Jonbrooks chucking Megathread

[RossTaylorsBox]

Pratters has made himself look silly enough on his own in the last hour or two without putting words into his mouth tbf because, whilst I disagree with his point anyway, that's pretty obviously not what he (or TheJediBrah) is getting at.

I don't think you get what I'm referencing.

 

[cnerd123]

The old law didn't want bowlers using the third joint as force because that means a chuck.

Then they said all bowlers bent elbow so started a 15 degree law. So till 15 degrees a bowler can use as much force and 'Chuck'.

The issue is force used, not degrees and it's important to understand this and correct the current laws. Any one who had played cricket understands you cannot bowl the doosra without using the elbow as a force agent. It is not difficult to understand at all but people will continue to not accept it because some how cricket is not as important as prejudices we cloud ourselves with.

Do you actually have any sources or evidence to back up anything that you are saying, or are you making up 'facts' out of thin air?

 

[honestbharani]

no then they'd just change the law on the limit of midichlorian counts to whatever his is so he can keep playing

dem lemons

 

[cnerd123]

Any one who has played cricket knows they cannot bowl the doosra without using the force of the elbow.

Literally not true.

 

[Pratters]

Do you actually have any sources or evidence to back up anything that you are saying, or are you making up 'facts' out of thin air?

You can read what the old law says and how it was changed. The facts are all out there.

 

[Pratters]

Literally not true.

Really? Explain please.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How the **** could you bowl a doosra without any flex of the elbow? Physically impossible surely?

 

[honestbharani]

How the **** could you bowl a doosra without any flex of the elbow? Physically impossible surely?

How the **** could you "bowl" a cricket ball without any flex of the elbow? Physically impossible surely?

 

[honestbharani]

You can read what the old law says and how it was changed. The facts are all out there.

Yes and you are still blind to them.

 

[cnerd123]

How the **** could you bowl a doosra without any flex of the elbow? Physically impossible surely?

It's impossible to bowl at all without any flex of the elbow. Hence the 15 degree rule.

You can bowl a doosra with just as much flex as is needed to bowl any other delivery. The trick lies in the wrist and the shoulder.

Bowlers who straighten the elbow excessively to deliver the doosra do it wrong (Johan Botha a fantastic example of this), and get caught and get banned.

Bowlers with bent-arm actions (Saqlain, Ajmal, etc) do it to allow themselves to generate more spin through a greater amount of shoulder and wrist rotation; but the problem of such a action is that you can end up straightening your elbow excessively in order to produce the same effect. That's what happened with Ajmal; bad habits seeped in, his action became ragged, and he went from bowling the ball to chucking it. It's also why Saqlain never got called - he had a bent arm, but he barely straightened it and as such his action never appeared suspicious.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It's impossible to bowl at all without any flex of the elbow. Hence the 15 degree rule.

You can bowl a doosra with just as much flex as is needed to bowl any other delivery. The trick lies in the wrist and the shoulder.

Bowlers who straighten the elbow excessively to deliver the doosra do it wrong (Johan Botha a fantastic example of this), and get caught and get banned.

Bowlers with bent-arm actions (Saqlain, Ajmal, etc) do it to allow themselves to generate more spin through a greater amount of shoulder and wrist rotation; but the problem of such a action is that you can end up straightening your elbow excessively in order to produce the same effect. That's what happened with Ajmal; bad habits seeped in, his action became ragged, and he went from bowling the ball to chucking it. It's also why Saqlain never got called - he had a bent arm, but he barely straightened it and as such his action never appeared suspicious.

yeah i know. But technically you could bowl without flex. Just not quickly lol

 

[Pratters]

I remember Boycott commentating during the time of Saqlain. He had a good rant about the doosra. He said in all his life in cricket he couldn't believe any one could do it. He was surprised how Saqlain used to be able to bowl it. When Bedi shows displeasure about the doosra, he has basis.

 

[Pratters]

It's impossible to bowl at all without any flex of the elbow. Hence the 15 degree rule.

You can bowl a doosra with just as much flex as is needed to bowl any other delivery. The trick lies in the wrist and the shoulder.

Bowlers who straighten the elbow excessively to deliver the doosra do it wrong (Johan Botha a fantastic example of this), and get caught and get banned.

Bowlers with bent-arm actions (Saqlain, Ajmal, etc) do it to allow themselves to generate more spin through a greater amount of shoulder and wrist rotation; but the problem of such a action is that you can end up straightening your elbow excessively in order to produce the same effect. That's what happened with Ajmal; bad habits seeped in, his action became ragged, and he went from bowling the ball to chucking it. It's also why Saqlain never got called - he had a bent arm, but he barely straightened it and as such his action never appeared suspicious.

So chucking till 15 degrees is allowed as per current cricket laws. This is what I am against. I would like velocity of flex used instead so that we root out all kinds of chucking.

 

[cnerd123]

So chucking till 15 degrees is allowed as per current cricket laws. This is what I am against. I would like velocity of flex used instead so that we root out all kinds of chucking.

Lol what.

You want bowlers to bowl with 0 degrees flex in their elbows?

Do you not understand that is impossible and would mean that literally every single bowler in the history of the game is a chucker?

You're dumb.

 

[Pratters]

I remember suggesting reviews in cricket before it came into being. I would love people to rubbish it saying 'that's not what current laws are'. If we go by that, there would never ever be any improvement in laws.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

You mean like the improvement from the old throwing laws?

 

[Pratters]

Lol what.

You want bowlers to bowl with 0 degrees flex in their elbows?

Do you not understand that is impossible and would mean that literally every single bowler in the history of the game is a chucker?

You're dumb.

You are dumb not me. I want velocity of flex to be used as a measure. Don't put words into by mouth like zero degrees. Again, you are the dumb person here.

 

[Pratters]

You mean like the improvement from the old throwing laws?

It was never throwing laws. When Meckiff etc were removed from the game, the old laws worked fine. The degrees aspect just confused the issue. The issue was using the third joint as a force. That isn't taken into account by the New law.

 

[honestbharani]

You are dumb not me. I want velocity of flex to be used as a measure. Don't put words into by mouth like zero degrees. Again, you are the dumb person here.

Why is "Velocity" suddenly your buzzword? You learned it today??


And you still haven't answered my original question about your favorite "velocity". Why does it matter? Do you think fast bowlers and spinners rotate their arms in different directions on their delivery stride? Do you think if a spinner runs in from as long as a fast bowler, then he can be allowed to flex his elbow more? Do you think then every spinner's faster ball is ok and every seamer's slower ball is a "chuck"? Do you just use the word facts or do you actually try to understand them?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

It was never throwing laws. When Meckiff etc were removed from the game, the old laws worked fine. The degrees aspect just confused the issue. The issue was using the third joint as a force. That isn't taken into account by the New law.

Quote the old law where it mentions using the elbow as a force.