Is Murali a 'Chucker' ???

[marc71178]

Did anybody actually read this?

on a website called "Muralifans" it's hardly going to be anything but 100% supporting him is it?

 

[marc71178]

It's fine, but remember that the issue has never been whether Murali can lock his arm straight or not - it's always been about whether he straightened it by any degree.

Which the documentary did indeed show happened.

 

[marc71178]

i think you'll find i've explained clearly( i am an engineer btw) how video evidence is enough to pronounce warne as a chucker.?

Yet the qualified scientists never took your view - funny that.

If video evidence is enough, then how come the ICC send people to see scientists?

 

[C_C]

Yet the qualified scientists never took your view - funny that.

If video evidence is enough, then how come the ICC send people to see scientists?

why dont you read my post (it was posted on another thread) before asking this question ? i've already answered t.
And the qualified scientists never took my view ? seems to me that some members of the ICC research panel were qualified scientists.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I've had a fairly long think about this and am more confused than before.

For Muralitharan, normal maximum straightening is shy of what we class as "straight", but for a normal human, maximum straightening is a horizontal line (when held out). The endemic forces of hyperextension (definition - movement beyond a joint's natural range) cause 'normal' humans' arms to extend past straight, however this effect on Murali would only cause Muralitharan to straighten towards the "normal horizontal".

Therefore, if hyperextension is to be accepted as involuntarily, then is Muralitharan voluntarily straightening at all?

 

[garage flower]

I've had a fairly long think about this and am more confused than before.

For Muralitharan, normal maximum straightening is shy of what we class as "straight", but for a normal human, maximum straightening is a horizontal line (when held out). The endemic forces of hyperextension (definition - movement beyond a joint's natural range) cause 'normal' humans' arms to extend past straight, however this effect on Murali would only cause Muralitharan to straighten towards the "normal horizontal".

Therefore, if hyperextension is to be accepted as involuntarily, then is Muralitharan voluntarily straightening at all?

I was on the verge of replying and suggesting that - in a nutshell - you seemed to have completely confused yourself and your post was pretty irrelevant when....eureka! (well, kind of).

Are you saying that when the "boffins" measure the degree of straightening in Murali's action they're including hyperextension unless they reduce the total degree of movement by the degree to which Murali's arm differs from the horizontal when it's as straight as he can get it?

If so, I would guess that they may be able to tell the difference between natural straightening and (involuntary) hyperextension even when all of the movement is towards the horizontal rather than past it. Or perhaps Murali is unable to hyperextend due to his abnormality. Or you may be right. Or - and this is p'raps the most likely - I've completely misunderstood the point you were trying to make!

 

[C_C]

not all human beings hyper-extend.
Only approximately 10% of humans hyper-extend.
And even if you hyper-extend,it doesnt mean you are incapable of bending your elbow in the conventional way.

 

[garage flower]

Therefore, if hyperextension is to be accepted as involuntarily, then is Muralitharan voluntarily straightening at all?

This quote makes me think I've misinterpreted you. Wouldn't there still be voluntary straightening up to his "maximum straight" point unless you're saying his action starts from that point and then simply "hyperextends" towards "normal straight".

I think I need a relaxing cuppa and a less mentally taxing read....now where's that Stephen Hawking book gone...

 

[garage flower]

not all human beings hyper-extend.
Only approximately 10% of humans hyper-extend.
And even if you hyper-extend,it doesnt mean you are incapable of bending your elbow in the conventional way.

But if Murali's action did involve some hyperextension would it be detectable or could it possibly be included in the "illlegal straightening"?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I was on the verge of replying and suggesting that - in a nutshell - you seemed to have completely confused yourself and your post was pretty irrelevant when....eureka! (well, kind of).

Are you saying that when the "boffins" measure the degree of straightening in Murali's action they're including hyperextension unless they reduce the total degree of movement by the degree to which Murali's arm differs from the horizontal when it's as straight as he can get it?

If so, I would guess that they may be able to tell the difference between natural straightening and (involuntary) hyperextension even when all of the movement is towards the horizontal rather than past it. Or perhaps Murali is unable to hyperextend due to his abnormality. Or you may be right. Or - and this is p'raps the most likely - I've completely misunderstood the point you were trying to make!

Don't worry, you're on the same wavelength. That's what I was getting at (I think).

 

[Neil Pickup]

not all human beings hyper-extend.
Only approximately 10% of humans hyper-extend.
And even if you hyper-extend,it doesnt mean you are incapable of bending your elbow in the conventional way.

10% (tops) can hyper-extend without any other biomechanical forces of momentum affecting things. However, if you add momentum, I'm sure the sheer velocity of the arm speed can cause some hyper-extension. I so want that ICC report.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Unless you're saying his action starts from that point and then simply "hyperextends" towards "normal straight".

That's the crux of it.

 

[C_C]

10% (tops) can hyper-extend without any other biomechanical forces of momentum affecting things. However, if you add momentum, I'm sure the sheer velocity of the arm speed can cause some hyper-extension. I so want that ICC report.

no. the elbow is not a torsion-flexion joint like the wrist or the ankle (where the range of motion is limitd by ligament/cartilages) but a lock-joint, where the limits of flexion are constrained by the bones locking in place.
You may find the oddball case where a person without hyper-extension hyper-extends when force is put on the joint but as such, a person without static hyper-extension( where you can hyper-extend by just stretching your arm) cannot hyper-extend.

 

[anzac]

OK. Let me explain my personal point of view.

I am from the old school who believe that a bowler chucks if to the viewer (namely umpire from the square leg who was in the best position to judge) it appears so. Invariably, the batsman can tell. I believe the bowler can also tell.

By this thinking Murali was chucking till the authorities, in their wisdom, decided to change the definition. The moment they did that it became too complex and too technical to be resolved by an umpire on the field of play let alone fans sitting with their lap tops and posting on cricket forums.

By the old fashioned method, McGrath would have been a most unlikely candidate for chucking whereas Shoaib would have been very likely to be called around the world and Lee too would have been called at times. This was a simpler method and in its own way, without prescribing fancy, difficult-to-determine angles etc, did have a built in consistency in that, what could be 'visually seen as bending', that kind/extent of bending was chucking and could be called and would be called by alert umpires.

The moment this fancy criteria of varying limits and now a fixed limit (both impossible for an umpire to determine on the field of play) have come into being, we have moved into the realm of technicalities which had to end up in a ridiculous compromise which is what this present document looks like.

For more than a century, many bowlers have chucked, even by the old standard, and sometimes they got away with it since they did so once in a while. But those who trangressed more frequently got noticed, mostly by batsmen first and by umpires and it took vigilance AND GUTS since it was such a sensitive issue, on the parts of umpires to call these bowlers.

What should have been done is to strengthen the hands of these umpires and boost their 'guts' rather than curb them to an extent that no one is now going to call them on the ground which is the only place where it matters.

top call & a simple answer as to why Aussies are perhaps more brash & outspoken about certain issues.............

reminds me of a scene in The Committments - about the Irish being the 'Blacks of Europe' - well the Aussies are the 'Blacks of Imperialist England' - the convict colony, the refuse, the riff raff, the deportees, the what did your ancestors do to get sent out to Aus.............

and they stuck it too them in The Ashes, and now they are in the position to be sticking it to everyone & not having to take a back seat or apologise for being the best...........

 

[Langeveldt]

Wow, four pages in half a day on a thread.. Incredible..

I find it sad that one player has the power incite mass rule changes, just to keep him in the game.. Imagine four stumps being introduced because Bradman was too good.. Madness

 

[Sanz]

Imagine four stumps being introduced because Bradman was too good.. Madness

Wrong Analogy. Why would Bradman Want four stumps ??

 

[Langeveldt]

Wrong Analogy. Why would Bradman Want four stumps ??

Just testing..

A better one, would be 500 stumps, and a ban on cricket bats, so Robbie Peterson could carry on playing cricket..

And he'd still get carted..

 

[JASON]

Wow, four pages in half a day on a thread.. Incredible..

I find it sad that one player has the power incite mass rule changes, just to keep him in the game.. Imagine four stumps being introduced because Bradman was too good.. Madness

That one player is incredibly good !!
And because of that one player cricket is learning what a lot of others may have got away with !! (and some were even hailed as heroes)

Thanks to science, cricket can move further in terms of clarifying issues, so that Fast bowlers who could not be picked with the naked eye can now be analysed with high speed cameras !!

That to me will eliminate all potential future chuckers !!

Regards to 4 pages of thread , I am glad the rubbish merchants (such as W*** is God) have finally been eliminated from genuine discussion and the serious guys with genuine intelligent discussion are posting now.

I wish I could contribute to the science, but I am only a Medic and not able to contribute as fluently as my Mate CC is able to !! (along with Slow Love)

Good on him!!

 

[SJS]

Wow, four pages in half a day on a thread.. Incredible..

I find it sad that one player has the power incite mass rule changes, just to keep him in the game.. Imagine four stumps being introduced because Bradman was too good.. Madness

Thats the sad part of it !

Its a great topic to discuss if its about chucking and what should be done about it and not such a great topic for objective debate if it is about is Murali the greatest cheat ever in the history of sport OR are Australians the greatest hypocrites/whiners in the game (exaggeration just to make the point for the sarcastically-challenged)

 

[Neil Pickup]

no. the elbow is not a torsion-flexion joint like the wrist or the ankle (where the range of motion is limitd by ligament/cartilages) but a lock-joint, where the limits of flexion are constrained by the bones locking in place.
You may find the oddball case where a person without hyper-extension hyper-extends when force is put on the joint but as such, a person without static hyper-extension( where you can hyper-extend by just stretching your arm) cannot hyper-extend.

I'm not sure I can believe that. Thinking about it as a mechanical catapult-type model with a lock-out at maximum extension, then if you wind it back and fire it with sufficient force, there's bound to be some movement past the lock out.