HyperExtension and Chucking

[Richard]

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)

Err, and where on Earth is that remotely related to uniformifying bowlers' elbows to make the game completely fair?

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Isn't that why we have the system that's in place at the moment? Making it practically impossible for a player to be called in the match?

...hang on - what are you saying 'No it's not' to?

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Every level. Incorparate it in the Laws Of Cricket.

Because a joint flexes to absorb an impact or stress placed upon it doesn't it? If it can't flex it won't absorb the impact as well. If you put a brace on to keep your legs straight and then jumped off a (small) wall it would have a greater effect on your body than if you could flex your knees on impact (especially if you did it 200+ times over a five day period). Similarly, an elbow locked in place whilst bowling would eventually break down I'd imagine. If not the elbow, then areas associated with it that are attempting to compromise (like the shoulder).

 

[Richard]

There's a difference, though. With jumping off a wall, there's a final, instant, one-off, instantaneous impact. With bowling, it's just a constant swish through.
I can't believe the brace wouldn't completely absorb any stress that would normally be lessened by flexing.

 

[Richard]

Isn't that why we have the system that's in place at the moment? Making it practically impossible for a player to be called in the match?

Yes, it is.
No bowler should ever be called for throwing in a top-level match again and quite rightly. These decisions cannot be made on an Umpire's whim - even when you do weed-out the Emerson types.

...hang on - what are you saying 'No it's not' to?

It's quite obviously not what constituted a throw in the first place.

 

[Sir Redman]

There's a difference, though. With jumping off a wall, there's a final, instant, one-off, instantaneous impact. With bowling, it's just a constant swish through.
I can't believe the brace wouldn't completely absorb any stress that would normally be lessened by flexing.

It's got nothing to do with a brace absorbing stress really.

Imagine a fast bowler who's elbow extends 10 degrees when he bowls. What this means is that under normal conditions (i.e. no brace) muscles and tendons are providing a force to make the elbow extend 10 degrees. Imagine you then brace his elbow. Now, his elbow is still trying to extend (caused by the bowling action) but it cannot - the contact from the locking mechanism in the brace causes a reaction force on the elbow that must be equal and opposite to the force trying to make the elbow extend. As such, you have extra stress placed on the ligaments and tendons and things in the elbow and therefore there is a greater possibility of damage.


At least, that's the way I see it.

 

[open365]

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.

Every level. Incorparate it in the Laws Of Cricket.

What the hell is wrong with the current law?

If the ICC say your over the 15 degree limit you stop bowling, whereas in your world, everyone wears a brace and those whose arm bends get broken elbows.

 

[Richard]

It's got nothing to do with a brace absorbing stress really.

Imagine a fast bowler who's elbow extends 10 degrees when he bowls. What this means is that under normal conditions (i.e. no brace) muscles and tendons are providing a force to make the elbow extend 10 degrees. Imagine you then brace his elbow. Now, his elbow is still trying to extend (caused by the bowling action) but it cannot - the contact from the locking mechanism in the brace causes a reaction force on the elbow that must be equal and opposite to the force trying to make the elbow extend. As such, you have extra stress placed on the ligaments and tendons and things in the elbow and therefore there is a greater possibility of damage.


At least, that's the way I see it.

I don't see how damage can be caused when, in essence, nothing is happening.
The equivalent, for me, is that the arm would be being gently spun around with no more force than rolling the ball along the ground.
I can best explain it as the force that is normally causing the extension is no longer there. The brace has absorbed it. The stress would be on the brace, not the elbow joint.

 

[Richard]

What the hell is wrong with the current law?

If the ICC say your over the 15 degree limit you stop bowling, whereas in your world, everyone wears a brace and those whose arm bends get broken elbows.

No, not so. At least, I see no reason to assume so.
Why the hell does someone who has a flexation of 14 degrees deserve to keep bowling while one who has one of 16 degrees must be instantly banned and labelled a cheat? There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between 14 and 16, so far as gaining an advantage is concerned. It's utterly stupid for a law to suggest that there can possibly be any threshold. Once you go over 0 degrees, you can never make a fair law.
This is before we even get into the fact that someone can quite easily bend their elbow 10 degrees in testing, and 20 in match situations. Absolutely no way can anyone spot a difference of 10 degrees - it's totally impossible.

 

[marc71178]

I don't see how damage can be caused when, in essence, nothing is happening.

Yes, with the brace on, nothing is happening if the brace is 100% sturdy.

However without the brace, the bowlers arms is flexing considerably.

Hence the damage.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes, with the brace on, nothing is happening if the brace is 100% sturdy.

However without the brace, the bowlers arms is flexing considerably.

Hence the damage.

It's going to be fun seeing the bowler try to field with an arm-brace on - and what happens if he drops the ball in his run-up? Does he have to get a fielder to pick it up for him?

Or do we develop a magical, 'inertia' arm-brace that allows for a normal range of movement, seam-picking, shoelace tying and botty-wiping but then leaps into position, car seat-belt-wise, during the delivery stride? If so, who controls it? I suppose it will give the umpire something to do when he's not just making wrong decisions?

Every bowler would need their own arm-brace, of course - that means that if you have (typically) 6 bowlers in your side, then that's 6 arm-braces you'll need on the field of play at the same time - put the others in a pile behind the wicket-keeper, I suppose?

That means that if Harmison ever bowls well again, someone would say "He must have put Flintoff's arm-guard on by mistake".

Another impractical, hare-brained, ridiculous, totally silly idea.

I wonder whose it was?

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, with the brace on, nothing is happening if the brace is 100% sturdy.

However without the brace, the bowlers arms is flexing considerably.

Hence the damage.

Well, if it is flexing more than 15 degrees, then he's a chucker and a cheater, and his elbow could break in half for all I care.

It's going to be fun seeing the bowler try to field with an arm-brace on - and what happens if he drops the ball in his run-up?

Or, maybe, just maybe...he can use arm #2. You know, the one without the brace?

Every bowler would need their own arm-brace, of course - that means that if you have (typically) 6 bowlers in your side, then that's 6 arm-braces you'll need on the field of play at the same time - put the others in a pile behind the wicket-keeper, I suppose?

Not really, it would be more like helmets or pads, you just choose the one that fits you. Perhaps Murali would need his own, but most people can pick one of several sizes.

I wonder whose it was?

I think its a good idea that will make the game fair. Everytime I see Shoaib bowl, it annoys me every time because he shouldn't be bowling like he is.

 

[silentstriker]

That means that if Harmison ever bowls well again, someone would say "He must have put Flintoff's arm-guard on by mistake".

So we shouldn't implement it because someone might come up with a joke about it. Thats a great idea. We should get rid of bats too because if McGrath ever scores a century, someone might say, someone might say "He must have used Ponting's bat by mistake."

 

[luckyeddie]

So we shouldn't implement it because someone might come up with a joke about it. Thats a great idea. We should get rid of bats too because if McGrath ever scores a century, someone might say, someone might say "He must have used Ponting's bat by mistake."

Good points you've made, and I really do see where you are coming from.

It's patently obvious that having five or six bowlers tearing around the outfield having to field one-handed is a pretty strange idea, but let's explore the possibilities. We could, for instance, give those fielders encumbered by having to wear an elbow-brace some other means of gathering the ball - possibly something like the Cesta that's used in Jai-Alai (Pelota), or perhaps a stick with a cupped head, similar to Lacrosse? Better still, how about a large wicket-keeping gauntlet with super-deep webbing?

Then there's the school of thought that frequently expresses the opinion that 'flexion' is actually a mark of progress in cricket, and should be tolerated to an extent far greater than the current limits?

This, coupled with the number of 'beamers' being bowled in test cricket at the moment, taken in conjunction with the Jones/Harmison/Nel propensity for hurling the ball back in the batsman's direction with often alarming results makes me think that perhaps a ball that doesn't bounce is the way to go, possibly delivered from a standing position?

The shorter innings currently in vogue is only the start, of course. It's only a matter of time before it comes down still further - say just until three batsmen are out? And seeing as everything is financed by television, we will have to ensure that there are no 'dead' periods of play, so it might be worth bringing in 'tip and run'. This will obviously lead to very short contests, and we can't possibly entertain a cricket match finishing 0-0, so shall we say, 9 innings a side to ensure plenty of advert breaks?

It might catch on, but not in the intelligent parts of the world.

 

[silentstriker]

It's patently obvious that having five or six bowlers tearing around the outfield having to field one-handed is a pretty strange idea,

They only have to put one on when coming on to bowl.

Then there's the school of thought that frequently expresses the opinion that 'flexion' is actually a mark of progress in cricket, and should be tolerated to an extent far greater than the current limits?

Then, the brace would be able to bend to whatever flex rate that is legal.

This, coupled with the number of 'beamers' being bowled in test cricket at the moment, taken in conjunction with the Jones/Harmison/Nel propensity for hurling the ball back in the batsman's direction with often alarming results makes me think that perhaps a ball that doesn't bounce is the way to go, possibly delivered from a standing position?

The shorter innings currently in vogue is only the start, of course. It's only a matter of time before it comes down still further - say just until three batsmen are out? And seeing as everything is financed by television, we will have to ensure that there are no 'dead' periods of play, so it might be worth bringing in 'tip and run'. This will obviously lead to very short contests, and we can't possibly entertain a cricket match finishing 0-0, so shall we say, 9 innings a side to ensure plenty of advert breaks?

It might catch on, but not in the intelligent parts of the world.

Yes, because making braces that prevent bowlers from chucking the ball like an American baseball player will make the game just like American baseball.

You sir, are a God of logic.

 

[luckyeddie]

You sir, are a God of logic.

OK, without the funny remarks, I see some problems. Now, I am a highly capable IT professional (a God of logic, if you like), but I just think the solutions would be more than a little cost-prohibitive.

For instance:

The day that bowlers have to bowl in a brace that restricts movement is the day that someone deliberately exploits the situation - say 'tweaking' it so that it allows 20 or 25 degree flexion, or so that it never allows the arm to return to the straight position and thus facilitates the bowling of a 'doosra' - but of course he won't be suspected because it's wearing a brace. So - braces will have to be 'controlled' or 'checked' by the ICC - every single session. You can't have everyone using the same one - people's arms are different shapes for a start.

A second problem - how long do you think it will take to put on and remove an arm-guard every six balls, and how many overs an hour will that bring the game down to? If he keeps it on, he can't field in the deep (won't be able to throw) and can't field in the slips (restricted movement).

Another thing - how is the bowler supposed to field off his own bowling? And how long will it be before in trying to do so, a bowler is struck by a ball he might otherwise have been able to field, or dives instinctively or falls, and ends up with a career-threatening injury?

I'm not saying that it's ot a good idea in theory (don't tell Richard) - but it's totally impractical.

 

[silentstriker]

For instance:

The day that bowlers have to bowl in a brace that restricts movement is the day that someone deliberately exploits the situation - say 'tweaking' it so that it allows 20 or 25 degree flexion, or so that it never allows the arm to return to the straight position and thus facilitates the bowling of a 'doosra' - but of course he won't be suspected because it's wearing a brace. So - braces will have to be 'controlled' or 'checked' by the ICC - every single session. You can't have everyone using the same one - people's arms are different shapes for a start.

You use the same level of suspicion as you do with a bat. An Umpire can ask any bowler during his innings or before his innings to submit his brace for inspection.

A second problem - how long do you think it will take to put on and remove an arm-guard every six balls, and how many overs an hour will that bring the game down to? If he keeps it on, he can't field in the deep (won't be able to throw) and can't field in the slips (restricted movement).

I don't know, ten-twenty seconds? Shoaib's current run up is that long. And it takes at least that long for captains to set fields, etc.

Another thing - how is the bowler supposed to field off his own bowling? And how long will it be before in trying to do so, a bowler is struck by a ball he might otherwise have been able to field

This is the only legitimate counter argument, that he may not be able to field as well. My answer is, what percentage of balls are fielded by the bowler? And is that drop off worth having a game where no one chucks?

 

[luckyeddie]

Where do you get this 10-20 seconds rubbish from?

He's probably been fielding down at fine leg, he's got to come up to the umpire and collect his arm-brace, take off his shirt, put on his surgical support bandage, put his contraption onto his 'good' arm using his 'bad' arm - or do you expect the umpire to do it for him - put his shirt back on but of course he can't because his damned elbow won't bend any more...

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Your argument has been shot to pieces, only you are too stubborn to realise it.

Edit - one final thing. How do you actually get your arm into the position to bowl AT ALL when you've not been able to bend it? Bowlers don't run in with a stiff, straight arm - and shoulders don't rotate that way.

 

[Goughy]

This really is a Twilight Zone discussion

If you can bowl, you can bowl. If you chuck you chuck. Being able to fulfil the rules without the aid of a mechanism such as a brace is part of the skill of the sport.

All this discussion about hyperextention and medical issues is a white elephant. Sure it affects some people but most of the chuckers are poorly coached as boys and that is the real problem.

Beleive me, I deal with it every day. I hate telling players and parents that they throw the ball but with some hard work we can work out the kinks.

Far too little quality coaching at a young age is the real issue not the use of pieces of plastic and lycra on the elbow.

 

[luckyeddie]

Honestly, Goughy, I was only discussing it because I thought that it was such a ridiculously 'out there' idea that it had to have been thought up by some kind of a gifted giant space-amoeba (or Parasitic Telepathic Arthropods, of course), and I felt that I had to investigate for the sake of science - as there might be a Nobel prize or some kinky space *** in it.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that it HAD been thought up by... (voice fades into distance)