If Murali wanted to 'cheat' the cameras, he would straighten his arm a little less, not more. A throw in cricket is when a bowler straightens his arm x degrees (depending on type of bowler) during his delivery action.THE G-TRAIN said:
No: the laws state quite clearly that a bowler can bowl with his arm bent - so long as he doesn't straighten it significantly during the delivery action. If the player you are talking about "literally couldnt straighten his arm during the action", then he does not throw. A bowler can bowl with his forearm and upper arm perpendicular if he wants to, so long as he doesn't straighten it significantly during the delivery action.THE G-TRAIN said:
]
Yeah your probably right adamc. It just seems that if a bowler were striaghtening his arm LESS, he would be bending it more...Like a throw. Yet, you seem to know what your on about, so ill just go with that!Adamc said:If Murali wanted to 'cheat' the cameras, he would straighten his arm a little less, not more. A throw in cricket is when a bowler straightens his arm x degrees (depending on type of bowler) during his delivery action.
No: the laws state quite clearly that a bowler can bowl with his arm bent - so long as he doesn't straighten it significantly during the delivery action. If the player you are talking about "literally couldnt straighten his arm during the action", then he does not throw. A bowler can bowl with his forearm and upper arm perpendicular if he wants to, so long as he doesn't straighten it significantly during the delivery action.
Paul Adams is a good example:
Clearly, his arm is bent, but the point is he doesn't straighten it. Hence, not a throw.
[Note: I am not getting 'worked up', just feel like explaining the law (as i see it)
Dasa. Im not anti murali. Kr, im not a murali hater. I think murali is a very smart, very skillful cricketer. To me (and im allowed an opinion) and millions of other people, it would seem that murali chucks it. Im only sour because to me it seems as if he is getting an unfair advantage on other bowlers, because he is able to turn the ball more both ways. I can bowl the doorsa (not as accurately mind you) too but i dont reckon i would get away with it playing for bangkok under 15's. I think hes good for the game in some ways, but i dont think he is in other ways...Eg, I dont think its good for young kids. They see him take all these wickets with his 'suspect' action and try and bowl like him. Which means more people trying to bowl like murali, will be trying to mimick his action, and the will be all sorts of interpretations, and maybe some blatent chuckers. They keep making allowances for these suspect actions, but How much of a throw does a persons action have to be before they put a stop to it? Ive got nothing against murali, he seems like a pretty humble and nice guy from what ive seen. (except for his dislike of aussies!) I just dont agree with the action. Sorry if i went a bit far in that earlier post guys.Dasa said:
No, a throw is when an arm goes from bent to straightened.THE G-TRAIN said:
(Hence the typical choking in the World Cup Semi final in 1999). 
Typical choking in the World Cup semi?JASON said:Alan Donald may have been a very good bowler of the 90's but he spent most of his energies chasing the Pounds in county cricket for warwickshire (for whom he gave most of his skill) and as a result was generally not 100% or never gave his 100% in International cricket (Tests or ODI's)
He took 4/32! The fact that he ran himself out has nothing to do with his bowling ability, which is what is being debated. To say that he got run out because he "never gave his 100% in International cricket" is rather unfair.
