Jarryd
Club Cricketer
Oh so they've tested every single bowler in the world have they?
Jarryd said:Oh so they've tested every single bowler in the world have they?
http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/NOV/100544_AUS_12NOV2004.htmlBruce 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."
squiz said: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.
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."Ajit said: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.
Ajit said: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.
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 basicallyAjit said: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.