Chuckers

[harsh.ag]

Never, ever quote pakpassion.

I am sensing there is a history here, but will still venture to ask that basic question: why?

 

[fredfertang]

The really galling thing is that everyone who watches cricket semi-seriously & who doesn't have an axe to grind knows what a chuck looks like

Not for the first time Brumbers reduces the whole debate down to one simple sentence - the hand seldom deceives the eye on this one - if it looks like a chuck it almost certainly is - there are occasions when the technology is useful such as with Murali, who looks to me for all the world like a chucker, but I'm more than happy to accept he isn't, except with that doosra of course, which he undoubtedly chucks, as does everyone else who bowls the bloody thing

 

[smash84]

Not for the first time Brumbers reduces the whole debate down to one simple sentence - the hand seldom deceives the eye on this one - if it looks like a chuck it almost certainly is - there are occasions when the technology is useful such as with Murali, who looks to me for all the world like a chucker, but I'm more than happy to accept he isn't, except with that doosra of course, which he undoubtedly chucks, as does everyone else who bowls the bloody thing

Did Saqlain also chuck the doosra? Sometimes I felt that he did but a lot of times it looked very clean.

 

[Migara]

Check everybody for flexion / extension in match conditions. The verbal diarrhea of so called conservarives wills top once they could see they can chuck with a clean action, since human eye is **** at picking up small extensions of a joint at high speed.

 

[Migara]

Not for the first time Brumbers reduces the whole debate down to one simple sentence - the hand seldom deceives the eye on this one - if it looks like a chuck it almost certainly is - there are occasions when the technology is useful such as with Murali, who looks to me for all the world like a chucker, but I'm more than happy to accept he isn't, except with that doosra of course, which he undoubtedly chucks, as does everyone else who bowls the bloody thing

Can we have prrof on this?

OK, DRS and third umpire is not needed. Eye is correct.

 

[L Trumper]

Not for the first time Brumbers reduces the whole debate down to one simple sentence - the hand seldom deceives the eye on this one - if it looks like a chuck it almost certainly is - there are occasions when the technology is useful such as with Murali, who looks to me for all the world like a chucker, but I'm more than happy to accept he isn't, except with that doosra of course, which he undoubtedly chucks, as does everyone else who bowls the bloody thing

You are an excellent poster. But that is such a horrible conservative slant on whole thing and also not true.

 

[fredfertang]

You are an excellent poster. But that is such a horrible conservative slant on whole thing and also not true.

Not sure why you find the comment so annoying - I certainly accept that its a bit of a sweeping statement, but I don't think its particularly reactionary - to my mind technology is an excellent way of "acquitting" the innocent, and its a great shame it didn't exist when the careers of, for example, Harold Rhodes and Malcolm Scott, were blighted, but I genuinely don't believe it should have a place in judging the actions of bowlers who look ok to the naked eye

 

[smash84]

Not sure why you find the comment so annoying - I certainly accept that its a bit of a sweeping statement, but I don't think its particularly reactionary - to my mind technology is an excellent way of "acquitting" the innocent, and its a great shame it didn't exist when the careers of, for example, Harold Rhodes and Malcolm Scott, were blighted, but I genuinely don't believe it should have a place in judging the actions of bowlers who look ok to the naked eye

So you agree with the BCCI stance on DRS?

 

[fredfertang]

So you agree with the BCCI stance on DRS?

No, but I'd be very sceptical about any DRS type technology that purported to deal with the legality of bowlers' actions

 

[L Trumper]

No, but I'd be very sceptical about any DRS type technology that purported to deal with the legality of bowlers' actions

But DRS is predicting what might happen, while checking legality technology actually measures the data available. If anything it'd be more precise than DRS predictive path. The naked eye argument is a bit like saying 'since it is snowing in march, I won't believe in global warming'.

 

[fredfertang]

But DRS is predicting what might happen, while checking legality technology actually measures the data available. If anything it'd be more precise than DRS predictive path. The naked eye argument is a bit like saying 'since it is snowing in march, I won't believe in global warming'.

But there is nothing out there that can do that particular job at the present time, is there?

 

[L Trumper]

But there is nothing out there that can do that particular job at the present time, is there?

Not really. But the lab tests that are being done are as close as we can get for now. I am ok with preferring them over naked eye. Its not like everybody is getting away with chucking, most are being tested and sometimes get banned from bowling when it is deemed illegal based on scientific testing.

 

[fredfertang]

Not really. But the lab tests that are being done are as close as we can get for now. I am ok with preferring them over naked eye. Its not like everybody is getting away with chucking, most are being tested and sometimes get banned from bowling when it is deemed illegal based on scientific testing.

What I struggle with is that it seems to have become a free for all. Now we know that only Ramnaresh Sarwan can actually bowl properly, and therefore we have to have a degree of straightening allowed, it seems very easy to me for a bowler with a horrible looking action to tone it down a bit for the tests and carry on taking the piss in the middle - all I'm saying is that I'd rather anyone who looks like they throw is treated as such unless and until, like with Murali the first time round, its established that he isn't throwing

 

[honestbharani]

Well, it is a law that people can twist to suit them, but then that is how it is going to go with any law or rule. I mean, there are a number of rules and laws in cricket today that are being twisted to their advantage by teams and even boards, for that matter. The question is, is it better than the earlier system and I think it is.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Two points here.

1) There's no solid evidence that they did. The whole "everyone chucks bar Sarwan" idea was seeded from that original study that was done at a Champions Trophy back in the day. None of the bowlers who supposedly exceeded the (then) tolerance thresholds were named in this (Google it to check), yet it's somehow became a truism that chaps with beuatiful, orthodox actions like McGrath and Pollock were amongst them.

& that's apart from the simple fact that it's impossible to measure elbow flexion during match situations with any meaningful degree of accuracy even now, much less a decade ago.

2) I refer you to my previous answer:



& McGrath's deliveries weren't one.

Yeah I agree.


The 'everybody chucks' conclusions that were reached 10 years ago were either a convenient way to muddy the waters by the ICC, or a complete misinterpretation by someone with no idea. Throwing actions like McGrath, Pollock, etc etc into the mix was a nice was to confuse the issue, but it didn't do anything to address the problem.

Bowlers are still reported on the basis of their action looking worse than another person's...and the marvellous technology that saw everyone's action questioned (albeit under the old thresholds) has since disappeared.

Chucking won't be seriously addressed in cricket until the ICC gets serious about addressing it. It's unfortunate that we've seen so many physical deformities hampering bowling actions in cricket at all levels the past 20 years too (Apart from cases like Murali, where it's true) It really is something that needs to be looked into. Maybe there's something in the water.

 

[L Trumper]

What I struggle with is that it seems to have become a free for all. Now we know that only Ramnaresh Sarwan can actually bowl properly, and therefore we have to have a degree of straightening allowed, it seems very easy to me for a bowler with a horrible looking action to tone it down a bit for the tests and carry on taking the piss in the middle - all I'm saying is that I'd rather anyone who looks like they throw is treated as such unless and until, like with Murali the first time round, its established that he isn't throwing

I agree with that. But they already check whenever referee/umpire notify it to ICC. That is why likes of Botha, Shillingford are banned for a time. But I guess it is easier for players to wear full sleeves, than change their action .

 

[Migara]

But DRS is predicting what might happen, while checking legality technology actually measures the data available. If anything it'd be more precise than DRS predictive path. The naked eye argument is a bit like saying 'since it is snowing in march, I won't believe in global warming'.

To predict what happens, first ypu need data (extrapolation). If your data is ****, your prediction is **** too. If naked eye is better ad judging these data, why predict using technology?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

What do people think of Mr Prez's claim that Pakistan teams of the past have contained chucking heroes?

 

[L Trumper]

To predict what happens, first ypu need data (extrapolation). If your data is ****, your prediction is **** too. If naked eye is better ad judging these data, why predict using technology?

It is not. That is why I am all for use of technology.

 

[L Trumper]

What do people think of Mr Prez's claim that Pakistan teams of the past have contained chucking heroes?

Poor knowledge of Pakistan's cricket history.