Harbhajan's Chucking row - more BS

[shankar]

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.

To the batsman it doesnt matter if the bowler's doing it intentionally or unintentionally. For example if every time a fast bowler tries to bowl say, a bouncer or a yorker, he unintentionally flexes his elbow then he's no different from a bowler who knowlingly chucks the occasional ball. Why do the two need to be seperated?

 

[SJS]

The biggest advantage that chucking offers over bowling is accuracy. To bowl over arm and achieve pin point accuracy is something which requires hours a day and years of such regimen to achieve. Still there are so few like McGrath.

But look at the accuracy of throwing. look at the number fof fielders around the world in all forms of the game who can throw accurately and it will give you an idea as to what we are letting lose. You need special skills and lots of effort to achieve the kind of accuracy they enjoy. It cant be avaible to everyone who wants it. It will make a mockery of the game. Yorkers will be manufactured at call. Yuvraj and Kaif will be the best men to bowl into the base of the batsmen's stumps.

Of course, this is an extreme scenario, but this is what we are asking for if we say, lets legitimise throwing, and that is what we are moving towards if we cant find a way to call a throw a throw and do it the moment it is done ie immediately as the ball is thrown by a bowler in a game.

 

[SJS]

To the batsman it doesnt matter if the bowler's doing it intentionally or unintentionally. For example if every time a fast bowler tries to bowl say, a bouncer or a yorker, he unintentionally flexes his elbow then he's no different from a bowler who knowlingly chucks the occasional ball. Why do the two need to be seperated?

Of course it matters.

Lets take an example. Lets say, McGrath throws as per the definition only but actually he is bowling normally as we know him to do. This is not wilfull throwing.

Now if he was to wilfully throw as some others do. He will get much more purchase in the form of speed and bounce and will be far more accurate than he is. This will make him very difficult to play.

There used to be a bowler in Delhi called Suresh Luthra in the 60's and early seventies. He played Ranji Trophy for Delhi. He threw whenever he bowled in matches played in Delhi for no bowler dared to call him. But he wouldnt dare to throw outside North Zone, say in Bombay for he would be called. Now he was unplayable in Delhi. He just ran through each and every side. He would just walk down a few steps and send these thunder bolts that were deadly accurate. I have seen all of India's top batsmen Vishwanath included, struggle against him in Delhi but Delhi wouldnt even include him in the team if they had to play a match against Bombay or Karnataka at the latter's home grounds. So much was the difference in bowling legally and chucking. Imagine this weapon being available to the best fast bowlers in the world. It will be impossible to bat, take it from me.

Give a new ball to Jonty Rhodes and after a bit of practice in controlling the movement, and then watch the fun.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

I agree that throwing a ball will make both of these thing happen but when they do happen it doesn't necessarily mean the ball was thrown........for example, you can bowl at 30kms an hour and if you hit the seam it's more than likely that the ball will bounce more than usual on occasions

 

[shankar]

Of course it matters.

Lets take an example. Lets say, McGrath throws as per the definition only but actually he is bowling normally as we know him to do. This is not wilfull throwing.

Now if he was to wilfully throw as some others do. He will get much more purchase in the form of speed and bounce and will be far more accurate than he is. This will make him very difficult to play.

But what if the bowler doesnt willfully do it....but he unintentionally chucks the ball whenever he bowls one his special deliveries say, a yorker or a bouncer and he cannot bowl it without chucking it from time to time. Then he is gaining an advantage from it albeit unintentionally. So in that case it doesnt matter to the batsman if it's intentional or unintentional.

 

[Son Of Coco]

To the batsman it doesnt matter if the bowler's doing it intentionally or unintentionally. For example if every time a fast bowler tries to bowl say, a bouncer or a yorker, he unintentionally flexes his elbow then he's no different from a bowler who knowlingly chucks the occasional ball. Why do the two need to be seperated?

I can pretty much assure you that if a batsman sees an action that appears to be extremely abnormal he takes a great deal of notice. If you bowled a few balls to most batsmen going around and it looked legitimately like a throw it wouldn't take them very long at all to ask the umpire what's going on.

 

[shankar]

I can pretty much assure you that if a batsman sees an action that appears to be extremely abnormal he takes a great deal of notice. If you bowled a few balls to most batsmen going around and it looked legitimately like a throw it wouldn't take them very long at all to ask the umpire what's going on.

That's the crux of the problem isnt it? All this time we've had no inkling that most bowlers do flex their arm from time to time. In case it turns out that they do it whenever they bowl an 'effort' ball or some 'special' delivery, then it doesnt matter if they were doing it unintentionally because they still gain advantage from it.

 

[SJS]

But what if the bowler doesnt willfully do it....but he unintentionally chucks the ball whenever he bowls one his special deliveries say, a yorker or a bouncer and he cannot bowl it without chucking it from time to time. Then he is gaining an advantage from it albeit unintentionally. So in that case it doesnt matter to the batsman if it's intentional or unintentional.

No. You havent understood what I said due to the nomenclature involved.

Let me try to clarify. The 99% (virtualy all) that are now supposed to be covered under this ridiculous report as those who flex their elbows to some degree are people like McGrath, Holding, Imran Khan, Hadlee etc, who as per the old definition DID NOT THROW. These people did not throw then and if they were bowling today(as McGrath is) they would not be throwing today. However, as per this report, they DO dlex their elbows. This technical, flexing of elbows, which this report refers to but can not be seen by any umpire or batsman, is what I was refering to as unintentional flexing.

This is not something which they do when trying to bowl a special ball as you seem to have understood. This is something which they do all the time because it seems impossible(as per this report) for bowlers to bowl without this flexing. This does not constitute throwing by old definition, can not be seen by the umpire or batsman as throwing AND does not offer any undue advantage to the bowlers !

HOWEVER, the deliberate throwing,(all the time or occasionaly when trying to bowl a special or faster delivery) is the one which constitutes a throw. The fact that the bowler doesnt want to thrpow but only wants to bowl faster and in so doing happens to flex a bit extra is not important here. It is an action which can be seen to be a throw and which does offer an undue advantage to the bowler and this is the one which was supposed to be called and this is the one which SHOULD be called.

What the new law wants to do, is to put both these at parity. And that puts the first batch of regular bowlers at a discount and the chuckers at a premium or advantage and will encourage new entrants to join the latter group.

I hope it is slightly clearer than mud

 

[Scaly piscine]

That's why I'm dubious of the way arm speed has been totally ignored in the new laws, yet they allowed different tolerances to different speeds of bowler previously.

 

[shankar]

SJS - My point was that if it turns out that IF it comes out in from the study that most bowlers do in fact flex their arms while bowling 'effort' balls then they gain an advantage. Are you sure the report says that the bowlers in the study flexed their arms all the time?

 

[Scaly piscine]

SJS - My point was that if it turns out that IF it comes out in from the study that most bowlers do in fact flex their arms while bowling 'effort' balls then they gain an advantage. Are you sure the report says that the bowlers in the study flexed their arms all the time?

I got the impression that the flex was due to the force of arm coming over (ie flex is proportional to arm speed) so it would be similar every delivery, I can't imagine a professional cricketer would lose their form and chuck it (not a flex type chuck, but a genuine type chuck) when they bowled an effort ball (maybe a special delivery, but it's very unlikely) - so if the arm goes a little faster then you get the extra flex from that.

 

[Slow Love™]

HOWEVER, the deliberate throwing,(all the time or occasionaly when trying to bowl a special or faster delivery) is the one which constitutes a throw. The fact that the bowler doesnt want to thrpow but only wants to bowl faster and in so doing happens to flex a bit extra is not important here. It is an action which can be seen to be a throw and which does offer an undue advantage to the bowler and this is the one which was supposed to be called and this is the one which SHOULD be called.

What the new law wants to do, is to put both these at parity.

No, it doesn't.

The new law recognizes that somebody like Murali has a comparable degree of straightening to that of McGrath, Pollock, etc. It also recognizes that this degree of straightening is not perceptible to the naked eye.

The reason that Murali appears to throw more than say, Glenn McGrath does, is because his elbow is so profoundly bent. Even under the old laws, this is not that relevant, because the laws have always been about degree of straightening, rather than how bent somebody's elbow is during their delivery.

Given that this 15 degree figure is so prevalent, and seemingly, close to impossible to control, the laws are NOT favoring those that intentionally throw the ball (or making those that involuntarily straighten equal to those that intentionally throw), because logically, these bowlers would be straightening further than the standard 10-15 degrees that the vast majority of bowlers are experiencing. It would also stand to reason that those straightening substantially in excess of these degrees will be visible to the naked eye, and will consequently be able to be called.

The situation as I see it is that the technology has proven that our perceptions are not always accurate. Given this, you almost have to wonder if in times gone by, some bowlers may have been hard done by. What if we found out that Brett Lee was straightening his arm by 20 degrees, and Ian Meckiff had actually been straightening his by 15 degrees? To me, it's a very similar argument to that of the use of technology in umpiring decisions. We can cling to old, traditionalist positions that are inaccurate (and quite often, possibly unfair), or we can learn from the technology and adjust our practices and judgements accordingly.

 

[honestbharani]

Even if we were to go by your argument, SJS, now that it has been proven that the effort balls are generally 'chucked', if we do go back to the old law, then shouldn't way let all the bowlers around the world know that they cannot bowl those effort balls anymore? Because it has now been shown that those type of deliveries are generally chucked and they can no longer claim that they did it unintentionally...


I think the point about this new law that many are missing is that it is only going to legalize the action of all the bowlers bowling today. IF we were to apply that old law, we would have to basically ask all the bowlers around the world to lock up all their effort balls. Is that the situation we want?

 

[Anil]

Yes I suppose so. But then we should give up the veneer of objectivity that is so vehemently claimed by many.

I disagree that this need be the case. Not with those who would like to be termed as 'students' of the game.

It should be posible to discuss cricketing matters, legality, skills etc dispassionately. Of course, we all deserve our passion and need to display it when supporting our teams on the grounsd and even in front of the telly. But when we come here for what, I presume, is supposed to be an intelligent and informed exchange of views, passion does not have a place.

This is just my opinion. It need not be the majority view.

agree with most of what you say here.....however passionate support of your team doesn't necessarily lead to subjectivity, prejudice, bias....you can desperately want your country to win and still see/acknowledge their strengths and weaknesses....wouldn't you want to see india win against australia although you know for a fact that australia are a much more superior team...?

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's the crux of the problem isnt it? All this time we've had no inkling that most bowlers do flex their arm from time to time. In case it turns out that they do it whenever they bowl an 'effort' ball or some 'special' delivery, then it doesnt matter if they were doing it unintentionally because they still gain advantage from it.

I guess it depends on the defenition of flex (or throw) in that instance. I am still having trouble comparing something that is unnoticable with a noticable throw.........and when I think of throwing I think of somethng that stands out in your mind as being illegal (i.e something that when looked at 99.9% of people go 'gee, that looks strange'......which can cause problems as we've seen when you get an unusual action like Murali's that's proven to actually be ok). Actions like McGrath etc cause me no concern at all......which I guess is why the need for the rule change might be apparent.

 

[Langeveldt]

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

You being the first to complain in 2 years.. A bit insecure are we?

 

[SJS]

Even if we were to go by your argument, SJS, now that it has been proven that the effort balls are generally 'chucked', if we do go back to the old law, then shouldn't way let all the bowlers around the world know that they cannot bowl those effort balls anymore? Because it has now been shown that those type of deliveries are generally chucked and they can no longer claim that they did it unintentionally...


I think the point about this new law that many are missing is that it is only going to legalize the action of all the bowlers bowling today. IF we were to apply that old law, we would have to basically ask all the bowlers around the world to lock up all their effort balls. Is that the situation we want?

No. We wouldnt. If we left it to the umpires to call whenever they SAW a bowler chucking.

That IS the main point I am trying to make.

The wilful chucking is the only form of chucking (whether wanting to throw /bowl a special or faster ball or to bowl a doosra), is the only one which CAN be seen by the umpire on the ground. It is this which has allowed those who chucked even occasionaly to be observed and commented upon over mosre than a century of cricket without the help of biomechanics.

This form of chucking is :-
- the only type which offers an undue advantage to the bowler
- the only type which can be effectively monitored at the place and time where it needs to be, viz, on the field of play
- its the only type batsmen have protested against and everyone wants to be stopped


What it does require is more vigilant umpires. The square leg umpire wil have to be more vigilant than they were at a time when chucking was not so ramopant but that is easily taken care of by the practice of batsman or batting side captain being allowed to mention the same to the umpire if they felt the bowler threw (even if it was only the occasional ball). This would put the umpire on alert and the bowler on notice and we will be allowed to get on with the game.

If that means the doosra will have to be reinvented in another, more acceptable form if possible, so be it !!

 

[SJS]

agree with most of what you say here.....however passionate support of your team doesn't necessarily lead to subjectivity, prejudice, bias....you can desperately want your country to win and still see/acknowledge their strengths and weaknesses....wouldn't you want to see india win against australia although you know for a fact that australia are a much more superior team...?

Oh sure. You are absolutely correct.

Passion doesnt HAVE TO lead to lack of objectivity and bias and it doesnt in many cases. I am only talking of those where it does and, unfortunately, these are legions and not a minority !

 

[Anil]

Oh sure. You are absolutely correct.

Passion doesnt HAVE TO lead to lack of objectivity and bias and it doesnt in many cases. I am only talking of those where it does and, unfortunately, these are legions and not a minority !

understood and agreed....

 

[marc71178]

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

What a mature response.