Harbhajan's Chucking row - more BS

[Buddhmaster]

But the ball that is balled is bowled a specific way, and in the doosra's case, its throwing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

But the ball that is balled is bowled a specific way, and in the doosra's case, its throwing.

I don't think it's impossible to bowl it without throwing it.......my mate used to bowl it at practice, granted it didn't turn nearly as much but it wasn't with an action like that which is described here.

You can't ban a ball and say that no-one will ever be able to bowl it without chucking it, you can only look at individual cases as they happen.

 

[Buddhmaster]

Yeh i suppose. I guess i should have said was has Murali or Harbhajan ever banned from bowling the doosra?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeh i suppose. I guess i should have said was has Murali or Harbhajan ever banned from bowling the doosra?

Murali was told to stop bowling it for a while, but I don't think Harbhajan ever has been.

 

[SJS]

So it is abviously chucked?

And how old are you SJS?

Old enough ! As you can guess. I am approaching 55

 

[SJS]

I don't think it's impossible to bowl it without throwing it.......my mate used to bowl it at practice, granted it didn't turn nearly as much but it wasn't with an action like that which is described here.

You can't ban a ball and say that no-one will ever be able to bowl it without chucking it, you can only look at individual cases as they happen.

I think one can try. But it would be very difficult to get much purchase and nowhere near as much control because of the very nature of the delivery.

It relies much more on wrist action (throwing the wrist forward rather than turning it around as wrist is normally used in spin bowling) and you can easily try to propel an object using your wrist and you will find that it is very difficult to do it without the elbow coming into play. The moment you use the wrist to propel an object with the other movement of the arm being from the shoulder and not the elbow the final outcome is pretty feeble and not as acurately directed. Badminton or other racquet games are good examples.

 

[Will Scarlet]

SJS, if only the committee were as objective and practical as yourself then we could see appropriate action in this matter.

 

[Deja moo]

I agree. It is a better bet to bowl the away floater like Prasanna used to bowl but it moves less off the wicket than the doosra.

Thats strange....IMO it would be easier to spot the floater and smash it compared to the Doosra . The floater was appropriate for a time when spinners were expected to give away runs and purchase their wickets...no spinner would try it now given the importance attached to run saving ( and rightly so too....the concept of purchasing runs seems to me ,to be unjustified even for spinners ).

 

[SJS]

Thats strange....IMO it would be easier to spot the floater and smash it compared to the Doosra . The floater was appropriate for a time when spinners were expected to give away runs and purchase their wickets...no spinner would try it now given the importance attached to run saving ( and rightly so too....the concept of purchasing runs seems to me ,to be unjustified even for spinners ).

of course a floater is easier for a batsman to play. Its only advatage is that the action is clean as for the arm ball by the left arm finger spinner.

 

[Buddhmaster]

Are you really 55 SJS?

 

[SJS]

Are you really 55 SJS?

YES. Willl be next Feb.

And that picture(my avatar) is Chicki, one of my two labs. She is 20 months old

 

[Buddhmaster]

Are you married or anything?

 

[Buddhmaster]

I suggest we rename this the "SJS's life story" thread.

 

[SJS]

Are you married or anything?

I have two sons(29 and 30) who work in the US(Chicago and NY) and I live with my wife and two dogs in Mumbai

Surprised ??

 

[Buddhmaster]

Not surprised that you're married with 2 kids, but that you're actually 55. You don't seem very old. But i haven't been here that long so........

 

[SJS]

Not surprised that you're married with 2 kids, but that you're actually 55. You don't seem very old. But i haven't been here that long so........

I will accept that as a compliment . Thanks if thats so.

 

[honestbharani]

I read a recent piece in "The Sportstar" about this whole chucking thing and it seems as though this straightening the elbow has been going on forever. Every time the ball came through a little faster, or bounced a bit more, or was a heavy ball and all those extra special things apparently could not have been done with a dead straight elbow. And what is more poignant is the fact that a steel rod if it is made to rotate at the speed the bowler's arm rotates, bends after only a little while. Now, the human arm is never gonna be as rigid as a steel rod and hence, it will be all the more difficult to keep it straight.



Plus, I am going to take the modern view on this one. At one point in time, bowling over arm was against the law. At another point in time, bowling round arm was against the law. So, why make all this hue and cry about something, that (for all we know) could be the game's next step as it evolves? We are always complaining about the lack of quality bowlers in this era as compared to the previous ones. With so much cricket being played, it is obvious that bowling has become the harder task. And with the protective equipment of the batters being enhanced, they are growing more and more confident and the bowlers are growing more and more timid. I think this new law will allow bowlers more leeway, allow them to experiment more and introduce new types of deliveries and basically, throw up new challenges to the batters. And for that reason alone, I think this rule should be welcomed. Plus, as the tests have shown, it is only legalizing something that all the bowlers (99%) are doing already. So, frankly speaking, I am pretty cool with the whole rule change.



As an aside, this is one reason why I get mad when people call Murali a cheat (and our beloved Bedi started that). If he bends his arm a little more than normal and does that more often than other bowlers, doesn't mean he is a cheat. If anything, all he has done is show up the holes in our bowling laws.

 

[dinu23]

We feel so sorry for you cricketers on the subcontinent.. Forever persecuted, no representation on the ICC panels.. It must suck having to get out of bed every morning.. Go cry me a river.

Go jerk-off man!!! We don't have to take crap from ass holes like u.

 

[SJS]

I read a recent piece in "The Sportstar" about this whole chucking thing and it seems as though this straightening the elbow has been going on forever. Every time the ball came through a little faster, or bounced a bit more, or was a heavy ball and all those extra special things apparently could not have been done with a dead straight elbow. And what is more poignant is the fact that a steel rod if it is made to rotate at the speed the bowler's arm rotates, bends after only a little while. Now, the human arm is never gonna be as rigid as a steel rod and hence, it will be all the more difficult to keep it straight.



Plus, I am going to take the modern view on this one. At one point in time, bowling over arm was against the law. At another point in time, bowling round arm was against the law. So, why make all this hue and cry about something, that (for all we know) could be the game's next step as it evolves? We are always complaining about the lack of quality bowlers in this era as compared to the previous ones. With so much cricket being played, it is obvious that bowling has become the harder task. And with the protective equipment of the batters being enhanced, they are growing more and more confident and the bowlers are growing more and more timid. I think this new law will allow bowlers more leeway, allow them to experiment more and introduce new types of deliveries and basically, throw up new challenges to the batters. And for that reason alone, I think this rule should be welcomed. Plus, as the tests have shown, it is only legalizing something that all the bowlers (99%) are doing already. So, frankly speaking, I am pretty cool with the whole rule change.



As an aside, this is one reason why I get mad when people call Murali a cheat (and our beloved Bedi started that). If he bends his arm a little more than normal and does that more often than other bowlers, doesn't mean he is a cheat. If anything, all he has done is show up the holes in our bowling laws.

I agree with some of what you say but not all. Let me clarify that.

This new report that goes into technicalities to 'prove' 99% of bowlers chuck and then uses this preposterous hypothesis to allow a laxity in the law which can not be ensured by the naked eye and hence by the umpires on the ground is ridiculous and it is the kind of hackneyed solution that will come out of Government instituted enquiries or from committees who have to many predetrmined agendas and will , therefore, conduct the enquiries to obfuscate the whole issue and make it as clear as mud !

The fact of the matter is that there are those who chuck intentionally Na dthose who may be flexing the elbow in the kind of 'unavoidable' manner that this report talks of. The two need to be separated and the earlier law did that pretty effectively.

Those who chucked intentionally , and they were mostly fast bowlers but also some finger spinners, appeared to chuck to the naked eye. This was and is the difference. It is a very VITAL difference. While it is impossible for the naked eye to determine the angle of flex, most wilful chucking is apparent to the batsman and , if he is watching carefully, to the square leg umpire too.

So, all along the history of the game, the chuckers were observed by batsmen and umpires and reported and called. They have been there for a very long time but the fact that they could be called AND WERE CALLED, limited the menace as bowlers were forced to avoid wilful breaking of law and those who developed such actions were quickly reported/called and had to rectify the action or say goodby to their careers.

What this silly piece of legislation is proposing to do is:-

a) remove the VITAL difference between those who wilfully throw and those who go about bowling regular overarm stuff as it was always meant to be bowled. By offering an advatage to those who throw wilfully, it is encouraging future bowlers to give up the normal action since they will see no reason not to derive the advantage of speed, accuracy and purchase from the wicket with much less input of physical effort and skill.

b) Take away the power of calling a chucker in a match situation from the umpires on the ground, since it will not be possible for them to say with certainity how much is the angle of flex of the bowlers arm.

To argue that this was unavoidable, is to refuse to understand the total situation as it prevailed before. It will always be possible for some to cheat and get away but the majority of those who chucked wilfully WERE found to be chucking by some vigilant umpire or the other. The need was to strengthen the hands of these vigilant umpires and encourage others to follow their example. Maybe a camera or two placed at a suitable angle could have allowed the third umpire to also observe the bowlers action and sound the umpires on the ground to have a closer look so as to make sure that a bowler did not get away because the umpire was too busy or caught up in other matters in the game.

What has been done today is one of the worst pieces of legislation to come out of the ICC and if they dont quickly revert they will live to regret by when the cancer may have spread beyond control.

To say that throwing should be legalised is laughable. To offer this as an excuse since we cant find a better way to monitor the law breakers is nothing but abdication of responsibility.

Lets then allow cricketers to abuse each other roundly since we cant decide what constitutes gamesmanship, what sledging and what outright abuse.

Lets allow bowlers to trip batsmen taking a run since we cant decide whether the batsman who ran into the bowler standing in mid pitch was wilfully blocked by the bowler who was pretending to look at the ground.

Lets allow any ball hitting the pad be declared as LBW because every other method leaves the possibility of the umpire making an error.

 

[Buddhmaster]

I will accept that as a compliment . Thanks if thats so.

Oh it was