• 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.

Jonbrooks chucking Megathread

harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Another image from Ferdinand.



So this is how the authors are getting to their assertions. The players with "suspect" actions are bowling under 15 degrees of extension, but have high elbow-extension angular velocity.
 
Last edited:
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Pratters said:
One doesn't need a bio mechanist's degree to understand it really.

A) Laws didn't want third elbow used initially as the force of the elbow means a 'chuck'
B) The doosra uses the force of the elbow, so it's a chuck.

Obviously you don't agree but whatever.
Click to expand...
Laws didn't 'want' to measure chucking more accurately? Um, okay.

All deliveries use the elbow to deliver force. FFS thats how bowling works

Stop being dumb.

Just because existing methods of identifying chucking are not perfect, it doesn't mean all doosra are chucks. Where is your evidence that it is impossible to bowl the doosra legally outside of waahs from former cricketers and your own existing perceptions?
 
indiaholic

indiaholic

International Captain
Any mention whether they found this difference in the angular velocity to be statistically significant?
 
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So to sum it up, the authors, Ferdinands and Kersting, had a study of 83 bowlers. They found a few with suspect actions (don't know how suspect is defined in this case), and then found they were under the 15 degrees straightening rule but had high elbow-extension angular velocity. Hence their recommendations to use that as a factor.
 
Pratters

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
***** said:
Laws didn't 'want' to measure chucking more accurately? Um, okay.

All deliveries use the elbow to deliver force. FFS thats how bowling works

Stop being dumb.

Just because existing methods of identifying chucking are not perfect, it doesn't mean all doosra are chucks. Where is your evidence that it is impossible to bowl the doosra legally outside of waahs from former cricketers and your own existing perceptions?
Click to expand...
The deliveries use wrist and shoulder. The elbow is a support. If the elbow joint is straightened, it's a chuck as per old law.

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

In a doosra you need to straighten it to bowl it. Also, don't confuse it with the likes of McGrath. If you think Murali and McGrath's bowling actions have same issues, you are not understanding the topic.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
But do these studies at all show any significant advantage that the EEAV provides for the bowlers? Also have they ever done this study including a suspect action seamer? I just think they are scraping the barrell to find inconsistencies across bowlers who are mentioned to have "suspect" actions. If the 15 degree rule itself is helping us weed out a number of such bowlers right now, I think I would place more trust in the earlier research than this one. The authors totally lost me in the line quoted above, when they said we should use this measure because it closely matches what the aesthetic definition of bowling is, rather than any significant scientific factor.
 
Last edited:
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
indiaholic said:
It is the aesthetics that bother you?
Click to expand...


No, its understanding facts that bothers him... I guess he read the word velocity in a google search about this topic and then kept repeating it in this thread. Apparently, the very posts he liked, which show clearly that elbows are flexed by all bowlers with "clean" actions, went over his head.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Pratters said:
The deliveries use wrist and shoulder. The elbow is a support. If the elbow joint is straightened, it's a chuck as per old law.

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

In a doosra you need to straighten it to bowl it.
Click to expand...
This is all true. It is also true that every single bowler in the history of the game straightens their elbow to bowl.

Are you saying that it is okay for bowlers with clean-looking actions to straighten their elbows, but not for bowlers with dodgy looking actions? Because if so, that is easily one of the dumbest stances to take on the topic, and I'd be pretty disappointed to have wasted all this time trying to understand your position if that is what it boils down to...

Also, don't confuse it with the likes of McGrath. If you think Murali and McGrath's bowling actions have same issues, you are not understanding the topic.
Click to expand...
Oh, okay.

Guess I'm done wasting my time then.
 
Pratters

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
indiaholic said:
It is the aesthetics that bother you?
Click to expand...
Not at all.

***** said:
Oh, okay.

Guess I'm done wasting my time then.
Click to expand...
I will quote some posters who have already articulated why McGrath shouldn't be compared with Murali (in 2005!)

SJS said:
By saying that others like McGrath and Vettori also flex, a false justification is being sought for the new law. I call it false because the flex of McGrath Vettori and Pollock was not what the rule was made for 150 years ago and that still holds !!
Click to expand...
FaaipDeOiad said:
This for me is the absolute crux of the matter, and thank you for pointing it out. It doesn't matter if McGrath flexes 1 degree, 5 degrees or 16 degrees, because the fact is he does not chuck and does not violate the original chucking rule in word or spirit prior to its perversion. The chucking rule was designed to stop bowlers from THROWING the ball and DELIBERATELY straightening their arm in order to gain benefit that other bowlers would not have. Off spinners get more spin and express bowlers get more pace from purposely straightening their arm in delivery, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who goes out in the nets and tries it. This is what the law is designed to stop, not someone who runs in and through no fault of their own has their elbow bend in the wrong direction a few millimetres, or someone who bowls with a perfectly legitimate action but happens to flex their arm 6 degrees instead of 5 or 16 degrees instead of 15. It is designed to ensure that bowlers bowl with a CRICKET action and nothing else. Bringing specific levels of flexion, lab testing off the field and teams of bio-mechanists into the equation in no way clarifies the law or makes it easier to enforce, and in actuality the most recent change has made the law absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. Roger Clemens could open the bowling for the USA in their next ODI match and simply be asked to head into the lab at the end of the game to have a test. Furthermore, the most recent changes have made it possible to purposely chuck to a certain degree and still be within the legal limits, when in Meckiff's days the moment you tried to purposely chuck with 14 degrees of flexion to get some extra pace off a shorter runup you would be pulled up and no-balled.

For me, this problem has one main origin, which is the inability or unwillingness of the ICC to support their umpires in making their judgement call as the rules required in a match situation. The response from the BCCSL and Arjuna Ranatunga when Murali was originally called for throwing was utterly disgraceful, and the ICC should have reacted strongly and immediately to defend Emerson and Hair and failed to do so, and ever since then the situation has got progressively worse.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
That post by FDO is filled with so much BS.

Apart from bowlers not being no-balled in game, but being reported after. That part I agree is stupid. We had a discussion here recently about a team like WI shielding Narine till the World Cup in order to exploit exactly this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top