Chuck on this...

[MrPerko]

I don't even get what all the fuss is about...

So what if your arm is slightly bent in the delivery action... it surely wouldn't provide any advantage for a spinner trying to spin the ball, and while the ball might come out a bit faster many spinners get their wickets giving the ball more flight anyway...

And because bowlers like Brett Lee and Shoaib use a "sling-shot" action, they'd end up loosing pace if they bent their arm at point of delivery.

I remember when Murali was first called in Australia by Darrell Hair (I think) - and there was this huge uproar from the media... like he'd been caught with blood on his shirt and it'd been traced back to identity him as a serial murderer...


I just really don't get it. Is there some dark history about chucking that anyone knows about??? Can anyone explain to me what the fuss is all about???

 

[aussie_beater]

There ain't no dark history.There's one rule and that's what every player is supposed to follow.Not that someone came around with a congenital defect and the rules get bent.That's not how the game should be played, I believe.

 

[luckyeddie]

The point, MrPerko, is nothing to do with having a slightly (or even very bent) arm.

A chucker (in simple terms) is one who straightens his elbow in the delivery action.

The problem facing most umpires is when a physical impediment exists, such as 'hyper-extention' of the elbow (double-jointedness). If the arm straightens out from a position of hyper-extention, is it still a throw, or is it just 'whip', akin to straightening the wrist from a '****ed' position?

 

[scorpio]

yeah he got a bent arm..big deal. the folks at the icc had a look with some experts too at on it.
they decided he didnt get any unfair adv coz of it.matter solved...finis.

certainly lotsa politics was involved in that. but politics was also the reason why he was called in the first place

 

[luckyeddie]

So was there also an international conspiracy against Kirtley? He was 'investigated' too - and advised to modify his action.

 

[scorpio]

So was there also an international conspiracy against Kirtley? He was 'investigated' too - and advised to modify his action.

I am in us for the last two yrs so dont get to see too many matches. So i am really not much in the know abt kirtley.

As for murali, it was sheer politics.

He was first called by darrell hair i guess (not sure)
Against westindies. Richie Richardson was quoted sayin that murali was bowling leg breaks then so it is impossible to chuck that.

WHy do u think roy emerson and hair were removed ? coz they were on a mission to clean of cricket ?
No coz they were two dim witts who played along with the media.

Why was akhtar called and not lee? and why was akhtar cleared without proper analysis?

 

[aussie_beater]

This whole chucking business in international cricket has got a hush hush air about it. Be real and ban the bowlers that are chuckers....simple.Be it an Aussie, English or Sri Lankan or Indian.Dalmiya cleared Akhtar for his own political mileage.

 

[scorpio]

i agree with that dalmiya bit. so true

But i dont see the politics going away any time soon. May be if australian and english stop thier whining and if subcontinent bowlers are checked more at junior levels may be....


but then if my aunty had balls she would be my uncle

 

[luckyeddie]

Politics bites both ways - ask David Constant.

 

[Blewy]

Simple he chucks, ban him and get over it...

 

[MrPerko]

G. Blewett: If he's a chucker - ban him...


Yeah, ok... but still no one has answered my original question: What advantage does a "chucker" have over a guy who "doesn't chuck"????????????? I don't get it....


I assume the rule was made so that baseball pitchers couldn't stand on the crease and peg the ball as hard as he could at the batsman... but I don't understand why a slight bending at the elbow when delivering provides so much advantage for the bowler that he should be banned from the game forever.... it's not like he's a Hansie or anything for Christ's sake...

 

[scorpio]

Simple he chucks, ban him and get over it...

thx for your opinion....but how abt some thing to back it up ?

[Edited on 7/21/02 by scorpio]

 

[luckyeddie]

There is no longer any justification to say that Murali chucks the ball.
He has been thoroughly investigated in Hong Kong (arm ball, top spinner, googly, leg break) over a 3-day period of testing.
I have taken the trouble to read the report (it's technical, but still quite interesting) and I suggest that those who keep dragging up this dead duck do the same.
Has anyone ever seen any evidence (other than opinion and conjecture) to the contrary? Or is it all a big cover-up? If so, by whom?

 

[aussie_beater]

Anybody who has seen Murali bowl will agree that his arm is significantly bent when it reaches shoulder height, right ? Now herein lies the rub. It can be considered a legal delivery if it remains bent to the exact same extent till the ball is released from his hand.Some say it does, some say it does not.Well, it remains bent a little bit which is pretty hard to detect without the help of high speed cameras like the one used in Hong Kong.To a normal eye it almost straightens and the question is even if it remained bent a little bit, it has straightened quite a lot from the original bent position when it was at his shoulder height.The angle of the bent arm at shoulder height and the angle at the time of delivery isn't the same for sure and this is where the rule gets violated.In the case of a straight arm its fairly easy to detect any deviations from the straightness, not so for a bent arm because you have to measure the angle which changes for sure in Murali's case.End of story.

And citing ICC's verdict does not mean anything because it is known that ICC tries to score political points in all such matters and henceforth cannot be considered sacrosanct.

 

[luckyeddie]

Funny thing about Murali - the more I look into it, the more I see that there are two camps who are totally entrenched in their opinions.
I've done a bit more digging, and one thing I didn't know - there have been two separate analyses of his action - one by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology which has been mentioned several times before in this discussion. The other one, I was completely unaware of until a few minutes ago. It was performed by the University of Western Australia, who performed tests using a camera which took 1000 frames a second. Their conclusion was, and I quote :

`From certain angles he does look suspect but from other angles there was not a problem.' The `throwing' was a mere `optical illusion'


When Ross Emerson 'called' him, it was from the BOWLER'S end. Now that is totally crazy.

The latest 'controversy' is, I believe, because of Bishen Bedi's interview last February. In it, he says "Some people are born blind... Will a blind man be allowed to fly an aircraft? So why should a bowler be allowed to chuck because he has a defective arm?"
What would Chandrasekhar make of such a comment?

 

[full_length]

Funny, the only study I knew of was the UWA one. I dont remember hearing of the Hong Kong thing before.
Actually, cricket followers may have noticed this optical illusion thing several times. When Akhtar's action was analysed by the commentators, they played it from various angles, and decided that the one where he appears to be chucking is the right one Note that I'm not changing the topic to whether Akhtar chucks- the point is that in some angles where ALSO his arm was completely visible, it looked clean.
You must have seen this stuff in many places, like when people play different angles to see whether batsmen have crossed, about run outs etc. Usually, a 'right' angle is chosen by the commentator based on his opinion, formed from first look :rolleyes:

Funny thing about Murali - the more I look into it, the more I see that there are two camps who are totally entrenched in their opinions.

True. And this is one of those topics you simply cant drag the guys out of their camp..
Unfortunately the Aussie umps decided to take one of the camps.
*******************************************
Hey, reminds me of a an anecdote i read a while back, dunno who wrote it:
An state level ump in Australia was selected to be a part of Australia's panel of national umps (or something like that). On being asked about it he said "I always wanted to umpire for Australia"
Harper did that to perfection didnt he..
some nice innovative moves in that series down under.. I loved the shoulder before wicket one the most!

 

[royGilchrist]

This topic has been dragged on for two long...but I would add my two cents too

Yes, the original post by perko was wrong, in the sense that bending the elbow is not illegal, but straighening it after bending it is illegal.

Doing this the bowler can get an unfair advantage in both pace, and also spin. The kind of stuff Murli does, things like, just before delivery the back of his hand is facing the batsman. This is impossible to do, I tried it once and almost broke my wrist in the process
As for Lee and Waqar, its difficult to say that they get any unfair advantage from chucking, its just that no one corrected their action when they were young and now they are stuck with it. But Murli definetely gets an advantage.

As aussie said before, ICC can never be trusted, they make decisions based on gaining popularity points, getting rid of Murli would be more detrimental to the game especially in this era of few genuine match winning bowlers. If someone hinks that ICC is objective in their handling of these issues then they are too naive. Just look at the way match-fixing has been handled. There are still so many guys who have been involved in match-fixing but are still playing and highly respected. Its kinda unfair with Cronje, Malik and Azhar I think. But its all random really.

 

[luckyeddie]

I agree that this topic (both within CricketWeb and cricket in general) has dragged on for too long. We are only ever going to 'agree to disagree'.
All the tests in the world on anyone's action, all the results where the testers say 'well actually, we can't find anything wrong with it' (the ICC are hardly going to overturn 'independent' studies, are they?) are worth nothing if people believe that it's all a big con or a conspiracy.
I wonder if the ICC were the ones standing on the grassy knoll in Dallas?
Please kill this thread.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Please kill this thread.

As you wish. Going nowhere, very slowly. Like Rubens Barrichello...