HyperExtension and Chucking

[Richard]

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.

Err - and it's also law of physics that when something is strapped in place it doesn't go "all over the shop".

[Richard]

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

As I say - if you wiped-out the chance of an arm straightening, there would not be any chucking.
And it is, perfectly possible to make every bowler's arm behave the same way, by putting a standardised brace on the arm - one which does not allow the elbow to move when it's on.

[Richard]

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.

I'd simply say use a brace that doesn't allow any straightening.
That would wipe-out any accusations of "X bends his elbow more than Y does" that are sometimes heard.
It'd be perfectly possible - it would upset some people because no brace can be completely weightless and it would slow bowlers down a bit, but that really wouldn't matter if it made cricket fairer.

[open365]

I'd simply say use a brace that doesn't allow any straightening.
That would wipe-out any accusations of "X bends his elbow more than Y does" that are sometimes heard.
It'd be perfectly possible - it would upset some people because no brace can be completely weightless and it would slow bowlers down a bit, but that really wouldn't matter if it made cricket fairer.

In effect, wiping out fast bowlers wouldn't matter?

Brett Lee would not be able to bowl any where enar as fast as he does now with a brace on his arm, and it would probably cause his elbow serious damage.

'Completely weightless' it wouldn't be anywhere near completely weightless, it would ruin bowlers' rythm.

Where do you make it mandatory? At FC level? Club level? Are we going to have 13 year old kids wearing braceS?

[marc71178]

Actually, lets go one step further and replace the bowlers with machines - that'll make it fair.

But no, some batsmen are better than others as well, so lets replace them with machines as well.

That way we'd have a game where all catches are taken, and all batsmen and bowlers who Richard likes would do well (since he can program them to)

[silentstriker]

Actually, lets go one step further and replace the bowlers with machines - that'll make it fair.

But no, some batsmen are better than others as well, so lets replace them with machines as well.

That way we'd have a game where all catches are taken, and all batsmen and bowlers who Richard likes would do well (since he can program them to)

Yes, because stopping an elbow from bending more than 15 degrees (i.e stopping it from chucking) = bowling with machines. And if your elbow doesn't bend more than 15 degrees because, Shane Warne and Brett Lee will somehow bowl exactly the same deliveries.

Brett Lee would not be able to bowl any where enar as fast as he does now with a brace on his arm, and it would probably cause his elbow serious damage.

Um, if its bending more than 15 degrees, then he's chucking and he shouldn't be allowed to bowl as fast as he is. If his elbow isn't bending more than 15 degrees, and his arm is going 'all over the shop' within the allowable 15 degree variance, then he has nothing to worry about.

'Completely weightless' it wouldn't be anywhere near completely weightless, it would ruin bowlers' rythm.

Sure, at first. They'll get used to it.

Where do you make it mandatory? At FC level? Club level? Are we going to have 13 year old kids wearing braceS?

Kids wear helmets and pads, don't they? Why not a brace?

[luckyeddie]

As I'm probably the only person on CW who has actually bowled in an arm-brace, I can safely say without fear of contradiction that it is a hindrance you would be unlikely to ever get used to.

[Armadillo]

As I'm probably the only person on CW who has actually bowled in an arm-brace, I can safely say without fear of contradiction that it is a hindrance you would be unlikely to ever get used to.

I remember Murali coming on Channel four to prove his doubters wrong one test match, (Eng vs SA, I think). He showed that he could bowl with a brace on but whether it was at the same speed or with the same accuracy we couldn't tell.
Anyhow, it hasn't done much for his label as a chucker.

[Richard]

In effect, wiping out fast bowlers wouldn't matter?

Brett Lee would not be able to bowl any where enar as fast as he does now with a brace on his arm, and it would probably cause his elbow serious damage.

'Completely weightless' it wouldn't be anywhere near completely weightless, it would ruin bowlers' rythm.

Of course it would - d'you really imagine it'd not be possible to develop some sort of brace that would hardly weigh a thing?
Why on Earth would it cause damage? Rarely if ever can a joint be damaged by being stopped from being moved?
Wiping-out bowlers who bowled at 95mph wouldn't matter, at all, if we had a rule that meant the law was both fair and policeable, rather than the current nonsense and the nonsense we had before the current nonsense.

Where do you make it mandatory? At FC level? Club level? Are we going to have 13 year old kids wearing braceS?

Every level. Incorparate it in the Laws Of Cricket.

[Richard]

As I'm probably the only person on CW who has actually bowled in an arm-brace, I can safely say without fear of contradiction that it is a hindrance you would be unlikely to ever get used to.

How much did the thing weigh (about)?

[Richard]

Actually, lets go one step further and replace the bowlers with machines - that'll make it fair.

But no, some batsmen are better than others as well, so lets replace them with machines as well.

That way we'd have a game where all catches are taken, and all batsmen and bowlers who Richard likes would do well (since he can program them to)

Err, and where on Earth is that remotely related to uniformifying bowlers' elbows to make the game completely fair?

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Isn't that why we have the system that's in place at the moment? Making it practically impossible for a player to be called in the match?

...hang on - what are you saying 'No it's not' to?

[Son Of Coco]

Of course it would - d'you really imagine it'd not be possible to develop some sort of brace that would hardly weigh a thing?
Why on Earth would it cause damage? Rarely if ever can a joint be damaged by being stopped from being moved?
Wiping-out bowlers who bowled at 95mph wouldn't matter, at all, if we had a rule that meant the law was both fair and policeable, rather than the current nonsense and the nonsense we had before the current nonsense.

Every level. Incorparate it in the Laws Of Cricket.

Because a joint flexes to absorb an impact or stress placed upon it doesn't it? If it can't flex it won't absorb the impact as well. If you put a brace on to keep your legs straight and then jumped off a (small) wall it would have a greater effect on your body than if you could flex your knees on impact (especially if you did it 200+ times over a five day period). Similarly, an elbow locked in place whilst bowling would eventually break down I'd imagine. If not the elbow, then areas associated with it that are attempting to compromise (like the shoulder).

[Richard]

There's a difference, though. With jumping off a wall, there's a final, instant, one-off, instantaneous impact. With bowling, it's just a constant swish through.
I can't believe the brace wouldn't completely absorb any stress that would normally be lessened by flexing.

[Richard]

Isn't that why we have the system that's in place at the moment? Making it practically impossible for a player to be called in the match?

Yes, it is.
No bowler should ever be called for throwing in a top-level match again and quite rightly. These decisions cannot be made on an Umpire's whim - even when you do weed-out the Emerson types.

...hang on - what are you saying 'No it's not' to?

It's quite obviously not what constituted a throw in the first place.