Chris Broad: The rogue match referee

[chaminda_00]

Clearly you have not read the opinions of EXPERTS at human biomechanics and kinesiology....coz if you did, you would know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to bowl ANY delivery without flexing the elbow(the definition of throwing you are pertaining to).

How much do they flex their elbows in those deliveries compared to the current doorsa??

 

[C_C]

Chaminda, lets make this simple okay ?
I am talking from biomechanical expert opinions(read their piece if you dont believe me).

You can define chucking two ways.

1. If the flexion of the elbow goes above a certain limit ( 15 degrees). by that definition,Harby, Murali, McGrath,Holding etc. are NOT chuckers...their elbow flex is under 15 degrees even for the doosra.

2. If there is ANY flexion of the elbow.
By that definition, Murali,McGrath,Holding, Harby etc. are ALL chuckers as biomechanic analysis proves that ALL bowlers flex a certain amount while bowling the ball. be it bending the elbow or extending it ( both are banned).

So take your pick.
#1 or #2.

If you pick one, then i expect you to retract your statement about Murali being a chucker because then it is unfair victimisation of someone who is doing something that everyone else is.
If you pick 2, i expect you to say that Murali is a chucker but so is McGrath,Holding, etc.

 

[C_C]

How much do they flex their elbows in those deliveries compared to the current doorsa??

Varies from bowler to bowler and delivery to delivery....11.12 degrees for McGrath and Vaas in some cases ( two bowlers with 'excellent' actions apparently).... The doosra is 11-14 degrees i believe... which puts them very much in the same bracket.

 

[howardj]

Sounds about right - it appears that even when officials do the right thing they get shouted down nowadays.

Couldn't agree with you more. There's just a general lack of respect for authority.

 

[C_C]

Agreed.
there is a general lack of respect for the authority....primarily because an authority that is becomming increasingly antiquated and flawed in view of latest evidence and technology loses its credibility gradually.

 

[chaminda_00]

Chaminda, lets make this simple okay ?
I am talking from biomechanical expert opinions(read their piece if you dont believe me).

You can define chucking two ways.

1. If the flexion of the elbow goes above a certain limit ( 15 degrees). by that definition,Harby, Murali, McGrath,Holding etc. are NOT chuckers...their elbow flex is under 15 degrees even for the doosra.

2. If there is ANY flexion of the elbow.
By that definition, Murali,McGrath,Holding, Harby etc. are ALL chuckers as biomechanic analysis proves that ALL bowlers flex a certain amount while bowling the ball. be it bending the elbow or extending it ( both are banned).

So take your pick.
#1 or #2.

If you pick one, then i expect you to retract your statement about Murali being a chucker because then it is unfair victimisation of someone who is doing something that everyone else is.
If you pick 2, i expect you to say that Murali is a chucker but so is McGrath,Holding, etc.

I know all that information it is othing new to me, but it not as simple as that. If you tired to ball the doorsa then you would know that you get the same jerk in your elbow that you get when you pitch a ball in baseball, or when you throw in from the boundary. If that doesn't show that the way the bowler's currently bowl the doorsa is not a chuck, then you may as well let baseball pitchers play cricket with their current action. Im not saying they should ban the doorsa completely or that Murali is a chucker, just that until offies find a way to bowl the doorse with a correct action then they shouldn't ball it for the time been. It techincally should be possible to ball the doorsa with a correct action as in theory it is just a leg spinner wrong un' in reverse.

 

[C_C]

you tired to ball the doorsa then you would know that you get the same jerk in your elbow that you get when you pitch a ball in baseball, or when you throw in from the boundary.

And you get the same 'jerk' in your elbow when you bowl a routine outswinger or inswinger...whts the difference ? why is one jerk acceptable and the other is not ?

just that until offies find a way to bowl the doorse with a correct action then they shouldn't ball it for the time been.

What is a correct action ?
Every action has a jerk in the elbow- scientifically and factually proven.

 

[howardj]

Chaminda, lets make this simple okay ?
I am talking from biomechanical expert opinions(read their piece if you dont believe me).

You can define chucking two ways.

1. If the flexion of the elbow goes above a certain limit ( 15 degrees). by that definition,Harby, Murali, McGrath,Holding etc. are NOT chuckers...their elbow flex is under 15 degrees even for the doosra.

2. If there is ANY flexion of the elbow.
By that definition, Murali,McGrath,Holding, Harby etc. are ALL chuckers as biomechanic analysis proves that ALL bowlers flex a certain amount while bowling the ball. be it bending the elbow or extending it ( both are banned).

So take your pick.
#1 or #2.

If you pick one, then i expect you to retract your statement about Murali being a chucker because then it is unfair victimisation of someone who is doing something that everyone else is.
If you pick 2, i expect you to say that Murali is a chucker but so is McGrath,Holding, etc.

Man, I think most people who have watched cricket over the years, pretty much know the difference between Murali/Harbijhan on the one hand, and McGrath/Holding on the other. The former have more suspect actions than the latter. Most reasonably minded people would concede that.

Sure, you can be fastidious and say that there is a kink, however indiscernible, in the actions of McGrath and Holding, but it's nowhere near in the same stratosphere of Murali/Harbijhan. Put simply, that's why controversy has dogged the Murali/Harbijan over the years, and why McGrath and Holding have unblemished reputations.

 

[Deja moo]

What exactly happened back then? I think I missed that part of cricket history...sounds juicy!

Well, long story short, Indians over-appealed, South Africans over-appealed, A whole lot of Indian players were punished by the match referee Mike Deness, South African players got away scot-free. Plus Sachin was caught on tape messing with the ball. The Referee said he was picking the seam, while the Indians said he was flicking dirt off the seam area.

It caused a huge furore and resulted in the Indian and South African boards ( the UCBSA tagged along mainly) demanding the replacement of Deness with another referee for the third and final test. The ICC refused to do so, and the two cricket boards told the ICC to sod off and played the final test without Deness anyway. The ICC refused to recognise the third test as official.

 

[chaminda_00]

And you get the same 'jerk' in your elbow when you bowl a routine outswinger or inswinger...whts the difference ? why is one jerk acceptable and the other is not ?

You don't get the same jerk, unless your Blessing Mahwire.

What is a correct action ?
Every action has a jerk in the elbow- scientifically and factually proven.

Not everything is down to science mate, some thing can only be seen by trying them in real life. The off break is a correct action as your arm stays straight through, when you take in natural straighting of the elbow. Whereas a doosra your elbow goes from being striaght to bent during the action, therefore not a correct action

 

[SquidAU]

Well, long story short, Indians over-appealed, South Africans over-appealed, A whole lot of Indian players were punished by the match referee Mike Deness, South African players got away scot-free. Plus Sachin was caught on tape messing with the ball. The Referee said he was picking the seam, while the Indians said he was flicking dirt off the seam area.

It caused a huge furore and resulted in the Indian and South African boards ( the UCBSA tagged along mainly) demanding the replacement of Deness with another referee for the third and final test. The ICC refused to do so, and the two cricket boards told the ICC to sod off and played the final test without Deness anyway. The ICC refused to recognise the third test as official.

Bugger. And I missed it. I did hear come whispers of a unsanctioned Test match around then.

Too bad if you made a century on debut in that game....or got 10 wickets....

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You can define chucking two ways.

1. If the flexion of the elbow goes above a certain limit ( 15 degrees). by that definition,Harby, Murali, McGrath,Holding etc. are NOT chuckers...their elbow flex is under 15 degrees even for the doosra.

2. If there is ANY flexion of the elbow.
By that definition, Murali,McGrath,Holding, Harby etc. are ALL chuckers as biomechanic analysis proves that ALL bowlers flex a certain amount while bowling the ball. be it bending the elbow or extending it ( both are banned).

So take your pick.
#1 or #2..

I pick three. Chucking is when the umpire believes a bowler has intentionally flexed his elbow in an attempt to get an advantage over bowlers who do not do so. The decision is reliant entirely on the objective judgement of the umpire as an expert in cricket on whether or not he believes the bowler has bowled a legal cricketing delivery. If the bowler is called for throwing, he can choose to stop bowling or to complete his over whilst attempting to smooth out his action. If a bowler cannot bowl with an action smooth enough to be accepted by the umpire, he cannot bowl.

McGrath and Holding are not chuckers because no umpire with even a shred of remaining sanity would call them for having an illegal action, because their actions are classical and flawless, whether their elbow flexes 1 degree or 20 in a completely unintentional manner without being visible to the naked eye. If a bowler jogs in a chucks the ball with 1, 6, 14 or 40 degrees of flexion on purpose and the umpire spots and calls it, he is a chucker. If he bowls a legitimate delivery with incidental level of flexion, he is not.

 

[Deja moo]

Bugger. And I missed it. I did hear come whispers of a unsanctioned Test match around then.

Too bad if you made a century on debut in that game....or got 10 wickets....

Well, two men walked away disappointed/frustrated at the whole affair. Rudolph and Deness.

 

[howardj]

I pick three. Chucking is when the umpire believes a bowler has intentionally flexed his elbow in an attempt to get an advantage over bowlers who do not do so. The decision is reliant entirely on the objective judgement of the umpire as an expert in cricket on whether or not he believes the bowler has bowled a legal cricketing delivery. If the bowler is called for throwing, he can choose to stop bowling or to complete his over whilst attempting to smooth out his action. If a bowler cannot bowl with an action smooth enough to be accepted by the umpire, he cannot bowl.

McGrath and Holding are not chuckers because no umpire with even a shred of remaining sanity would call them for having an illegal action, because their actions are classical and flawless, whether their elbow flexes 1 degree or 20 in a completely unintentional manner without being visible to the naked eye. If a bowler jogs in a chucks the ball with 1, 6, 14 or 40 degrees of flexion on purpose and the umpire spots and calls it, he is a chucker. If he bowls a legitimate delivery with incidental level of flexion, he is not.

That would be great in theory. But, with huge commercial interests in the game now, there's more willingness to challenge - and to cause general disruption regarding - career threatening decisions. Therefore, they need a more objective criteria than what you've just outlined.

 

[C_C]

Chucking is when the umpire believes a bowler has intentionally flexed his elbow in an attempt to get an advantage over bowlers who do not do so.

Umpires are NOT qualified to make that judgement. HOW many effin times do i have to tell you that ?
Umpires CANNOT tell the level of flexion on field...with naked eye a bowler's action may look more pristine than another's when there is equal degree of elbow flexion simply because your eye is NOT following the elbow only but the complex motion of several joints at work.
And how many times do i have to tell you that you CANNOT judge the intention of a bowler...
wtf...are these umpires telepathic ?
How the feck do you establish that McGrath isnt flexing intentionally but Murali is ?

The decision is reliant entirely on the objective judgement of the umpire as an expert in cricket on whether or not he believes the bowler has bowled a legal cricketing delivery.

The chucking law is pertaining to the MOVEMENT OF THE ELBOW. The umipre is neither an expert on human biomechanics(which dictate the movement of the elbow or any other joint) and neither is he visually accurate enough to precisely compare elbow flexion angles.
He is incompetent to call a bowler on field.

McGrath and Holding are not chuckers because no umpire with even a shred of remaining sanity would call them for having an illegal action, because their actions are classical and flawless, whether their elbow flexes 1 degree or 20 in a completely unintentional manner without being visible to the naked eye. If a bowler jogs in a chucks the ball with 1, 6, 14 or 40 degrees of flexion on purpose and the umpire spots and calls it, he is a chucker. If he bowls a legitimate delivery with incidental level of flexion, he is not.

Please tell me how you are comming to the conclusion of intent. How are you proving that McGrath doesnt chuck intentionally but Murali chucks intentionally....how are you gonna prove that 11.5 degree flexion in the elbow is happenstance in McGrath's case and 11.5 degree flexion in the elbow is deliberate in Murali's case ?
You got some psionic telepathic capability ?
Oh and another thing- the chucking law categorically addresses flexion without attaching motives to it. A flex is a flex be it intentional or not.

 

[Top_Cat]

Sure, you can be fastidious and say that there is a kink, however indiscernible, in the actions of McGrath and Holding, but it's nowhere near in the same stratosphere of Murali/Harbijhan. Put simply, that's why controversy has dogged the Murali/Harbijan over the years, and why McGrath and Holding have unblemished reputations.

No it's because the optical illusions inherent in things like this when one can't see how an arm is reacting to stresses placed on it tend to bias things somewhat.

C_C is right; the degree of flexion for bowlers who had supposedly flawless actions and those who 'appear' questionable is around the same. The perception that one throws more than the other is just that; perception. To argue that a bowler's action is able to be determined 'flawless' with the naked eye is to believe that someone's depth perception and ability to withstand parallax error is flawless too. That's just dumb.

Not everything is down to science mate, some thing can only be seen by trying them in real life.

Excuse me?? You're not seriously going to argue that an imperfect human eye is a better measuring tool than high shutter-speed, hi-resolution cameras from several angles with a butt-load of computer power to back them up, are you? I mean, geez come on.........

The off break is a correct action as your arm stays straight through

As has been conclusively proven by the aforementioned human movement members at UWA, this doesn't happen for any bowler. EVERY bowler has a natural degree of flexion in their action.

If a bowler cannot bowl with an action smooth enough to be accepted by the umpire, he cannot bowl.

What you really mean to say here is 'if a bowler can't bowl in such a way that his action appears smooth enough to convince an umpire, he cannot bowl'.

McGrath and Holding are not chuckers because no umpire with even a shred of remaining sanity would call them for having an illegal action, because their actions are classical and flawless, whether their elbow flexes 1 degree or 20 in a completely unintentional manner without being visible to the naked eye. If a bowler jogs in a chucks the ball with 1, 6, 14 or 40 degrees of flexion on purpose and the umpire spots and calls it, he is a chucker. If he bowls a legitimate delivery with incidental level of flexion, he is not.

Both Murali and Harbi bowl with an unintentional flexion in their actions too. So why label them as chuckers?

Why is whether a bowler deliberately flexes a determinant for whether they chuck anyway? It's certainly not that way in the laws (the laws don't speak to intention, only the end result).

And calling their actions flawless has been, again, proven to be erroneous. For you to convince anyone that any human's arms remain straight whilst under stress (such as in delivery of a cricket ball), you'd have to first convince them that those bowlers' arms aren't affected by Newton's 1st Law of Motion, which they are. Even if they were robots with re-inforced steel for arms, there would be a degree of bending and flexion. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[chaminda_00]

Excuse me?? You're not seriously going to argue that an imperfect human eye is a better measuring tool than high shutter-speed, hi-resolution cameras from several angles with a butt-load of computer power to back them up, are you? I mean, geez come on.........

No it more down to the fact that you can't see the difference between bowling an off break to a doorsa until you bowl it urself. Nothing to do with a umpire's eye sight.

As has been conclusively proven by the aforementioned human movement members at UWA, this doesn't happen for any bowler. EVERY bowler has a natural degree of flexion in their action.

How about you read my whole post where i actually mention natural degree of flexion.

 

[marc71178]

Plus Sachin was caught on tape messing with the ball. The Referee said he was picking the seam, while the Indians said he was flicking dirt off the seam area.

However, under the code of conduct he did commit an offence, that's the point people are missing.

 

[Deja moo]

However, under the code of conduct he did commit an offence, that's the point people are missing.

Yeah, but it was mainly the fans who protested that. The board was mainly protesting against Sehwag being banned for one test, and various players having their match fees deducted.

 

[C_C]

You don't get the same jerk, unless your Blessing Mahwire.

yes you do.
Any flexion of the elbow is a jerk. And every bowler does that.

. The off break is a correct action as your arm stays straight through, when you take in natural straighting of the elbow. Whereas a doosra your elbow goes from being striaght to bent during the action, therefore not a correct action

Incorrect.
The law does NOT say that you are only disallowed from bending your elbow.
The law states you are disallowed from flexing your elbow - which means straightening or bending.
A bowler straightening his arm isnt anymore 'natural' than a bowler bending his arm.

It is a misconception that straightening is correct action and bending isnt, since nowhere in the lawbook does it differentiate between straightening or bending.