Senanayake banned

[watson]

The bar should be set on effort balls. Let the fast bowlers dish that 90mph bouncer they pull out of nowhere. For me deliberate chucking is the real cheating while people who just chucks everything is due to poor coaching. It is important to rule out chuckers, but the real ones to crack down is the ones who have "clean" actions but chucks when they dish out effort balls or something different.

Cricket is not a game of Mr Nice where you make a ruling on whether a bowler 'means well' but suffers due to poor coaching. Such value judgements on the cricket field are ridiculous.

Anyway, bowlers are being pulled up when they 'dish out...something different'. Some bowlers aren't allowed to bowl their Doosra (Botha & Shillingford), or their 'Quick Ball' (Samuels), and so forth.

 

[watson]

In my view most of the current troubles have arisen because Law 24/Clause 3 is impractical. That is, there is no way for an Umpire to adjudicate on the Law during real play. This would have to make it unique to not only the game of cricket, but to all of sport. A Law that any field Umpire cannot practically use - how singularly stupid!

The reason that the Law is impractical is because there is no way that the human eye can assess whether something has straightened by more than 15 degrees in a fraction of a second. Especially if they are concentrating on other things like the bowlers foot overstepping the mark at the same time. The second Umpire could concentrate on the action of the bowler but he is 'miles' away at square leg and couldn't possibly make a proper assessment either.

So Law 24 as currently written needs to stay because the distinction between Baseball (pitching) and Cricket (bowling) needs to be maintained. However, there needs to be another Clause added to make life easier for all Umpires during the game. For example;

'Clause 4: The bowlers arm should have NO OBSERVABLE BEND at the elbow from the time that the arm reaches shoulder height to the point of delivery. That is, during the typical bowling arc.'

At the minute, field Umpires are effectively powerless with regards to chucking. They need to empowered.

 

[hendrix]

So Law 24 as currently written needs to stay because the distinction between Baseball (pitching) and Cricket (bowling) needs to be maintained. However, there needs to be another Clause added to make life easier for all Umpires during the game. For example;

So ignorant i don't even...

 

[G.I.Joe]

'Clause 4: The bowlers arm should have NO OBSERVABLE BEND at the elbow from the time that the arm reaches shoulder height to the point of delivery. That is, during the typical bowling arc.'

ಠ_ಠ

92 hours earlier.......

It's not stunning because I haven't got around to reading Law 24/ Clause 3, or got into a discussion about the minutae of the law before because it's not my favourite all-time topic.

3. Definition of fair delivery - the arm

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler’s arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

But now I know then more the good.

I suppose the confusion arose because from the age of 8 when first started to play cricket the coach kept yelling at me "keep your elbow straight!", and then occasionally no-balled me during the game with the explanation "you didn't have you elbow straight at the point of delivery." So for 40 years I hadn't really given the issue much technical thought at all because I didn't have to - up until now. So tar.

 

[watson]

Exactly. For a Law to be a good Law it should be able to be readily applied by all Umpires from the grassroots up!

What cricket needs is a good dose of simplicity rather than be stuck in a quagmire of obfuscation.

 

[viriya]

stahp

 

[Dan]

*sigh*

 

[G.I.Joe]

Exactly. For a Law to be a good Law it should be able to be readily applied by all Umpires from the grassroots up!

What cricket needs is a good dose of simplicity rather than be stuck in a quagmire of obfuscation.

You're asking them to look for observable bend, which is not what a chuck is. A chuck is a straightening from a bend, not the mere fact of the bend itself. Bowlers are permitted to bowl with as bent an arm as they please, so long as they do not straighten the bend in the completion of their action. You seemed to have acknowledged that in post #65, and this regression in the understanding of the fundamental concept is puzzling.

 

[harsh.ag]

Does anyone know the results of testing of Ajmal's doosra?

 

[hendrix]

Does anyone know the results of testing of Ajmal's doosra?

passed with flying colours IIRC. Less than his off spinner. Something like 9 degrees of elbow extension.

The confusion lay with the fact that he abducts his arm as he bowls.

Place your arm straight out in front of you, palm up. Rotate so the palm is down. That's what he does.

The problem is this: do that with a bent arm. It looks like chucking, doesn't it? But by the ICC guidelines, it's not, because it involves no elbow extension. This is a gap in the laws that needs to be rectified, IMO. Abducting your arm while bowling with a straight arm offers no mechanical advantage, but doing it with a bent arm does. That's a problem in the current laws, IMO.

 

[harsh.ag]

passed with flying colours IIRC. Less than his off spinner. Something like 9 degrees of elbow extension.

The confusion lay with the fact that he abducts his arm as he bowls.

Place your arm straight out in front of you, palm up. Rotate so the palm is down. That's what he does.

The problem is this: do that with a bent arm. It looks like chucking, doesn't it? But by the ICC guidelines, it's not, because it involves no elbow extension. This is a gap in the laws that needs to be rectified, IMO. Abducting your arm while bowling with a straight arm offers no mechanical advantage, but doing it with a bent arm does. That's a problem in the current laws, IMO.

Why do you think the advantage a bent arm gives is not okay?

 

[hendrix]

Why do you think the advantage a bent arm gives is not okay?

Because I don't believe that to be the intention of the laws.

 

[watson]

You're asking them to look for observable bend, which is not what a chuck is. A chuck is a straightening from a bend, not the mere fact of the bend itself. Bowlers are permitted to bowl with as bent an arm as they please, so long as they do not straighten the bend in the completion of their action. You seemed to have acknowledged that in post #65, and this regression in the understanding of the fundamental concept is puzzling.

It wasn't a 'regression' as such. My post simply stated that I fundamentally disagree with the current Law as it stands because a field Umpire cannot reasonably apply it. Therefore, the Law should be simplified so that it can be applied more successfully during actual match play. That is, anyone can see if a bowlers arm is bent significantly at the elbow or not, but it is impossible for the naked eye to detect a straightening of 15.1 degrees or more.

In short, a significantly bent elbow (during the 'bowling arc') is a good enough indication that the bowler is chucking, so let's just run with that and dispense with the >15 degree straightening bull****. And it is bull****.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Oh dear god. A bent elbow means absolutely nothing if it's not straightened.

 

[watson]

Oh dear god. A bent elbow means absolutely nothing if it's not straightened.

Theory is all well and good and I agree with it. However, what use is a good theory if it cannot be readily used in practice? In other words, Laws should be consilient with field Umpires, not only players.

 

[BackFootPunch]

But what use is your theory when it depends totally on the view of each individual umpire and isn't accurately measured? Calling someone a chucker can be career-ending, so yeah let's just have umpires throw the label around whenever they feel like it.

 

[harsh.ag]

Batsmen should have narrower bats. Let's see who is a "good slogger" then!

Totally irrelevant to this thread, don't know why I felt like posting it here.

 

[Maximas]

yeah, who cares if the rules make sense or are fair - just simplify them, and ban the doosra, that'll fix everything

 

[watson]

But what use is your theory when it depends totally on the view of each individual umpire and isn't accurately measured? Calling someone a chucker can be career-ending, so yeah let's just have umpires throw the label around whenever they feel like it.

Numerous decisions during play depend on the 'honest subjectivity' of the Umpire. LBW rulings spring to mind.

So no, I doubt very much whether a chucking 'label' will be thrown around willy-nilly by any FC Umpire.

 

[watson]

.....just simplify them, and ban the doosra, that'll fix everything

Yeah, now you're getting it.