HyperExtension and Chucking

[open365]

As I say - simply rule-out anything being a chuck. Keep all bowler's actions uniform. If that means that 1 or 2 lose 5mph or so - I'd say it's worth it 100,000,000,000,000,000 times over to have a fair rule that is, beyond all question, unfailingly obeyed by all bowlers everywhere.

define a chuck.

 

[Richard]

Call it whatever you want - but if all bowlers' arms are at the exact same angle on every delivery ever bowled in a match, there's no such thing as a chuck.

 

[open365]

Call it whatever you want - but if all bowlers' arms are at the exact same angle on every delivery ever bowled in a match, there's no such thing as a chuck.

This is crazy talk,even for you...

 

[Richard]

Really?
Care to explain why, instead of just stating "that's crazy talk".

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah, I meant every bowler threw as according to the old definition, the one based on the false ideals.
I certainly don't understand about hyperextension - as far as I knew, it was the exclusive preserve of those with double-jointed joints. Thought the every-joint-does-it was called altrusion and extrusion or something (or is that a type of hyper-extension?)

The point is, now we've discovered what we've discovered, there is no fair way of doing things. Everyone now knows that you can't expect bowling to be done with an elbow that doesn't alter in angle; but equally IMO it's completely ludicrous to suggest that a bowler who has elbow-flexation of 16 degrees is in the slightest different from one with 14 degrees. And I don't mean virtually nothing - I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing. Those 2 degrees will make no difference at all.

I think there'd be varying levels of hyper-extension involved with all bowlers, with those that are double jointed being at the top end of the spectrum.

As far as I see it, the fairest way to do things is not to take hyper-extenision into account, as it's not controllable (if they actually are taking it into account that is). It's quite obviously not what constituted a throw in the first place.

 

[open365]

Really?
Care to explain why, instead of just stating "that's crazy talk".

Ok, that statement is stupid and irrelevant.

It makes no sense-

'if all bowlers' arms are at the exact same angle on every delivery ever bowled in a match, there's no such thing as a chuck.'

1)That's never going to happen
2)If every bowler bowled with his arms at the exact same angle in a chucking fashion, then they would all be chuckers.

You still won't define a chuck, how is anyone meant to be banned for chucking if you can't even explain what a chuck is?

It is stupid, implausible and immposible to make every bowler bowl the same way

 

[silentstriker]

Ok, that statement is stupid and irrelevant.

It makes no sense-

'if all bowlers' arms are at the exact same angle on every delivery ever bowled in a match, there's no such thing as a chuck.'

1)That's never going to happen
2)If every bowler bowled with his arms at the exact same angle in a chucking fashion, then they would all be chuckers.

You still won't define a chuck, how is anyone meant to be banned for chucking if you can't even explain what a chuck is?

It is stupid, implausible and immposible to make every bowler bowl the same way

I think he is advocating that everyone wear a brace?

 

[open365]

I think he is advocating that everyone wear a brace?

Wouldn't work, look at Brett Lee in slow-mo, his arm's all over the shop and no sane person has ever called him a chucker, it's the laws of physics when his arm is subjected to that much pressure.

 

[silentstriker]

Wouldn't work, look at Brett Lee in slow-mo, his arm's all over the shop and no sane person has ever called him a chucker, it's the laws of physics when his arm is subjected to that much pressure.

Wait, I think braces would be pretty radical...but they would work. I bet you can construct braces that bend upto 15 degrees either way. Why wouldn't they work? The brace would prevent his arm from 'going all over the shop'. He very well could be chucking, just that its an optical illusion that he is not (same as Murali's might be an optical illusion that he is). A brace would fix that problem, and the arm wouldn't be able to bend past that limit.

 

[Richard]

I think there'd be varying levels of hyper-extension involved with all bowlers, with those that are double jointed being at the top end of the spectrum.

As far as I see it, the fairest way to do things is not to take hyper-extenision into account, as it's not controllable (if they actually are taking it into account that is). It's quite obviously not what constituted a throw in the first place.

No, it's not - the trouble is that many people were willing to trust their first sight of the thing from behind the arm, which made it look like a "chuck", when a careful look at some more angles would show that it was merely hyperextension.

 

[Richard]

Wouldn't work, look at Brett Lee in slow-mo, his arm's all over the shop and no sane person has ever called him a chucker, it's the laws of physics when his arm is subjected to that much pressure.

Err - and it's also law of physics that when something is strapped in place it doesn't go "all over the shop".

 

[Richard]

Ok, that statement is stupid and irrelevant.

It makes no sense-

'if all bowlers' arms are at the exact same angle on every delivery ever bowled in a match, there's no such thing as a chuck.'

1)That's never going to happen
2)If every bowler bowled with his arms at the exact same angle in a chucking fashion, then they would all be chuckers.

You still won't define a chuck, how is anyone meant to be banned for chucking if you can't even explain what a chuck is?

It is stupid, implausible and immposible to make every bowler bowl the same way

As I say - if you wiped-out the chance of an arm straightening, there would not be any chucking.
And it is, perfectly possible to make every bowler's arm behave the same way, by putting a standardised brace on the arm - one which does not allow the elbow to move when it's on.

 

[Richard]

Wait, I think braces would be pretty radical...but they would work. I bet you can construct braces that bend upto 15 degrees either way. Why wouldn't they work? The brace would prevent his arm from 'going all over the shop'. He very well could be chucking, just that its an optical illusion that he is not (same as Murali's might be an optical illusion that he is). A brace would fix that problem, and the arm wouldn't be able to bend past that limit.

I'd simply say use a brace that doesn't allow any straightening.
That would wipe-out any accusations of "X bends his elbow more than Y does" that are sometimes heard.
It'd be perfectly possible - it would upset some people because no brace can be completely weightless and it would slow bowlers down a bit, but that really wouldn't matter if it made cricket fairer.

 

[open365]

I'd simply say use a brace that doesn't allow any straightening.
That would wipe-out any accusations of "X bends his elbow more than Y does" that are sometimes heard.
It'd be perfectly possible - it would upset some people because no brace can be completely weightless and it would slow bowlers down a bit, but that really wouldn't matter if it made cricket fairer.

In effect, wiping out fast bowlers wouldn't matter?

Brett Lee would not be able to bowl any where enar as fast as he does now with a brace on his arm, and it would probably cause his elbow serious damage.

'Completely weightless' it wouldn't be anywhere near completely weightless, it would ruin bowlers' rythm.

Where do you make it mandatory? At FC level? Club level? Are we going to have 13 year old kids wearing braceS?

 

[marc71178]

Actually, lets go one step further and replace the bowlers with machines - that'll make it fair.

But no, some batsmen are better than others as well, so lets replace them with machines as well.

That way we'd have a game where all catches are taken, and all batsmen and bowlers who Richard likes would do well (since he can program them to)

 

[silentstriker]

Actually, lets go one step further and replace the bowlers with machines - that'll make it fair.

But no, some batsmen are better than others as well, so lets replace them with machines as well.

That way we'd have a game where all catches are taken, and all batsmen and bowlers who Richard likes would do well (since he can program them to)

Yes, because stopping an elbow from bending more than 15 degrees (i.e stopping it from chucking) = bowling with machines. And if your elbow doesn't bend more than 15 degrees because, Shane Warne and Brett Lee will somehow bowl exactly the same deliveries.

Brett Lee would not be able to bowl any where enar as fast as he does now with a brace on his arm, and it would probably cause his elbow serious damage.

Um, if its bending more than 15 degrees, then he's chucking and he shouldn't be allowed to bowl as fast as he is. If his elbow isn't bending more than 15 degrees, and his arm is going 'all over the shop' within the allowable 15 degree variance, then he has nothing to worry about.

'Completely weightless' it wouldn't be anywhere near completely weightless, it would ruin bowlers' rythm.

Sure, at first. They'll get used to it.

Where do you make it mandatory? At FC level? Club level? Are we going to have 13 year old kids wearing braceS?

Kids wear helmets and pads, don't they? Why not a brace?

 

[luckyeddie]

As I'm probably the only person on CW who has actually bowled in an arm-brace, I can safely say without fear of contradiction that it is a hindrance you would be unlikely to ever get used to.

 

[Armadillo]

As I'm probably the only person on CW who has actually bowled in an arm-brace, I can safely say without fear of contradiction that it is a hindrance you would be unlikely to ever get used to.

I remember Murali coming on Channel four to prove his doubters wrong one test match, (Eng vs SA, I think). He showed that he could bowl with a brace on but whether it was at the same speed or with the same accuracy we couldn't tell.
Anyhow, it hasn't done much for his label as a chucker.

 

[Richard]

In effect, wiping out fast bowlers wouldn't matter?

Brett Lee would not be able to bowl any where enar as fast as he does now with a brace on his arm, and it would probably cause his elbow serious damage.

'Completely weightless' it wouldn't be anywhere near completely weightless, it would ruin bowlers' rythm.

Of course it would - d'you really imagine it'd not be possible to develop some sort of brace that would hardly weigh a thing?
Why on Earth would it cause damage? Rarely if ever can a joint be damaged by being stopped from being moved?
Wiping-out bowlers who bowled at 95mph wouldn't matter, at all, if we had a rule that meant the law was both fair and policeable, rather than the current nonsense and the nonsense we had before the current nonsense.

Where do you make it mandatory? At FC level? Club level? Are we going to have 13 year old kids wearing braceS?

Every level. Incorparate it in the Laws Of Cricket.

 

[Richard]

As I'm probably the only person on CW who has actually bowled in an arm-brace, I can safely say without fear of contradiction that it is a hindrance you would be unlikely to ever get used to.

How much did the thing weigh (about)?