• 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.

Fifteen degrees of freedom

thirdslip

Cricket Spectator
With all the talk of the ICC's new rule change re. chucking, one wonders why there's so much of a fuss. Does chucking really give the bowlers an unfair advantage? How? Is it somehow 'unfair' to turn the ball too much or bowl too fast? We certainly don't have such limits on the non-chuckers, so what's the big deal if someone can do things a little better by bending his arm?
http://thirdslip.com/2005/feb/ash-chucking.shtm

- Third Slip
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
thirdslip said:
With all the talk of the ICC's new rule change re. chucking, one wonders why there's so much of a fuss. Does chucking really give the bowlers an unfair advantage? How? Is it somehow 'unfair' to turn the ball too much or bowl too fast? We certainly don't have such limits on the non-chuckers, so what's the big deal if someone can do things a little better by bending his arm?
http://thirdslip.com/2005/feb/ash-chucking.shtm

- Third Slip
Really !!

If you play cricket and have a good strong throwing fielder in your side, ask him to throw at you as hard as he can and then come back and report. :p
 

Greg Blewett

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
thirdslip said:
With all the talk of the ICC's new rule change re. chucking, one wonders why there's so much of a fuss. Does chucking really give the bowlers an unfair advantage? How? Is it somehow 'unfair' to turn the ball too much or bowl too fast? We certainly don't have such limits on the non-chuckers, so what's the big deal if someone can do things a little better by bending his arm?
http://thirdslip.com/2005/feb/ash-chucking.shtm

- Third Slip

Yes it really does give an unfair advantage. Many people can generate much higher speeds via throwing or chucking the ball as opposed to actually bowling it.
 

thirdslip

Cricket Spectator
> many people can generate much higher speeds ...

really? A baseball thrower almost never throws faster than 100 mph, which is only marginally higher than the fastest that Akhtar or Lee has ever bowled. What are you basing your claim on?

My guess is that a spinner can bowl much faster than he would by chucking, but even at that, I don't see why speed alone is a problem. Batsman can score less on the offside if they were forced to cut out reverse-sweeping, but no one seems to mind that 'innovation'.

- TS
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
thirdslip said:
> many people can generate much higher speeds ...

really? A baseball thrower almost never throws faster than 100 mph, which is only marginally higher than the fastest that Akhtar or Lee has ever bowled. What are you basing your claim on?

My guess is that a spinner can bowl much faster than he would by chucking, but even at that, I don't see why speed alone is a problem. Batsman can score less on the offside if they were forced to cut out reverse-sweeping, but no one seems to mind that 'innovation'.

- TS
Speed alone isn't a problem, you can also turn it more than you otherwise would. The reason both of these are a problem is because the game was set up to be played in a certain way and the rules stipulated that the arm action used to bowl wouldn't include something regarded as a throw. If you want to watch a game where throwing is used to manipulate what is done with the ball - watch baseball.

Reverse sweeping is a high risk shot - not necessarily something that's guranteed to heighten the flow of runs on the off-side. It's also not something that's considered illegal. Throwing a ball is not an innovation, it's illegal within the laws of the game.
 

thirdslip

Cricket Spectator
The rules/laws are biased towards batsmen, so to point to them isn't really an explanation of the why/why not. Batsmen can even switch hands and bat the other way, surely the game wasn't set up to be played that way!

Chucking is risky too. Try running 25 meters to a crease, and breakiing stride in mid-air to chuck instead of bowl. Most people that i've asked to do this have difficulty breaking their stride and end up throwing high or wide instead.

- TS
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
thirdslip said:
Try running 25 meters to a crease, and breakiing stride in mid-air to chuck instead of bowl. Most people that i've asked to do this have difficulty breaking their stride and end up throwing high or wide instead.

- TS
You really dont understand what you are talking.

Have you seen jonty Rhodes break the stumps from short point with a lightening throw with a batsman having just stepped a few inches out of his crease as he square drove ?

Did Jonty take a 25 mtr run up to do that ? If chucking is legalised the canouflage of a run up wil become superfluous. Have you seen a baseball picher with a run up ????
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
thirdslip said:
The rules/laws are biased towards batsmen, so to point to them isn't really an explanation of the why/why not. Batsmen can even switch hands and bat the other way, surely the game wasn't set up to be played that way!

Chucking is risky too. Try running 25 meters to a crease, and breakiing stride in mid-air to chuck instead of bowl. Most people that i've asked to do this have difficulty breaking their stride and end up throwing high or wide instead.

- TS
It's not that risky in the cases I presume you're referring to in International cricket. Anyone who has a good action will probably struggle to blatantly throw it without a great deal of practice (throw it accurately anyway). The problem is when it becomes part of a bowler's normal action. Anything as blatant as I presume you're referring to would never be allowed to make it to international level anyway (you'd hope).

The rules aren't biased towards batsmen at all. Using this as an excuse for being able to throw is no excuse at all. I'm a bowler, but I don't believe that the batsmen have an advantage to the point where I wish I was allowed to throw it.
 

Greg Blewett

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Charlie Griffith is proof you can gain an advantage via 'chucking'. Read the Trueman, Compton or Barrington autobiographies if you want to know more.

All recall playing him in 1959 and him being nothing special and of average pace. Then they recall him 3-4 years later bowling extremely quick, getting a lot of bounce off the English wickets (more than they claimed Trueman or Wes Hall could do) and winning the Windies v. England series for them as he was the top wicket taker. Why did he go from average to outstanding? Because he changed his action so he was throwing the ball.

Yet again I can further divulge parts of Truemans or Ken Barringtons books for proof but I don't think it is really needed unless your a sceptic.


So yes i would have to say you can gain pace from throwing and extra bounce out of a wicket which can gain you wickets and 'cause injuries (which Barrington sustained from Griffiths and not too long after had a heart attack). Chucking is against the rules and it is dangerous, it DOES give bowlers an unfair advantage and to claim otherwise is wrong.
 

thirdslip

Cricket Spectator
Griffith's example is neither here nor there. There are plenty of people who've had a second wind better than their first chance.

Second, no one is proposing an outright green light to chucking. But clearly, at the level of detail at which the controversy has been going on, there is no substantial difference between one action and another with a slightly more bent arm.

Here's a test of your theory - can you name a few bowlers who, in your opinion, will now do much better than they have so far because they can bend their arms a little more? It will be interesting to track such people going forward.

- TS
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
thirdslip said:
Here's a test of your theory - can you name a few bowlers who, in your opinion, will now do much better than they have so far because they can bend their arms a little more? It will be interesting to track such people going forward.
Of course not. For a start, the actual difference between a 5-10 degree allowance and a 15 degree allowance is minimal. Secondly, even if it was enough to make a difference in what a bowler can do with their arm, chances are the losses from changing an established action to one with 5-10 degrees more flexion would not be worth the gains. Finally, if you accept the findings at the Champions Trophy last year, the majority of bowlers already broke the established limits, but would not break the new ones, so there is no actual room for change because the rules were already being broken.

But yes, there would be an absolutely massive difference between cricket as it exists today and cricket with no throwing restrictions. Bowlers would not need to run up, practically any bowler could bowl at a much faster speed if they desired and could maintain their spells far longer. Imagine how hard a yorker would be to score off with the angle a thrower could get, and how much easier they would be to bowl. I'm not sure spinners would even exist any more, but if they did they could certainly turn the ball a great deal more.

And if you are comparing it to baseball, remember that a pitcher in baseball not only has a different ball and length of pitch to deal with, but they are also limited to a relatively small area in which they can place the ball on a pitch, and cricketers do not have that limitation. I guarantee you Barry Bonds would hit far less home runs if he had to deal with pitches bouncing on his toes.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FDO's hit the nail on the head.
The best option, I'd have to repeat, would be to force everyone to obey the old ideals by adding an armbrace to the equipment list - at all levels of the game.
 

thirdslip

Cricket Spectator
I think what would have been more sensible is for the ICC to have separated the question of throwing for fast bowlers from the question of throwing for spinners. I think quite different advantages may accrue (or not) in the two cases.

There's a lot of 'evolution' in the sport, some of which I don't like, but may happen anyway, thanks to television ratings and such. A likely next step beyond 20-20 is a 'must-run' rule which requires batsmen to run every time they touch the ball. That would probably narrow the differences between cricket and baseball. Incidentally, far more baseballl batters are thrown out or struck out than caught out; what really hurts batters in that sport is the must-run rule, which cricket does not have.

The 'bounce' is clearly a significant difference between the pitching/bowling actions of the two sports, but I also tend to think that the 'face-forward' run-up is an important differentiator. Retaining this, along with some sort of 'bauling' rule, might ensure that bowlers really 'bowl', without getting into the arm-angles business.

- TS
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
On Charlie Griffith, having seen some footage of him bowling, his action seems to resemble the hyper-extension of Shoaib Ahktar than a genuine chuck. Disregarding the opinions of former players, I'd be interested to see what Griffith's testing at the U of WA would have been. I suspect he wouldn't be considered a chucker but more along the lines of Shoaib i.e. an unintentional and non-repairable hyper-extension of his bowling arm which generates a 'whip' and plenty of pace.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Top_Cat said:
On Charlie Griffith, having seen some footage of him bowling, his action seems to resemble the hyper-extension of Shoaib Ahktar than a genuine chuck. Disregarding the opinions of former players, I'd be interested to see what Griffith's testing at the U of WA would have been. I suspect he wouldn't be considered a chucker but more along the lines of Shoaib i.e. an unintentional and non-repairable hyper-extension of his bowling arm which generates a 'whip' and plenty of pace.
I don't find that remotely inconceivable, what I find odd is that no-one ever noticed any problems initially and then they did afterwards.
Of course it could be down to the success-complain\fail-don't-bother syndrome, but AFAIK no-one ever said anything about him, players or otherwise, when they first saw him.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
thirdslip said:
I think what would have been more sensible is for the ICC to have separated the question of throwing for fast bowlers from the question of throwing for spinners. I think quite different advantages may accrue (or not) in the two cases.
I don't think you can differentiate just on those grounds, it has to be the same for everyone.
I'm already worried enough that, where people previously strove for unattainable perfection, they now know that a certain flex is legitimate and may try to go up to the maximum.
 

Greg Blewett

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
Richard said:
I don't find that remotely inconceivable, what I find odd is that no-one ever noticed any problems initially and then they did afterwards.
Of course it could be down to the success-complain\fail-don't-bother syndrome, but AFAIK no-one ever said anything about him, players or otherwise, when they first saw him.

Actually with Charlie Griffith they did notice, several counties complained of him being a 'chucker' yet the Umpires were told not to call him because of:

1) racial tension within London at the time

2) the South African controversy was at its height also


I could quote large chunks of Truemans & Barringtons books as they both divulge into the matter much further with proof of the umpires being told not to call him as well as his whole bowling style changing.


Top_Cat said:
On Charlie Griffith, having seen some footage of him bowling, his action seems to resemble the hyper-extension of Shoaib Ahktar than a genuine chuck. Disregarding the opinions of former players, I'd be interested to see what Griffith's testing at the U of WA would have been. I suspect he wouldn't be considered a chucker but more along the lines of Shoaib i.e. an unintentional and non-repairable hyper-extension of his bowling arm which generates a 'whip' and plenty of pace.

Chances are you saw footage of Griffith either before or after he was throwing it. As the West Indian cricket board asked him to correct his action after that series.
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Theres a guy at college who bowls offies and when he deliberately does his "murali" impersonation (we all have lol), he can turn it square on a flat wicket.. While this is not conclusive at all, its still interesting, and there is little doubt in my mind that Murali would be averaging 37 with the ball if it wasn't for his "issue"..

Still, the ruling is put in place in order to accomodate Murali, and therefore save face for the ICC, the problem has been eradicated by moving the goalposts.. And the anti-Murali brigade now have to put up and shut up while he goes on messing with batsmen's careers from Colombo to Cairns..
 

Top