• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Do you think Murali was a chucker?

Do you think Murali was a chucker?

  • Total voters
    108
fredfertang

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I've explained in detail once before why I support Murali on this one, but I still have to say I think his action looks extremely suspect, despite the fact of this business about any degree of flexion below 15 degrees not being visible to the naked eye

To my mind that simply goes to prove that a strange action in itself cannot equate to throwing, but some folk round here seem to assume it does
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Reading the article of fredfertang's, the thing you realise is how the whole process of developing and changing the laws has lacked transparency. Why wouldn't they show everyone the footage that was used to develop the 15 degree law?

If it was of actual Test bowlers, and they didn't want to besmirch the reputations, then get some no-names to bowl and show the differences between degrees. It's been too much "we say so, so that's what it is".
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
vic_orthdox said:
Reading the article of fredfertang's, the thing you realise is how the whole process of developing and changing the laws has lacked transparency. Why wouldn't they show everyone the footage that was used to develop the 15 degree law?

If it was of actual Test bowlers, and they didn't want to besmirch the reputations, then get some no-names to bowl and show the differences between degrees. It's been too much "we say so, so that's what it is".
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what the published article I posted shows?
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
If it looks a chuck it is, what ever science says.

Similar to, if it looks like malaria, it's malaria, what ever the blood tests suggests.

Farking ridiculous lines of thinking.
 
uvelocity

uvelocity

International Coach
silentstriker said:
Yup exactly. Meaning people who were suspected of throwing and people who bent the elbow the most were not the same group - eg why people's eyes were wrong.
Click to expand...
and in my view, why the laws are wrong. Using the speed of elbow straightening at point of release did align eyes with data.

Don't have a problem with murali, but ajmal I do. Also that its now technically possible to bowl with a bent arm, something thats nothing like a bowl, so long as the arm isn't straightened more than a certain amount. The law is ridiculous.

And no, don't have any university affiliation for accessing the full text, but I'd say its similar to what I posted in those links?
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
uvelocity said:
and in my view, why the laws are wrong. Using the speed of elbow straightening at point of release did align eyes with data.

Don't have a problem with murali, but ajmal I do. Also that its now technically possible to bowl with a bent arm, something thats nothing like a bowl, so long as the arm isn't straightened more than a certain amount. The law is ridiculous.

And no, don't have any university affiliation for accessing the full text, but I'd say its similar to what I posted in those links?
Click to expand...
AFAIK, the two groups had nearly a 50% overlap of +/-2SD range. And the sample size was woefully small even to have a minimum power of study. The minimum sample size would come around 150 if difference of speeds set to 25% IIRC.

What is more ridiculous is trying to find ad hoc parameter which has the best correlation with subjective visual estimation of the action. Really the pinnacle of absurdness.
 
Ruckus

Ruckus

International Captain
Migara said:
What is more ridiculous is trying to find ad hoc parameter which has the best correlation with subjective visual estimation of the action. Really the pinnacle of absurdness.
Click to expand...
Why is that so absurd? Whose to say the angle alone is the only, or best, way, to judge whether someone chucks. I think it's highly likely that what uvelocity is saying about the speed of elbow straightening could be a significant part of what constitutes a throw.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
uvelocity said:
and in my view, why the laws are wrong. Using the speed of elbow straightening at point of release did align eyes with data.

Don't have a problem with murali, but ajmal I do. Also that its now technically possible to bowl with a bent arm, something thats nothing like a bowl, so long as the arm isn't straightened more than a certain amount. The law is ridiculous.

And no, don't have any university affiliation for accessing the full text, but I'd say its similar to what I posted in those links?
Click to expand...
funny story.. I don't think the laws EVER said its not bowling if you don't start with a straight arm.
 
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Ruckus said:
Why is that so absurd? Whose to say the angle alone is the only, or best, way, to judge whether someone chucks. I think it's highly likely that what uvelocity is saying about the speed of elbow straightening could be a significant part of what constitutes a throw.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I was referring to. Only problem is that the studies done FAILS to differentiate two groups due to a sizable overlap. On other hand what are the evidence to say chuck is ONLY defined by the angular velocity of the elbow joint? Without evidence picking angular velocity as the ONLY or the BEST indicator of chucking is just ad hoc selection of parameters without any background evidence, and as I said, pinnacle of absurdness.
 
M

MuraliWasACheat

Banned
>So my take is that people who voted as 'yes' have no idea about the related cricket rules or just want to go by what they see on TV screen?

I think you meant "So my take is that people who voted as 'no' have no idea about the related cricket rules or just want to go by what the bwaaaa racism ****wits say?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top