ICC study reveals that 99% chuck

[Jarryd]

Oh so they've tested every single bowler in the world have they?

 

[sohum]

Read the article dude. They may not have tested every single bowler in the world but they obviously tested enough to draw some sort of conclusion. That is what is used in every factor of life. In a survey you never poll EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the world... you always select a sample and then draw conclusions based on that. This may result in an inaccuracy but it is still the most efficient way to go about it.

As for Muralitharan, where did the ICC get their regulations from in the first place. They said spinners have 5 degrees, medium pacers 7.5 degrees and fast bowlers 10 degrees. Now I question the discrimination between the three types of bowlers. Why would a fast bowler get to have double the amount of straightening to a spinner. Hmm... it may be because the original cricket playing nations were afraid of spin bowlers. It seems to me that the ICC just pulled these figures out of thin air, which is why they are now going and conducting thorough research on the topic.

There thorough research shows that they were horribly wrong. Everyone from Muralitharan to Glenn McGrath flexes their arm more than the legal ICC limit. As for Muralitharan flexing triple the legal amount--this is simply because the actual amount is smaller for the spinner. Compared to McGrath, his degree of flexing is not that high.

I think the ICC basically needs to get their heads out of their butt and just let the cricket be played. All the people who are screaming their heads off about Murali--I doubt anyone in their country will be able to reach as much success as Murali even if they did flex their arms as much as he does. That is the specialty he brings to the game--it is not a question of numbers.

 

[djkay]

Oh so they've tested every single bowler in the world have they?

If you read article properly, you would know that they carried out the tests during ICC Knockout Championship in England where all the teams were playing.

I aslo read that they studies 80 bowlers during this time, which are probably all the bowlers currently in the world.

 

[pal]

what i hope comes from this, is no more topics with titles like "Do you think Murali chucks" or "Murali chucks", if i see any of that bull crap, i am definitely going to start a topic called "Glenn McGrath chucks"

 

[pal]

by that , i don't mean that murali does not chuck, but so does almost everybody else, so if you single him out, you are nothing but an ignorant b-astard...

 

[fardin]

yes dude i totally agree with you' every time i hear about murli chucking' and the same question is he chucking or is he not' i dont give hack about it' leave poor guy alone' he already have been punished'

 

[squiz]

Well the thing with the other bowlers in the world, they only exceeded the bowling limits by a couple of degrees. With Murali he TRIPLED what he was allowed to bowl! In the future we'll see all these little Murali's emerging throwing the ball down the pitch, because they know that the ICC can't do sh*t to stop them, they'll just change the rules to suit them.

 

[djkay]

ummmm Squiz, do you know that Murali's Doosra is only 10 degrees. Working with Bruce Elliot he has been able to reduce it to that. But chuck is a chuck. It doesn't matter how many degrees you are over. So all bowlers chuck.

 

[sohum]

Bruce Elliott, one of the three biomechanics experts whose research was instrumental in pushing through the new proposals, denied that the panel's findings were in any way influenced by the continuing controversy over Murali. "That is wrong, and what's more [illegal throwing] is a far bigger problem than that," he said. "There was no thought by anybody that Muralitharan was the issue that was being discussed. We were looking at data from possibly 80 bowlers around the world."

http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/NOV/100544_AUS_12NOV2004.html

As I mentioned above, the only reason that Murali's flexing was triple is because the damn limits for spin bowlers are 5 degrees to start with. I am sure you understand that 15/5 = 3 whereas 15/10 = 1.5. So McGrath (at whatever angle he bowls) would have a flexing of only about 1.2. Now if we take away the descrimination and say, set the limit at 10 degrees, then McGrath's flexing is 1.2 whilst Murali's is 1.5 times that of the legal amount. Not that much of a difference is it?

If the original premisses of the law are baseless, any analysis from it will also be inaccurate. And as for little Muralis running down the pitch, Murali had a birth disorder which is why he bowls the way he does. I doubt that anyone imitating his action could pull off a legal delivery, even with the newly stretched limits.

 

[sachinisgod]

Well the thing with the other bowlers in the world, they only exceeded the bowling limits by a couple of degrees. With Murali he TRIPLED what he was allowed to bowl! In the future we'll see all these little Murali's emerging throwing the ball down the pitch, because they know that the ICC can't do sh*t to stop them, they'll just change the rules to suit them.

Murali may have started with something outrageous but I believe that after his stint with that Aussie University's biomechanist he brought his Dusra down to 10 degree of STRAIGHTENING and all his other deliveries were pretty much within the limits of that time...and I don't think ICC loved the Dusra so much that they will change the rules to allow one type of ball to be bowled...I also cannot understand how the bowler who has already practised with some specific action for so many years can change his action to suit the laws overnight(and be as effective)...I think this rule should apply to Intl Cricket only(15 degree allowance) and such straightening should be curbed at the school level only(if it can be)...and I strongly think that the ICC is changing the rules just because if they didn't and if they did reduce the allowance as some oafs(Maninder Singh) have suggested - then the 99% that the title of this thread talks of would be carrying the drinks and there would be a severe shortage of bowlers in Intl cricket, cricket would have died and so would have ICC...also just think about removal of records of greats like Hadlee, Lillee, Thommo, Hall, Imran...it would have been ridiculous had this kinda recommendation not been done...and the brighter side of the picture is that now there might arise some sort of balance between the two aspects of the game...

 

[Ajit]

Everyone knows that the chucking rule(or whatever it is) was not an initial law. That is, it has not been there since the game came into existence. When ICC added this rule(5,7.5,10 degrees) they should've considered every bowler's action.

Bowling(no matter whichever style) is an art(and has always been) and any law that is formulated in a scientific manner should respect this art.

I really have to say that chucking is cheat and illegal as well but first of all we should be knowing what is chucking. It isn't easy to define, but one may say that the use of elbow, bending of elbow during bowling is chucking. This way even if some one bends it by 0.1 degrees he chucks. But in this way everyone's a chucker(even Sarwan).

So, the human body is naturally designed such that it can't bowl without chucking. Now, we'll have to change the definition a little. If some one bends it beyond a certain limit then his action is faulty and he deserves a ban.

But, what's that limit? How can you figure it out justifically? Just by thinking of three numbers(that appear low) and putting them in cricket's constitution? Or do you need to see how great bowlers(of the time when the law is formulated and past ones) used to bowl?

In my opinion, ICC didn't do any study before formulating the chucking rule and that's all the reason that - When due to advancement of technology it became possible to calculate the amount of bending, most players were found having faulty action.

I think there are only two ways
1.Leaving it to the umpires.
2.Change the limit so that most great bowlers come in that limit.

The first too isn't good enough as a few bowlers can create an optical illusion of chucking. So if the second one is taken it will be fine.

But I have to agree that it will unfortunately allow Murali(and consequently many others) to bowl whatever they want. I mean players won't care if they are chucking or not. But, I don't think it can be avoided. And I still doubt many players intentionally chuck.

 

[sachinisgod]

Everyone knows that the chucking rule(or whatever it is) was not an initial law. That is, it has not been there since the game came into existence. When ICC added this rule(5,7.5,10 degrees) they should've considered every bowler's action.

Bowling(no matter whichever style) is an art(and has always been) and any law that is formulated in a scientific manner should respect this art.

I really have to say that chucking is cheat and illegal as well but first of all we should be knowing what is chucking. It isn't easy to define, but one may say that the use of elbow, bending of elbow during bowling is chucking. This way even if some one bends it by 0.1 degrees he chucks. But in this way everyone's a chucker(even Sarwan).

So, the human body is naturally designed such that it can't bowl without chucking. Now, we'll have to change the definition a little. If some one bends it beyond a certain limit then his action is faulty and he deserves a ban.

But, what's that limit? How can you figure it out justifically? Just by thinking of three numbers(that appear low) and putting them in cricket's constitution? Or do you need to see how great bowlers(of the time when the law is formulated and past ones) used to bowl?

In my opinion, ICC didn't do any study before formulating the chucking rule and that's all the reason that - When due to advancement of technology it became possible to calculate the amount of bending, most players were found having faulty action.

I think there are only two ways
1.Leaving it to the umpires.
2.Change the limit so that most great bowlers come in that limit.

The first too isn't good enough as a few bowlers can create an optical illusion of chucking. So if the second one is taken it will be fine.

But I have to agree that it will unfortunately allow Murali(and consequently many others) to bowl whatever they want. I mean players won't care if they are chucking or not. But, I don't think it can be avoided. And I still doubt many players intentionally chuck.

well to elaborate more on what Ajit has said - I just saw ESPN Cricket Show where one of the members of the ICC committee which ratified the report and is suggesting the new law - Mr. Sunil Manohar Gavaskar had this to say about it - " there's a flex in the bowling action of almost every bowler. During Champion's Trophy we found that only Giles and Sarwan didn't have any flex of all the bowlers checked there. the next big question is why 15 degrees? the answer is that when ICC changes a law it becomes a law for all levels of cricket and hence we have to formulate the law so that it can be implemented at the lowest level where as much technology may not be available. and research says that around 15 degrees is the mark when an umpire's naked eye can decipher the exact kink in the bowling action without extensive tech usage. hence 15 degrees has been proposed. this has not been done to accomodate one person but to accomodate all levels of cricket."

I disagree with Ajit though - if Murali or someone else can come up with a new kind of delivery within the permitted limit then its something to be appreciated and admired coz if they do not come up with something then this game will slowly lose all its charm. it will be too dominated by the bat.

 

[Ajit]

I really don't think the permissible angle should be the same for spinners and pacers.

Why not consider people in Murali's category?
Harbhajan, Shoaib Malik,... aren't anywhere close to 15 degrees. They only take it 7 or 8 degrees. So why have a special favour towards Muralitharan?

The limit should be such that it prohibit only intentional chucking.

Let's have a comparison between Murali and Dizzy.
Dizzy bowls some deliveries at 150 kph whereas Murali is sometimes only 75 kph.
That means Murali's arm moves at half the speed, so he gets double the time. To get more and more spin he has to bend it more, but the case with Dizzy is different. Dizzy is bowling at such a speed that even if he attempts a little variation, his arm will bend a bit. He can't control due to high speed.

When Murali attempts variation, he bends his arm a little bit. Suppose he bowls a 'doosra' to Sachin/Punter/Inzy and is smashed for a four. Frustated, he tries to turn it more and more without considering 'the bending'. He finally takes his angle to 15 degrees and gets Sachin's/Punter's/Inzy's wicket. But, this simply isn't cricket.

So 'Murali is bowler who intentionally chucks' is a fact established by two facts.
1. No other spinner chucks as much.
2. He bowls slower but still isn't able to have control on his chucking. He isn't innocent like Dizzy, Purge,...

I think the limit should be changed to 15 degree for a pacer, 10 for a swinger, 8 for a spinner, rather than one designed to make a chucker a non-chucker.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Let's have a comparison between Murali and Dizzy.
Dizzy bowls some deliveries at 150 kph whereas Murali is sometimes only 75 kph.
That means Murali's arm moves at half the speed, so he gets double the time.

Actually research has shown that Murali's arm speed is as fast, sometimes faster than many fast bowlers.

 

[sachinisgod]

I really don't think the permissible angle should be the same for spinners and pacers.

Why not consider people in Murali's category?
Harbhajan, Shoaib Malik,... aren't anywhere close to 15 degrees. They only take it 7 or 8 degrees. So why have a special favour towards Muralitharan?


When Murali attempts variation, he bends his arm a little bit. Suppose he bowls a 'doosra' to Sachin/Punter/Inzy and is smashed for a four. Frustated, he tries to turn it more and more without considering 'the bending'. He finally takes his angle to 15 degrees and gets Sachin's/Punter's/Inzy's wicket. But, this simply isn't cricket.

So 'Murali is bowler who intentionally chucks' is a fact established by two facts.
1. No other spinner chucks as much.
2. He bowls slower but still isn't able to have control on his chucking. He isn't innocent like Dizzy, Purge,...

I think the limit should be changed to 15 degree for a pacer, 10 for a swinger, 8 for a spinner, rather than one designed to make a chucker a non-chucker.

I cannot disagree more...having unscientific and slabs for different types of bowlers has been tried before and has proved futile...moreover having a higher degree for a paceman makes the game more dangerous for the batsmen(some people argued about the safety of the batters)...also I cannot see how is it possible for a bowler to change his action in-game to make the bowl turn more or something like that...as far as I know, bowlers like these take years and months to develop different deliveries...otherwise every offspinner in the world would have been bowling dusaras and every leggie would have a repertoire as good as Warne...action is something that takes time to change and hence your contention that it can be changed instantaneously if Sachin, Ponting or Inzy smashed him is very distant from what could be the reality...Also having different degrees for different bowlers needs umpires to have those futuristic eyes which can tell a difference that small...one cannot tell the difference between 25 degrees and 35 degrees in geometric diagrams without the protractor so how is an umpire supposed to discern between 8,10 and 15 - its impossible...what is possible is that the bend becomes pretty pronounced once it reaches 15 degrees and hence that can be discerned from the rest and hence applying the rule become plausible...a problem of operations management basically

Also, apart from the arm speed that Andrew clarified above, Murali's arm has a natural bend that cannot be unbended...thats why his bending of arm seems more pronounced than it would in some others' case.

And finally I have been shouting for sometime that Murali's dusara has been rectified to be sent down with a 10 degree bend/straightening...today I found the proof and it dispells everyone's contention that the new law is to allow him...and supports the ICC's claim that the new law is to allow the umpires to be more precise in their judgement...Here it is