# Thread: HyperExtension and Chucking

1. Originally Posted by Son Of Coco
If the ICC were looking at elbow 'flexation' though, were they looking for any flex or an action that would actually indicate some sort of throw? Every bowler does not throw if you look at the definition of a throw as I believe it to be...every bowler undoubtedly has a level of flex associated with hyperextension though. I'm far from an expert on this (I'd reside at the other end of the spectrum actually!) so these are questions, definately not statements.
Yeah, I meant every bowler threw as according to the old definition, the one based on the false ideals.
I certainly don't understand about hyperextension - as far as I knew, it was the exclusive preserve of those with double-jointed joints. Thought the every-joint-does-it was called altrusion and extrusion or something (or is that a type of hyper-extension?)
I understand what you're saying in reference to the difference in degrees, and I assume it was decided that some sort of limit needed to be established...has anything the ICC has attempted to do with throwing seemed sensible though?
The point is, now we've discovered what we've discovered, there is no fair way of doing things. Everyone now knows that you can't expect bowling to be done with an elbow that doesn't alter in angle; but equally IMO it's completely ludicrous to suggest that a bowler who has elbow-flexation of 16 degrees is in the slightest different from one with 14 degrees. And I don't mean virtually nothing - I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing. Those 2 degrees will make no difference at all.

2. Originally Posted by Richard

The point is, now we've discovered what we've discovered, there is no fair way of doing things. Everyone now knows that you can't expect bowling to be done with an elbow that doesn't alter in angle; but equally IMO it's completely ludicrous to suggest that a bowler who has elbow-flexation of 16 degrees is in the slightest different from one with 14 degrees. And I don't mean virtually nothing - I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing. Those 2 degrees will make no difference at all.
But that problem will always be there, what are the ICC meant to do? They have to have some sort of ruling otherwise everyone would be a chucker. Anyway, think of the people accused of chucking in recent times, find me an incident where someone has been let off with 14 degrees but banned with 16.

3. It hasn't happened yet, AFAIK. The rule's only been in force for a year and a bit.
I assure you it will eventually, and when it does all hell will break loose, and quite rightly.
The simple fact of the matter is, now we know what we know there's no way to be fair without completely radical changes to the way cricket is played.
IE, put a brace on the bowler's arm to make sure there is no possibility of anyone's arm straightening, deliberately or involuntarily.
Yes, it's something no-one's ever remotely considered, but anything else is completely and totally unfair.

4. Originally Posted by Richard
It hasn't happened yet, AFAIK. The rule's only been in force for a year and a bit.
I assure you it will eventually, and when it does all hell will break loose, and quite rightly.
The simple fact of the matter is, now we know what we know there's no way to be fair without completely radical changes to the way cricket is played.
IE, put a brace on the bowler's arm to make sure there is no possibility of anyone's arm straightening, deliberately or involuntarily.
Yes, it's something no-one's ever remotely considered, but anything else is completely and totally unfair.
All hell will break loose? Not likely, and, i haven't heard you come up with any other ways to define a chuck.

5. As I say - simply rule-out anything being a chuck. Keep all bowler's actions uniform. If that means that 1 or 2 lose 5mph or so - I'd say it's worth it 100,000,000,000,000,000 times over to have a fair rule that is, beyond all question, unfailingly obeyed by all bowlers everywhere.

6. Originally Posted by Richard
As I say - simply rule-out anything being a chuck. Keep all bowler's actions uniform. If that means that 1 or 2 lose 5mph or so - I'd say it's worth it 100,000,000,000,000,000 times over to have a fair rule that is, beyond all question, unfailingly obeyed by all bowlers everywhere.
define a chuck.

7. Call it whatever you want - but if all bowlers' arms are at the exact same angle on every delivery ever bowled in a match, there's no such thing as a chuck.

8. Originally Posted by Richard
Call it whatever you want - but if all bowlers' arms are at the exact same angle on every delivery ever bowled in a match, there's no such thing as a chuck.
This is crazy talk,even for you...

9. Really?
Care to explain why, instead of just stating "that's crazy talk".

10. Originally Posted by Richard
Yeah, I meant every bowler threw as according to the old definition, the one based on the false ideals.
I certainly don't understand about hyperextension - as far as I knew, it was the exclusive preserve of those with double-jointed joints. Thought the every-joint-does-it was called altrusion and extrusion or something (or is that a type of hyper-extension?)

The point is, now we've discovered what we've discovered, there is no fair way of doing things. Everyone now knows that you can't expect bowling to be done with an elbow that doesn't alter in angle; but equally IMO it's completely ludicrous to suggest that a bowler who has elbow-flexation of 16 degrees is in the slightest different from one with 14 degrees. And I don't mean virtually nothing - I mean ABSOLUTELY nothing. Those 2 degrees will make no difference at all.
I think there'd be varying levels of hyper-extension involved with all bowlers, with those that are double jointed being at the top end of the spectrum.

As far as I see it, the fairest way to do things is not to take hyper-extenision into account, as it's not controllable (if they actually are taking it into account that is). It's quite obviously not what constituted a throw in the first place.

11. Originally Posted by Richard
Really?
Care to explain why, instead of just stating "that's crazy talk".
Ok, that statement is stupid and irrelevant.

It makes no sense-

'if all bowlers' arms are at the exact same angle on every delivery ever bowled in a match, there's no such thing as a chuck.'

1)That's never going to happen
2)If every bowler bowled with his arms at the exact same angle in a chucking fashion, then they would all be chuckers.

You still won't define a chuck, how is anyone meant to be banned for chucking if you can't even explain what a chuck is?

It is stupid, implausible and immposible to make every bowler bowl the same way

12. Originally Posted by open365
Ok, that statement is stupid and irrelevant.

It makes no sense-

'if all bowlers' arms are at the exact same angle on every delivery ever bowled in a match, there's no such thing as a chuck.'

1)That's never going to happen
2)If every bowler bowled with his arms at the exact same angle in a chucking fashion, then they would all be chuckers.

You still won't define a chuck, how is anyone meant to be banned for chucking if you can't even explain what a chuck is?

It is stupid, implausible and immposible to make every bowler bowl the same way

I think he is advocating that everyone wear a brace?

13. Originally Posted by silentstriker
I think he is advocating that everyone wear a brace?
Wouldn't work, look at Brett Lee in slow-mo, his arm's all over the shop and no sane person has ever called him a chucker, it's the laws of physics when his arm is subjected to that much pressure.

14. Originally Posted by open365
Wouldn't work, look at Brett Lee in slow-mo, his arm's all over the shop and no sane person has ever called him a chucker, it's the laws of physics when his arm is subjected to that much pressure.

Wait, I think braces would be pretty radical...but they would work. I bet you can construct braces that bend upto 15 degrees either way. Why wouldn't they work? The brace would prevent his arm from 'going all over the shop'. He very well could be chucking, just that its an optical illusion that he is not (same as Murali's might be an optical illusion that he is). A brace would fix that problem, and the arm wouldn't be able to bend past that limit.

15. Originally Posted by Son Of Coco
I think there'd be varying levels of hyper-extension involved with all bowlers, with those that are double jointed being at the top end of the spectrum.

As far as I see it, the fairest way to do things is not to take hyper-extenision into account, as it's not controllable (if they actually are taking it into account that is). It's quite obviously not what constituted a throw in the first place.
No, it's not - the trouble is that many people were willing to trust their first sight of the thing from behind the arm, which made it look like a "chuck", when a careful look at some more angles would show that it was merely hyperextension.

Page 2 of 7 First 1234 ... Last

#### Thread Information

##### Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•