Last edited by watson; 11-08-2014 at 10:00 PM.
1. Sunil Gavaskar 2. Barry Richards 3. Viv Richards 4. Sachin Tendulkar 5. Brian Lara 6. Garry Sobers 7. Adam Gilchrist 8. Richard Hadlee 9. Wasim Akram 10. Malcolm Marshall 11. Shane Warne
1. Jack Hobbs 2. Victor Trumper 3. Don Bradman 4. Charlie Macartney 5. Walter Hammond 6. Frank Woolley 7. Les Ames 8. Jack Gregory 9. Harold Larwood 10. Bill O'Reilly 11. Sydney Barnes
I've posted a million times on the quirk in Ajmal's action to do with shoulder abduction.
He may well chuck in terms of elbow straightening too but given that he passed the test the first time around the focus on this will be proving that the tested action is identical to the match action, which is where the new testers appeared to really hammer Senanayake
The tolerance levels had been set at five degrees for spinners, seven-and-a-half for medium-pacers, and ten for quick bowlers, a situation that invited much criticism from past greats such as Ian Chappell. But the study, conducted by three prominent biomechanics experts, suggests that the human eye can only detect a kink in the action if the straightening is more than 15 degrees.
.....The biomechanics men - Dr Marc Portus, Professor Bruce Elliott and Dr Paul Hurrion - used cameras shooting at 250 frames per second (ten times the speed of a TV camera) to illustrate phenomena such as adduction and hyper-extension, which can convince an observer watching with the naked eye that the bowler is chucking.
Research was also undertaken during the ICC Champions Trophy in England, where it was found that 13 of the 23 bowlers filmed straightened their arms more than the current permissible levels. Ramnaresh Sarwan, he of the fairly innocuous legspin, was the only man observed who didn't straighten his arm at all.
Based on these findings, the ICC is to extend the tolerance limit to 15 degrees for all bowlers, regardless of whether they bowl at Shane Warne's pace or Shoaib Akhtar's. Match officials will still be expected to note down suspicious actions, and pass on the information to the ICC.
ICC study reveals that 99% of bowlers throw | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo
Last edited by watson; 12-08-2014 at 12:59 AM.
*sigh* Watson, not this again? I'll make it as simple as possibl.
Yes, apparently the human eye can only detect 15 degrees of straightening, true. That doesn't mean that if the human eye detects some straightening, it's necessarily 15 degrees or more. If the arm has a pre-existing bend, it will seem to the naked eye to be an illegal straightening of the arm.
The scientific fact that only 15 degrees and above is detectable assumes that the arm is perfectly straight before delivery. But that's not the case for several bowlers, hence the illusion.
But you can't have a situation where the Umpires simply do nothing just because there may or may not be an 'illusion'. If that were the case then no bowler would ever be cited by the Umpires unless his dodgy action fell into the category of the bleeding obvious (ie. "shot-putting").
And that's face it, most bowlers are not born with a congenital birth defect of their bowling arm. The vast majority of bowlers are anatomically typical and so the '15 degree naked-eye rule' (or whatever you want to call it) holds for the vast majority of bowlers.
Last edited by watson; 12-08-2014 at 01:30 AM.
Some revision of the wording in that article
"detect" : as a word in isolation might be said to read as: "make a discrete, live action evaluation conclusively judging whether the arm was more or less than 15 degrees. If you detect a "kink", it's more than 15 degrees. If not, it's less." I very much doubt that is true. We detect "kinks" in bowling actions that have been conclusively proven to be below 15 degrees.
You cannot look at a 14 degree straightening and make a discrete judgement that it was more legal than a 16 degree straightening in real time. It just seems very, very unlikely.
The confounding factors seem to be adduction and hyper-extension...but I'd wager that there are many more (viewing angle seems an obvious one).
"detect" is very poor wording in that quote. This is why Watson is so confused.
Last edited by hendrix; 12-08-2014 at 01:36 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)