Muralitharan - javelin thrower

[murray]

If nearly everyone straightens their elbows every time they bowl then nearly everyone can bowl something which involves less straightening.

Unless you bowl with an elbow that straightens by zero degress (which happens something in the region of never) you could always have bowled with a straigher one.

There is a lot of assumption there. Let me remind you that we are talking about a bowler who bowls an off-spinning delivery with an average of about 5% straightening and occasionally bowls a delivery with an off-spinning action but is actually a leg break, but to disguise it requires an average straigtening of 14%. Bowling the diguised leg-break is an intentional breach of the Law of Cricket that states a bowler should not straighten his arm during delivery.

 

[Richard]

It doesn't require it, it just happens to involve such a thing in this case.

There's no reason why an action with the wrist should force any course of action on the elbow.

 

[murray]

It doesn't require it, it just happens to involve such a thing in this case.

There's no reason why an action with the wrist should force any course of action on the elbow.

Again you miss the point. Bowler generally bowls a delivery with 5% straightening. Bowler decides to bowl a delivery he knows requires 14% straightening. Since the bowler knows that the delivery requires increased straightening of the arm, he intentionally breaches Law 24 of the Laws of Cricket.

 

[Richard]

He doesn't know it invariably requires 14deg straightening. It might be bowled with exactly the same as the stock-ball of times.

 

[murray]

He doesn't know it invariably requires 14deg straightening. It might be bowled with exactly the same as the stock-ball of times.

No, his off-break only requires 4 degrees straightening. He cannot bowl it with his siock delivery. Do you see now?

 

[Richard]

He can bowl both deliveries with 0degrees straightening, and has proved it by bowling both with a brace on.

 

[murray]

Keep tellimg yourself that buddy. Facts mean nothing !

 

[PhoenixFire]

Keep tellimg yourself that buddy. Facts mean nothing !

Best quote ever

 

[Richard]

Keep tellimg yourself that buddy. Facts mean nothing !

The standard response when a dead-end has been reached...

 

[demonmail4]

Who cares if he chucks the damn ball has long as he can bowl does it matter, whoop di do 6 inches more turn,will it end the world

 

[Richard]

nishant.

 

[cover drive man]

Well they have used all sorts of thechnology and proven nothing.

 

[honestbharani]

Perhaps, but it is an unintentional advantage. Let us worry about the intentional breaches of the laws of cricket first.



I have yet to see proof that Warne's flippers or wrongun's require extra straightening, though I am open to the fact that they do so. Please link to the proof thanks.



You are going by ICC rules. The laws of cricket as prescribed by the MCC are the absolute baseline and as they suggest:



Now, we can't do anything about bowlers unintentionally breaking this law. However, a deliberate breaking of this law should be enforced, such as a bowler deliberately bowling a delivery that requires more extension than their stock delivery.



Let us be real here. Murali knows if he is bowling a doosra and he knowas it has been shown the doosra needs an extra 10 degrees of straightening. Every time he bowls it he is intentionally breaking Law 24 No 3 of the Laws of Cricket.

I am being real here. Murali WOULD NOT have known that he is flexing his elbows extra to bowl his DOOSRA, if the tests weren't done.


In the same way, a fast bowler wouldn't have known that he is flexing his elbow if the tests weren't done.


But the tests have been done and the fast bowlers know that every time they bowl a ball, they are flexing their elbows (much like Murali knows about flexing his elbow when he is bowling a doosra). So just like we ban Murali, we can ban all bowlers period, because they KNOW that there is flex involved in all deliveries and therefore, it is all INTENTIONAL.


The ICC have taken the most prudent course they could have taken in the matter and the story ends there. The only thing that I would advocate is that the ICC should make all the latest gadgets required to measure flex in match conditions to all test playing nations and help them do random tests on bowlers in match situations to try and punish the guilty.

As a matter of fact, I actually think that bowlers don't chuck intentionally if they go over the limit by just a few degrees. In these instances, coaches prescribed by the ICC can work with these bowlers to help them rectify some mistakes that MAY have just crept into their actions.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd be interested to see what was constituted in the brace. I'm sure that he still would have been allowed *some* flex with the brace, otherwise it could have done serious damage to his arm. I'm talking minimal here, maybe <3 or 4 %, but unless he sent it down at 40km/h, there would have had to have been some give.

 

[pup11]

I think the bio-mechanics prove nothing, all the suspect bowler needs to do is bowl every variation of his with around 80% of speed and accuracy that he bowls normally with during a game.


But my point is you can straighten your elbow a lot more during a game and even if you are reported then during the bio-mechanic test you can then always bowl with a clean action and get an all clear because there you don't have to take wickets.

 

[Richard]

I'd be interested to see what was constituted in the brace. I'm sure that he still would have been allowed *some* flex with the brace, otherwise it could have done serious damage to his arm. I'm talking minimal here, maybe <3 or 4 %, but unless he sent it down at 40km/h, there would have had to have been some give.

Why?

I'm no joint-specialist, but I don't see how not flexing could do any harm...

 

[Richard]

I think the bio-mechanics prove nothing

You're in a small minority, then...

 

[pup11]

Richard, are you also the part of that small minority mate?

 

[silentstriker]

Science? We don't need no stinkin' science. We have our pitchforks.

 

[StumpMic]

You guys are missing the real news. The article has the audacity to call ranjith fernando a leading commentator! Oh horrors!