Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 99

Thread: HyperExtension and Chucking

  1. #31
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote 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.
    Err - and it's also law of physics that when something is strapped in place it doesn't go "all over the shop".
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #32
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote 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
    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.

  3. #33
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker
    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.

  4. #34
    International Vice-Captain open365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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?


  5. #35
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,595
    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)
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  6. #36
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,748
    Quote Originally Posted by 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)

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by open365
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by open365
    'Completely weightless' it wouldn't be anywhere near completely weightless, it would ruin bowlers' rythm.
    Sure, at first. They'll get used to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by open365
    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?

  7. #37
    Hall of Fame Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,752
    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.
    Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men

  8. #38
    State Vice-Captain Armadillo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Literate Essex- yes, it does exist!
    Posts
    1,092
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    Member of LSU (bowl part time pies)

    RIP Fardin

  9. #39
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by open365
    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.

  10. #40
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    How much did the thing weigh (about)?

  11. #41
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by 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)
    Err, and where on Earth is that remotely related to uniformifying bowlers' elbows to make the game completely fair?

  12. #42
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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?
    Last edited by Son Of Coco; 04-04-2006 at 05:36 PM.
    "What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)

    R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best

    R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi

    Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath

    "How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.

  13. #43
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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).

  14. #44
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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.
    Last edited by Richard; 05-04-2006 at 02:03 PM.

  15. #45
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Son Of Coco
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Son Of Coco
    It's quite obviously not what constituted a throw in the first place.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


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
  •