]

I've always thought cricket would be a purer game if the ball could be delivered in any way that's desired. I have an American uncle who likens cricket to competitive walking because of the restrictions it places on the bowler.

It's a bizarre concept just to think about really. I could achieve more pace and the ball would skid on, but I still don't know if I could dismiss a decent batsman with a chuck. For what it's worth, the pitch speeds in baseball aren't anywhere near as outrageous as 120mph.

 

[Richard]

The rules of cricket have been that chucking is illegal for... as long as they've existed.
And while it's not always been clarified clearly, it's still always been the same.
Changing that now would IMO be a bad idea as there's no doubt whatsoever that straightening your arm during delivery gives advantage over those who don't.
That's always been construed as unfair and I don't see any reason to change that.
The definition is much clearer than that between walking\running. Indeed, has anyone ever managed to come-up with one?

 

[Langeveldt]

As long as Mr Muralitharan is still taking bags and bags of wickets, and loads of people try to copy his action on the subcontinent, there will always be the problem with chucking in cricket...

*DISCLAIMER*
I am not saying that Murali has an illegal action, of course not.... but having loads of youngsters copying his action is hardly condusive to having 100% legit actions coming through ...


It seems now that the problem is getting more and more out of control... And apart from that suggestion I can see no solution at all...

Having legal throwing, would certainly make the game interesting... Maybe not a batsmans domination any longer!

 

[Richard]

There are better ways to do that... :alien8:
It seems to be without doubt that youngsters are attempting to copy Muralitharan's wrist (not possible in most cases, as you can't create double-jointed wrists), misunderstanding that his bent elbow comes into the equation, and that they are allowed to bowl with a bent, straightening elbow if they do what he does with the wrist.
Hopefully if any of them are any good (and you can't teach Murali's accuracy) then they'll get called before they get anywhere near the top level.
I don't think it's a problem until we get loads of bowlers coming into Test-cricket and immidiately getting reported and having to modify their actions.

 

[Neil Pickup]

The definition is much clearer than that between walking\running. Indeed, has anyone ever managed to come-up with one?

I always thought that a walk became a run when both feet left the ground at the same time.

 

[marc71178]

I always thought that a walk became a run when both feet left the ground at the same time.

If Inzy's batting there's no distinction!

 

[Richard]

Walking between the wickets is a speciality of his. Though less now than it used to be.
And why bother running when you can belt sixes like he can? :wow:

 

[Richard]

I always thought that a walk became a run when both feet left the ground at the same time.

That may quite possibly be it - though of course it is possible to "run" ridiculously slowly by taking your feet off the ground ostensibly that way...
It sounds silly, doesn't it - "a bowler's walk-up". Somehow I think allowing them to bowl with an arm that doesn't change in sinuosity is a better idea than not allowing the feet to leave the floor at the same time in the approach to the crease. If only because it's easier to adjudicate on. :rolleyes:
I really can't see that changing the rules is a good idea at all.

 

[Neil Pickup]

It sounds silly, doesn't it - "a bowler's walk-up

"Approach"

 

[Richard]

That may quite possibly be it - though of course it is possible to "run" ridiculously slowly by taking your feet off the ground ostensibly that way...
It sounds silly, doesn't it - "a bowler's walk-up". Somehow I think allowing them to bowl with an arm that doesn't change in sinuosity is a better idea than not allowing the feet to leave the floor at the same time in the approach to the crease. If only because it's easier to adjudicate on. :rolleyes:
I really can't see that changing the rules is a good idea at all.

See, I'm not as dumb as I look. 8D

 

[Neil Pickup]

See, I'm not as dumb as I look. 8D

Or sound..

 

[Richard]

Or read as...
I'm disappointed if I sound dumb.