The state of off-spin bowling/suspect actions/doosra bowlers worldwide

[PokerAce]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and just what is the need for this 15 degree rule to exist? I mean I know the rule, and I get that for some the ICC feel that no bowler should bend his arm more than 15 degrees before bringing it to the point of release. Okay but why?

What great unfair advantage will the bowler (mostly off spinners) get, if they were allowed to bend the arm more than 15 degrees. Will there suddenly be scores of 51 all out happening every game. I mean seriously what great unfair advantage will the bowler get. Okay he will be able to turn the ball more - is that so bad?

Think of telling that batsmen that (say) while playing a cover drive he can only bend his frontfoot, so many degrees, as bending the foot properly and as much as the batsmen want, allows them perfect control over the shot, and hence they play the shot really well. Yeah so thats the point isn't it. You play the shot as well you can and bend the foot as much as you want.

The same goes for bowlers, if bending the arm more than 15 degrees allows them to bowl better, turn the ball more, or offer more variations like the doosra, then let them do it. What is next, telling Anderson that he can't bowl with a new ball as he makes it swing too much and the batsmen find it difficult?

Just what is the point of this 15 degree rule really. Okay so the bowler will bowl better - fine. What is the harm in that. Its still bowling. Its not like he is ball tampering. Let him bowl, and use bend his arm as much as he wants. In an era when the Batsmen have all kinds of advantages, including no restriction on how big a bat he can use, why stop the bowler from bending his arm more than 15 degrees.

Just what is the point of this rule. Okay if this rule is not there, the bowler will spin the ball more, okay fine ... why not?

 

[Markkkkk]

Because without it people can just chuck a ball as hard as they want and bowlers become irrelevant...

 

[PokerAce]

As far as Chucking goes, just make sure that the bowlers have a round arm action and in one continous flow. If a bowler runs up and then basically just throws the ball at the batsman (baseball pitch style) then naturally make a rule to bar that. However as long as the action is round arm, windmill style action that all bowlers have today, and its a continous one, which doesn't break in between upto the point of delivery, then its fine, what does the degree matter then.

 

[IceAgeComing]

but that's what the 15 degree rule is for - the rationale behind it was that it was the smallest angle that would ban chuckers without unintentionally banning people who are bowling perfectly legally. If you begin to change that rule then you'll dramatically affect what Cricket is, especially if you replace it with a load of words that, frankly, don't really mean anything.

bowlers should bowl properly, or not bowl at all imo. if you're lucky enough to be like murali and can bowl deliveries legally that others can't then good for you, you have a talent and you should be able to benefit from it!

 

[_Sam_]

I have been thinking about this for a while, and just what is the need for this 15 degree rule to exist? I mean I know the rule, and I get that for some the ICC feel that no bowler should bend his arm more than 15 degrees before bringing it to the point of release. Okay but why?

What great unfair advantage will the bowler (mostly off spinners) get, if they were allowed to bend the arm more than 15 degrees. Will there suddenly be scores of 51 all out happening every game. I mean seriously what great unfair advantage will the bowler get. Okay he will be able to turn the ball more - is that so bad?

Think of telling that batsmen that (say) while playing a cover drive he can only bend his frontfoot, so many degrees, as bending the foot properly and as much as the batsmen want, allows them perfect control over the shot, and hence they play the shot really well. Yeah so thats the point isn't it. You play the shot as well you can and bend the foot as much as you want.

The same goes for bowlers, if bending the arm more than 15 degrees allows them to bowl better, turn the ball more, or offer more variations like the doosra, then let them do it. What is next, telling Anderson that he can't bowl with a new ball as he makes it swing too much and the batsmen find it difficult?

Just what is the point of this 15 degree rule really. Okay so the bowler will bowl better - fine. What is the harm in that. Its still bowling. Its not like he is ball tampering. Let him bowl, and use bend his arm as much as he wants. In an era when the Batsmen have all kinds of advantages, including no restriction on how big a bat he can use, why stop the bowler from bending his arm more than 15 degrees.

Just what is the point of this rule. Okay if this rule is not there, the bowler will spin the ball more, okay fine ... why not?

Heck, why don't we just allow the batsman to hide the stumps off the pitch? After all it will allow them to bat better without the risk of getting bowled so why shouldn't it be allowed...?

Because then its not cricket.

 

[Satan666]

Heck, why don't we just allow the batsman to hide the stumps off the pitch? After all it will allow them to bat better without the risk of getting bowled so why shouldn't it be allowed...?

Because then its not cricket.

You got me rolling with laughter!!!!

 

[PokerAce]

Hiding the stumps, or ball tampering etc. are extrinsic things, that require altering the state and conditions of play. However bowling by bending your arm is something intrinsic. Its like a batsman, is able to bend body enough to play the reverse sweep. Thats fine. As long has what he is doing is coming from within him, let him do it. Bending the arm more than 15 degrees is definitely intrinsic.

There is not one regulation that taxes a batsman in anyway from bending or straightening any part of his body while batting, upto any degree he wants. Why should the bowler be taxed on similar grounds. As long as the action is the traditional round arm windmill action and its continuous, why do degrees matter.

Are you really telling me that if a bowler bends his arm more than 15 degrees, the game stop being cricket? 15 degrees is fine, but touch 17 degrees and suddenly you are playing something else?

 

[_Sam_]

Hiding the stumps, or ball tampering etc. are extrinsic things, that require altering the state and conditions of play. However bowling by bending your arm is something intrinsic. Its like a batsman, is able to bend body enough to play the reverse sweep. Thats fine. As long has what he is doing is coming from within him, let him do it. Bending the arm more than 15 degrees is definitely intrinsic.

There is not one regulation that taxes a batsman in anyway from bending or straightening any part of his body while batting, upto any degree he wants. Why should the bowler be taxed on similar grounds. As long as the action is the traditional round arm windmill action and its continuous, why do degrees matter.

Are you really telling me that if a bowler bends his arm more than 15 degrees, the game stop being cricket? 15 degrees is fine, but touch 17 degrees and suddenly you are playing something else?

Because its not a traditional windmill action anymore if its a baseball pitch to me.

 

[PokerAce]

Because its not a traditional windmill action anymore if its a baseball pitch to me.

So if the arm bends 17 degrees, its a baseball pitch. All those bowlers' deliveries who were charged, because of a few degrees of extra bending looked like baseball pitches to you? One can barely tell the difference with the naked eye, between an angle of 15 degree or 17 degree, and to you that becomes a whole different sport !!

Lol what do you smoke?

I bet you could not tell the difference between a bowler bowling at angle of 15 degrees and one bowling at say 18 degree. But one is a windmill action and the latter a baseball pitch!!

If that is not being irrational, I don't know what is.

 

[greymatter776]

So if the arm bends 17 degrees, its a baseball pitch. All those bowlers' deliveries who were charged, because of a few degrees of extra bending looked like baseball pitches to you? One can barely tell the difference with the naked eye, between an angle of 15 degree or 17 degree, and to you that becomes a whole different sport !!

Lol what do you smoke?

I bet you could not tell the difference between a bowler bowling at angle of 15 degrees and one bowling at say 18 degree. But one is a windmill action and the latter a baseball pitch!!

If that is not being irrational, I don't know what is.

Well lets say if the ICC allows chucking,do you think the bowlers who bowls 17° will keep it within it?The reason why they try to make chucking less visible is because there is a law against it.Once the law is taken off they would go with the baseball pitching because why limit it to within 17° when there is no law against it !

 

[PokerAce]

Well thats why I keep mentioning the continous windmill action. Regardless of going into degrees, one can't throw a baseball pitch with a windmill continuous action, no matter how much one bends the arm. For a baseball pitch the continuity of the arm swing just has to break. As long as the break is not there, its still cricket bowling and not baseball pitching.

Even going by what you say, then why not fix the degree restriction on a broader range. 18 degrees is pretty much the same as 15 degrees and still not venturing into baseball pitching territory.

I think we can all agree that those bowlers who have been banned, while bowling the doosra or whatever, regardless of what degree angle they were at, they to the naked eye atleast have not looked anything like baseball pitchers. Its still the usual delivery, infringing the law by some degrees. However to a person not aware of degrees, if you show them these bowlers' action it will still look like cricket bowling, and nothing like baseball pitching.

In that case, why not extend the window that allows these innovations upto the degrees that the infringement happend?

Take Saeed Ajmal for instance. I have seen him bowl, but never did he look like he was throwing baseball pitches. From what I remember reading somewhere, Ajmal was bending his arm as much as 30 degrees or something.

Which clearly shows that 30 degrees is still very much in cricketing territory and nowhere near baseball territory. Ajmal bending his arm upto 30 degrees never looking like he was not cricket bowling and rather throwing baseball pitches.

So why not extend the window to let the likes of Ajmal and co. and their innovations find a place in cricket?

 

[greymatter776]

Well thats why I keep mentioning the continous windmill action. Regardless of going into degrees, one can't throw a baseball pitch with a windmill continuous action, no matter how much one bends the arm. For a baseball pitch the continuity of the arm swing just has to break. As long as the break is not there, its still cricket bowling and not baseball pitching.

Even going by what you say, then why not fix the degree restriction on a broader range. 18 degrees is pretty much the same as 15 degrees and still not venturing into baseball pitching territory.

I think we can all agree that those bowlers who have been banned, while bowling the doosra or whatever, regardless of what degree angle they were at, they to the naked eye atleast have not looked anything like baseball pitchers. Its still the usual delivery, infringing the law by some degrees. However to a person not aware of degrees, if you show them these bowlers' action it will still look like cricket bowling, and nothing like baseball pitching.

In that case, why not extend the window that allows these innovations upto the degrees that the infringement happend?

Take Saeed Ajmal for instance. I have seen him bowl, but never did he look like he was throwing baseball pitches. From what I remember reading somewhere, Ajmal was bending his arm as much as 30 degrees or something.

Which clearly shows that 30 degrees is still very much in cricketing territory and nowhere near baseball territory. Ajmal bending his arm upto 30 degrees never looking like he was not cricket bowling and rather throwing baseball pitches.

So why not extend the window to let the likes of Ajmal and co. and their innovations find a place in cricket?

You mean to say one could chuck but with a continuous action?If so then what would be the criterion for the continuous action?

 

[PokerAce]

You mean to say one could chuck but with a continuous action?If so then what would be the criterion for the continuous action?

Continous action is the rotaion of the arm which all bowlers do, upto the point of release. Once this delivery action starts and upto the time the ball leaves the hand, there should be one continous movement, and no breaks or pauses in between.

Even if we agree that after a point the delivery would end up in the bowler sending down a baseball pitch, let us look at the degrees involved so far. Lets look at the Saeed Ajmal example.

Ajmal was said to be bending his arm by as much as 30 degrees at times. However never did his bowling look like it was close to a baseball pitch.

This clearly shows that even upto a bending of 30 degrees, the bowler doesn't venture anywhere near baseball territory. So why not extend the window to let the likes of Ajmal and co. and their innovations find a place in cricket?

 

[greymatter776]

Continous action is the rotaion of the arm which all bowlers do, upto the point of release. Once this delivery action starts and upto the time the ball leaves the hand, there should be one continous movement, and no breaks or pauses in between.

Even if we agree that after a point the delivery would end up in the bowler sending down a baseball pitch, let us look at the degrees involved so far. Lets look at the Saeed Ajmal example.

Ajmal was said to be bending his arm by as much as 30 degrees at times. However never did his bowling look like it was close to a baseball pitch.

This clearly shows that even upto a bending of 30 degrees, the bowler doesn't venture anywhere near baseball territory. So why not extend the window to let the likes of Ajmal and co. and their innovations find a place in cricket?

Anyway to judge how the continuous action should be? I mean what seems like a continuous one for me may not be so for you.Also according to this, the action of Mitchell Johnson wouldn't be legal and that would be too harsh on him.Also the stop-start action that Ashwin used once would also be illegal although it doesn't seems to have any real problem in it.[DOUBLEPOST=1446562483][/DOUBLEPOST]Talking about innovations I think they should have used their efforts in bowling the carrom ball that is perfectly legal other than trying for getting illegal advantages.

 

[PokerAce]

Anyway to judge how the continuous action should be? I mean what seems like a continuous one for me may not be so for you.Also according to this, the action of Mitchell Johnson wouldn't be legal and that would be too harsh on him.Also the stop-start action that Ashwin used once would also be illegal although it doesn't seems to have any real problem in it.[DOUBLEPOST=1446562483][/DOUBLEPOST]Talking about innovations I think they should have used their efforts in bowling the carrom ball that is perfectly legal other than trying for getting illegal advantages.

Again I will go back to the Ajmal point. The argument was that if you allow more than 15 degrees, then eventually we will get baseball pitches. However Ajmal who is said to have bent his arm upto 30 degrees. Yet Ajmal never looked even remotely close to appearing to be a baseball pitcher, just chucking the ball at the batsman. Hence when we have clear evidence that a bowler bending his arm upto 30 degrees, remains well within the aesthetics of cricket, then why keep harping on a hypothetical what if people then just start baseball pitching scenario.

Ajmal bent his arm upto 30 degrees, yet he never looked like a baseball pitcher. This is clear evidence that extending the present restriction, upto a reasonable amount that would cover most of the present 'offenders' and continue to allow the various innovations. I would not say this if at 30 degrees Ajmal looked completely out of place. However he didn't and no one said oh that last delivery looked like a baseball pitch. Hell almost no one could even tell that he beyond the limit with regard to arm bending. It was only after extensive testing with body tracking and what not that they could tell for sure.

So if one can't even tell the difference then why have the restriction.