Cricket faces chucking crisis

[Son Of Coco]

No Dasa. Thats the beauty of it.

its exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

All those who try anything "fishy" are the one's whose actions WILL appear doubtful to the umpires and these are the one's they are supposed to call.

Its NOT possible to intentionally try a dodgy action and for it not to LOOK dodgy.

What wont show is the "angle of flex" which we are told is 4% for say McGrath and 5% , say for Vettori. This angle of flex WONT show in the case of all these bowlers who have never ever, anyway, tried to do anything "dodgy" nor been seen to be doing so.

It was much simpler and it has been made complex now.

By saying that others like McGrath and Vettori also flex, a false justification is being sought for the new law. I call it false because the flex of McGrath Vettori and Pollock was not what the rule was made for 150 years ago and that still holds !!

Exactly!

 

[chaminda_00]

I think you'll find most bowlers hyperextend to some degree - the difference with Lee and Shoaib is the extent to which they are able to hyperextend. According to what I've heard re: the ICC report on testing during the Champions Trophy it wasn't taken into account when measuring the 15 degrees. Then again, I've read other articles which give the impression it was.....so, who knows.

Yeah i know what u mean i read somewhere that you can't be a Test Bowler, let alone a 1st Grade Fast Bowler unless u some hyper-extenion in ur action. But from all reports Lee and Shoiab have more then ur average Fast Bowler.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

By saying that others like McGrath and Vettori also flex, a false justification is being sought for the new law. I call it false because the flex of McGrath Vettori and Pollock was not what the rule was made for 150 years ago and that still holds !!

This for me is the absolute crux of the matter, and thank you for pointing it out. It doesn't matter if McGrath flexes 1 degree, 5 degrees or 16 degrees, because the fact is he does not chuck and does not violate the original chucking rule in word or spirit prior to its perversion. The chucking rule was designed to stop bowlers from THROWING the ball and DELIBERATELY straightening their arm in order to gain benefit that other bowlers would not have. Off spinners get more spin and express bowlers get more pace from purposely straightening their arm in delivery, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who goes out in the nets and tries it. This is what the law is designed to stop, not someone who runs in and through no fault of their own has their elbow bend in the wrong direction a few millimetres, or someone who bowls with a perfectly legitimate action but happens to flex their arm 6 degrees instead of 5 or 16 degrees instead of 15. It is designed to ensure that bowlers bowl with a CRICKET action and nothing else. Bringing specific levels of flexion, lab testing off the field and teams of bio-mechanists into the equation in no way clarifies the law or makes it easier to enforce, and in actuality the most recent change has made the law absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. Roger Clemens could open the bowling for the USA in their next ODI match and simply be asked to head into the lab at the end of the game to have a test. Furthermore, the most recent changes have made it possible to purposely chuck to a certain degree and still be within the legal limits, when in Meckiff's days the moment you tried to purposely chuck with 14 degrees of flexion to get some extra pace off a shorter runup you would be pulled up and no-balled.

For me, this problem has one main origin, which is the inability or unwillingness of the ICC to support their umpires in making their judgement call as the rules required in a match situation. The response from the BCCSL and Arjuna Ranatunga when Murali was originally called for throwing was utterly disgraceful, and the ICC should have reacted strongly and immediately to defend Emerson and Hair and failed to do so, and ever since then the situation has got progressively worse.

 

[SJS]

At the cost of being jumped upon once again, let me say here that the world has been extremely unfair to the umpires, mostly Australian, who have called bowlers for actions thet "did not satisfy them com[pletely" . It is amazing how many of these umpires were seen in some circles as villains rather than the people whose tribes virtual extinction we are mourning here when we say "umpires dont have balls"

MCC and now ICC have not just done wrong by the game but has virtually cowed down the other umpires by sending wrong signals to them as to how the problem of chucking was viewed by the game's governing body.

 

[chaminda_00]

I do agree with most of the stuff Fuller said in ur previous post (im not going to quote it all), just a few things i don't agree with.

Off Spin bowlers: i know from personally experience that u can't bowl the doosra (or wrong 'un, cus that what it really is) without straighten your arm, it near impossible. But that only ball that off spinners have problem with. The extra spin that some OS get on the ball is more to do with front on actions and dripping the ball with leg spin spinners grip, not to do with straighten of arms. The problems with modern day throwers is not only a problem for OS but also quick bowlers like Dilhara and Lawson, who have tired to ball at 140 plus by straighten their arm.

When it comes to BCCSL responce to the Murali situation is was on par with the responce of PCB and ACB responce when their top bowlers get pulled up. But u are right their responses should have been more like WICB and what they did with Lawson, but if he didn't get injured at the same time, they may have done down a similar patch to the others.

 

[telsor]

At the cost of being jumped upon once again, let me say here that the world has been extremely unfair to the umpires

Exactly. Whenever something like this happened, the fans of the 'offended' player and large sections of the media go wild.

To use the example of Hair calling Murali. He was branded a liar, cheat, racist and doubtless numerous other things and received no backing from those in charge, indeed, he received fewer games as some teams wouldn't accept him as an umpire. Making that call almost ended the career of one of the worlds better umpires. I have no doubt the other umpires saw this and it 'influenced' them not to make similar calls.

It's not the umpires who lack the balls, it's the administrators in charge who lacked the balls to support their umpires.

I've been saying it since long before I arrived on this board. Accept the umpires decision. People seem unable to do that though, so we end up in a mess like this.

 

[chaminda_00]

Exactly. Whenever something like this happened, the fans of the 'offended' player and large sections of the media go wild.

To use the example of Hair calling Murali. He was branded a liar, cheat, racist and doubtless numerous other things and received no backing from those in charge, indeed, he received fewer games as some teams wouldn't accept him as an umpire. Making that call almost ended the career of one of the worlds better umpires. I have no doubt the other umpires saw this and it 'influenced' them not to make similar calls.

It's not the umpires who lack the balls, it's the administrators in charge who lacked the balls to support their umpires.

I've been saying it since long before I arrived on this board. Accept the umpires decision. People seem unable to do that though, so we end up in a mess like this.

Fair enough we all should accept umpire decision but how can u accept an umpire who calls Grant Flower and Asim Karim (former Kenyan captain) for throwing. Anyone who has seen these two guys ball knows their not chuckers. Hair took it one step too far when he starts calling guys who action are fine for throwing. He just trys to make a name for himself and nothing else. Fair enough to call Murali for chucking, we all know he has major faults in his bowling (mainly down to a medical condition), but to call guys like Karim and Flower his a joke. To miss front foot no balls when a spinner like Vettori (near perfect action) is bowling cus ur looking at his arm, come on. You can't repect an umpire like that let alone accept any of his decision. Every time a spinners get a wicket when he is umpiring you have to ask yourself was it a front foot no ball.

 

[SJS]

Fair enough we all should accept umpire decision but how can u accept an umpire who calls Grant Flower and Asim Karim (former Kenyan captain) for throwing. Anyone who has seen these two guys ball knows their not chuckers.
.

I am not aware of when it happened. But why do you assume that only certain bowlers can chuck ? Anyone can chuck. Even Bishen Bedi chuck if he wants to. You seem to be confusing a bad and jerky action with an intentional chuck or a jerky action when a bowler tries to do something different, something more.

Some leg spinners, need not be named, try to bowl a faster off break, much faster than their normal delivery plus its an off break. Many of them chuck this ball. But they are not chuckers otherwise. They can play for ten years without chucking a single delivery.

So whats the logic in saying that anyone who has seen so-and-so bowling knows he doesnt chuck ???

 

[chaminda_00]

I am not aware of when it happened. But why do you assume that only certain bowlers can chuck ? Anyone can chuck. Even Bishen Bedi chuck if he wants to. You seem to be confusing a bad and jerky action with an intentional chuck or a jerky action when a bowler tries to do something different, something more.

Some leg spinners, need not be named, try to bowl a faster off break, much faster than their normal delivery plus its an off break. Many of them chuck this ball. But they are not chuckers otherwise. They can play for ten years without chucking a single delivery.

So whats the logic in saying that anyone who has seen so-and-so bowling knows he doesnt chuck ???

Im not assuming that their are players that can't chuck, anyone can come in and bowl a ball and throw it, but TBH do you think that guys like these two have action in which that as a umpire you would be looking at their arms not front foot. Is it also coinsidence that Darrell Hair was the umpire that called Flower in a Test and Karim in an ODI.

 

[SJS]

Im not assuming that their are players that can't chuck, anyone can come in and bowl a ball and throw it, but TBH do you think that guys like these two have action in which that as a umpire you would be looking at their arms not front foot. Is it also coinsidence that Darrell Hair was the umpire that called Flower in a Test and Karim in an ODI.

There is no coincidence in this.

Throughout history only a few umpires have called for suspect action. This has something to do with balls of a different variety

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Im not assuming that their are players that can't chuck, anyone can come in and bowl a ball and throw it, but TBH do you think that guys like these two have action in which that as a umpire you would be looking at their arms not front foot. Is it also coinsidence that Darrell Hair was the umpire that called Flower in a Test and Karim in an ODI.

This is actually another element of the original law which has been lost over time. Originally, a faulty action was to be called by the square leg umpire and not by the umpire behind the stumps. One of Ranatunga's tactics to stop Murali from being called for throwing in Australia was to request that Emerson stand closer to the stumps and have Murali come in from behind him and bowl, stopping Emerson from being able to see his arm. The umpire behind the stumps should be watching the front foot, the square leg umpire should be watching the umpire.

A more modern solution to this problem would be making front foot no-balls automatically monitored by a cyclops type machine, which is one of the few technological advancements I am convinced would be nothing but beneficial if it is possible at this time.

 

[chaminda_00]

This is actually another element of the original law which has been lost over time. Originally, a faulty action was to be called by the square leg umpire and not by the umpire behind the stumps. One of Ranatunga's tactics to stop Murali from being called for throwing in Australia was to request that Emerson stand closer to the stumps and have Murali come in from behind him and bowl, stopping Emerson from being able to see his arm. The umpire behind the stumps should be watching the front foot, the square leg umpire should be watching the umpire.

A more modern solution to this problem would be making front foot no-balls automatically monitored by a cyclops type machine, which is one of the few technological advancements I am convinced would be nothing but beneficial if it is possible at this time.

A even more modern solution is to have technology that allows you to see how much a bowler is extending his arm as soon as he bowls.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

A even more modern solution is to have technology that allows you to see how much a bowler is extending his arm as soon as he bowls.

That is not possible at this time, and even if it was it is hard to see how to use it in the context of an actual game. I would imagine cyclops technology would be possible, and it's a clear area where technology could make a positive impact on the game as it has with run-out decisions.

 

[chaminda_00]

That is not possible at this time, and even if it was it is hard to see how to use it in the context of an actual game. I would imagine cyclops technology would be possible, and it's a clear area where technology could make a positive impact on the game as it has with run-out decisions.

It not possible at present but if it was then it could be used by 3rd umpire who could tell the field umpire whether the extending too much.

 

[C_C]

I fail to see the point of this article...the author says that it will lead to bowlers bowling with a chucking action while still within the limits....well...according to the research team( of which the author IS a part), all the bowlers in history have been doing so........bowling with a chucking action....

 

[sledger]

I fail to see the point of this article...the author says that it will lead to bowlers bowling with a chucking action while still within the limits....well...according to the research team( of which the author IS a part), all the bowlers in history have been doing so........bowling with a chucking action....

seconded, all the great bowlers from past have been chuckers apparently ahem so to speak

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I fail to see the point of this article...the author says that it will lead to bowlers bowling with a chucking action while still within the limits....well...according to the research team( of which the author IS a part), all the bowlers in history have been doing so........bowling with a chucking action....

Ludicrous. You are saying that McGrath is equally a chucker as Meckiff? Chucking has nothing to do with having some miniscule level of flexion in a flawless bowling action, but with purposely NOT bowling with a legitimate cricketing action in order to gain advantage over legitimate bowlers. If a bowler can jog in off 5 steps and purposely chuck it at 100 mph and only flex his elbow 14 degrees or less in the process, then the tolerance levels are FAR too high, or completely irrelevant to whether or not a bowler is actually chucking.

Clearly McGrath is not a chucker and Meckiff is, if they managed to determine from video footage that Meckiff had 14 degrees of flexion that would not change the fact.

 

[sledger]

apparentlt dennis lillee was a chucker

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

apparentlt dennis lillee was a chucker

Funny, I don't recall him ever being no-balled for it.

 

[sledger]

Funny, I don't recall him ever being no-balled for it.

perhaps not, but new evidence suggests that he was, not that i agree with it of course, it is just a theory