Vettori: Young spinners should expore relaxed rulings

[C_C]

Well here is what tickles me. It's when I made comments a while ago regarding the cultural understanding what is a bowl in the cricketing sense. If you're saying it's logical to assume everyone bowled this way, why couldn't I? Because I couldn't prove it was one reply. So obviously, you can see why there is such a backlash to some people's actions because of this. Furthermore, if all the talk of accuracy and being equitable being prime, I can't amuse the notion of judging people without proof.

Its pretty cut and dried - according to the old rule, chucking = ANY elbow flexion after the arm has entered its horizontal position in the final swing and before letting go of the ball.
According to that, anybody with any elbow flexion is a chucker.
ICC testing proves that almost all bowlers surveyed are chuckers with the only exception of Sarwan.
Therefore, it is logical to say that almost all bowlers chucked in the past too and the onus is on the one claiming otherwise to prove that claim, given that it goes against the scientifically established precedence.
Just like if you claim anything out of the ordinary,you are the one who has to prove it, not others who have to disprove it.

 

[Ikki]

Its pretty cut and dried - according to the old rule, chucking = ANY elbow flexion after the arm has entered its horizontal position in the final swing and before letting go of the ball.
According to that, anybody with any elbow flexion is a chucker.
ICC testing proves that almost all bowlers surveyed are chuckers with the only exception of Sarwan.
Therefore, it is logical to say that almost all bowlers chucked in the past too and the onus is on the one claiming otherwise to prove that claim, given that it goes against the scientifically established precedence.
Just like if you claim anything out of the ordinary,you are the one who has to prove it, not others who have to disprove it.

I think to say, and quote, it is legitimate to claim that every bowler in history of cricket has flexed his elbow burdens the responsibility on your behalf. So, no, it's not cut and dried. If in fact I'm trying to read your posts consistantly and not dabbled based on preference.

 

[C_C]

I think to say, and quote, it is legitimate to claim that every bowler in history of cricket has flexed his elbow burdens the responsibility on your behalf. So, no, it's not cut and dried. If in fact I'm trying to read your posts consistantly and not dabbled based on preference.

Sorry doesnt add up.
If almost all existing bowlers surveyed show that every single one of them chucks,with only ONE exception, it sets the precedent that it is natural for a bowler to chuck and therefore, any bowler not claiming to have any flexion in his elbow needs to prove that.
It is just as cut and dried as it gets in scientific ventures.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry doesnt add up.
If almost all existing bowlers surveyed show that every single one of them chucks,with only ONE exception, it sets the precedent that it is natural for a bowler to chuck and therefore, any bowler not claiming to have any flexion in his elbow needs to prove that.
It is just as cut and dried as it gets in scientific ventures.

LOL, so would you like Lillee to come in and start warming up his arm and back for a delivery?

My point is, if you're saying ALL bowlers bowled this way and hence under the old rule were chuckers, that establishes a common understanding. Regardless of the law being so flawed, there was a common understanding. In defense of Murali, you say there ISN'T a common understanding and that everyone was wrong. Before these scientific evaluations, there was a loud cry to Murali's action that was a cause of concern to those with this common understanding. Therein, why did you argue long ago that such a uniform understanding didn't exist?

I guess it didn't suit you to assume as such back then, which is what we're doing now, assuming.

 

[C_C]

Regardless of the law being so flawed, there was a common understanding.

No, not common understanding - common misconception is more like it.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all - the common misconception was that the arm stays perfectly straight during delivery.
It was proven false in the ICC tests for almost every single bowler.
There is no reason to assume that a bowler is exception to this massively consistent and widespread phenomenon of flexing his elbow while delivering the ball.

Murali issue is seperate due to his unique style confusing people ( and it inadvertently raised enough rabble for ICC to start testing bowlers and come to the startling conclusion that ALL bowlers barring one dibbly dobby part timer chucked).

The onus is on to you to prove that a certain bowler has zero flexion in his elbow (and thus, didnt chuck according to the old rule) rather than assume it when the precedence set by scientific analysis is against it by sheer probability.
And no, simply coz your action 'looks' good to the naked eye does not make it legal under the letter of the law. As i said, it wasnt a common understanding- it was a common misconception stemming largely from ignorance.

 

[Ikki]

No, not common understanding - common misconception is more like it.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all - the common misconception was that the arm stays perfectly straight during delivery.
It was proven false in the ICC tests for almost every single bowler.
There is no reason to assume that a bowler is exception to this massively consistent and widespread phenomenon of flexing his elbow while delivering the ball.

Murali issue is seperate due to his unique style confusing people ( and it inadvertently raised enough rabble for ICC to start testing bowlers and come to the startling conclusion that ALL bowlers barring one dibbly dobby part timer chucked).

The onus is on to you to prove that a certain bowler has zero flexion in his elbow (and thus, didnt chuck according to the old rule) rather than assume it when the precedence set by scientific analysis is against it by sheer probability.
And no, simply coz your action 'looks' good to the naked eye does not make it legal under the letter of the law. As i said, it wasnt a common understanding- it was a common misconception stemming largely from ignorance.

You're a laugh mate. I don't know what possesses me time and time again to dialogue with you. I fool myself in every discussion to think you've got an open brain cell.

 

[C_C]

You're a laugh mate. I don't know what possesses me time and time again to dialogue with you. I fool myself in every discussion to think you've got an open brain cell.

I take it that is your concept of 'conceding a point'.
Sorry but there is no two ways about this - this is just as similar as Galeleo's 'earth goes around the sun, not the other way round' stuff - all bowlers chucked according to the old law and those who thought/think otherwise are mistaken - and scientifically proven so.
Some of the past bowlers, such as Fraser,Holding,etc. have already conceded that point so your talk counts for naught.

 

[Ikki]

I take it that is your concept of 'conceding a point'.
Sorry but there is no two ways about this - this is just as similar as Galeleo's 'earth goes around the sun, not the other way round' stuff - all bowlers chucked according to the old law and those who thought/think otherwise are mistaken - and scientifically proven so.
Some of the past bowlers, such as Fraser,Holding,etc. have already conceded that point so your talk counts for naught.

Hahaha, you're missing the point sunshine. I'm delving into your thought process. While you're able to judge on the Status Quo (everyone chucking) but use the same thing against the perception that a common understanding was prevalent.

How do you generalise EVERYBODY having a common misconception. That's just blatantly stupid. You could say the law was a mistake yet the understanding amongst cricketers, former or new, remained. Which as is evident DID exist till Murali came about.

The law was flawed, but everyone had an understanding of what it was TO bowl. Based on this people make a case for Murali and indeed himself. 'Everyone was a chucker'. In a litigious nature it isn't sane or equitable to then punish EVERYBODY for this flaw in law. Do you know what is acknowledged? The law itself, and is revised and this process is the base of common law.

So, till you understand this notion, you're going to sound foolish and ignorant and so is everybody else to use the status quo (everybody we tested were...so everybody else is...) to your advantage but at the same time disregard it for another nature (no, everyone was wrong, it doesn't matter about common sense: bowling action).

But you contest the situation is different because of the existence of 1 person to refute this: Murali. Yet we also have in the other issue, an exception: Sarwan. So, is it possible there will be more? Sure, is it stupid to label everyone a chucker: Yes it is.

Let's hope you get this because I don't really wish to continue an argument where you're obviously lacking both logic and reason.

 

[SJS]

How can it be impossible? That doesn't make sense.
.

It doesnt matter what doesnt make sense to you.

Do you know how to bowl the doosra? Obviously not.

Go to someone who knows and aske them to show you and then try to do it without bending your elbow. Then come and write here.

 

[SJS]

Alternatively come to Mumbai and I will show you how it is bowled. I am willing to pay your return fair and entire boarding and lodging if, after I have shown you how it is bowled, you do the same without beding your arm.

If you are not willing to take this offer then accept my word for it.

If you want to just argue for the sake of arguing be James's guest.

 

[C_C]

Hahaha, you're missing the point sunshine. I'm delving into your thought process. While you're able to judge on the Status Quo (everyone chucking) but use the same thing against the perception that a common understanding was prevalent.

How do you generalise EVERYBODY having a common misconception. That's just blatantly stupid. You could say the law was a mistake yet the understanding amongst cricketers, former or new, remained. Which as is evident DID exist till Murali came about.

The law was flawed, but everyone had an understanding of what it was TO bowl. Based on this people make a case for Murali and indeed himself. 'Everyone was a chucker'. In a litigious nature it isn't sane or equitable to then punish EVERYBODY for this flaw in law. Do you know what is acknowledged? The law itself, and is revised and this process is the base of common law.

So, till you understand this notion, you're going to sound foolish and ignorant and so is everybody else to use the status quo (everybody we tested were...so everybody else is...) to your advantage but at the same time disregard it for another nature (no, everyone was wrong, it doesn't matter about common sense: bowling action).

But you contest the situation is different because of the existence of 1 person to refute this: Murali. Yet we also have in the other issue, an exception: Sarwan. So, is it possible there will be more? Sure, is it stupid to label everyone a chucker: Yes it is.

Let's hope you get this because I don't really wish to continue an argument where you're obviously lacking both logic and reason.

how do i generalise that everybody had a misconception ?
Just like how i can generalise that the overwhelming majority of europeans circa 1400s thought the earth was the center of the universe.

As i said before, what you are calling an understanding, i am calling a misconception.
Its not that difficult to grasp really.
And no, Murali isnt an exception- he too has elbow flexion, just like every bowler who's name isnt Sarwan that has been tested.
This is standard scientific procedure - you do a test run over 100 subjects(Example) and find 99 % fall into one particular trend.
Therefore, it is scientifically accurate to state that given the trend, it is far more likely for a certain person to fall in the 99% bracket than 1% bracket. Therefore, the basic stance is 'you are guilty of elbow flexion until proven otherwise'.

Is it clear to you yet ?

 

[Ikki]

how do i generalise that everybody had a misconception ?
Just like how i can generalise that the overwhelming majority of europeans circa 1400s thought the earth was the center of the universe.

As i said before, what you are calling an understanding, i am calling a misconception. Its not that difficult to grasp really.

It doesn't matter what you call it, the majority understanding rules over flawed law. Not that hard to grasp really...

And no, Murali isnt an exception- he too has elbow flexion, just like every bowler who's name isnt Sarwan that has been tested.

I wasn't talking about the exception to the flawed law in that instance, it was regarding...common understanding.

This is standard scientific procedure - you do a test run over 100 subjects(Example) and find 99 % fall into one particular trend.
Therefore, it is scientifically accurate to state that given the trend, it is far more likely for a certain person to fall in the 99% bracket than 1% bracket. Therefore, the basic stance is 'you are guilty of elbow flexion until proven otherwise'.

Is it clear to you yet ?

Likely, and accurately are in two different ball parks. How many bowlers did they test? Was it near 100? Even if it was, calling someone a chucker without proof is unsubstantiated libel.

Instead of saying: "Everyone was a chucker" or "X was a chucker too"

say: "Based on evidence, there is reason to assume, they were chuckers".

Not hard, is it?

 

[C_C]

It doesn't matter what you call it, the majority understanding rules over flawed law. Not that hard to grasp really...

Irrelevant.
The majority understanding was a false notion. Thats the bottomline

I wasn't talking about the exception to the flawed law in that instance, it was regarding...common understanding.

Correction: Common misunderstanding.

Likely, and accurately are in two different ball parks. How many bowlers did they test? Was it near 100? Even if it was, calling someone a chucker without proof is unsubstantiated libel.

Instead of saying: "Everyone was a chucker" or "X was a chucker too"

say: "Based on evidence, there is reason to assume, they were chuckers".

Not hard, is it?

There is no libel, given that it is scientifically established that it is impossible for almost ALL human beings to bowl a cricket ball with zero flexion of the elbow. Therefore, given what has been established scientifically, the onus lies with the claimaint to prove that there is no flexion in the elbow. Not an assumption contrary to the overwhelming evidence and scientific precidence. Its like claiming you can run 100m under 8 seconds flat. Given that this is not impossible but highly improbable, the onus lies with you to prove it as such rather than assuming as such.

 

[Ikki]

Irrelevant.
The majority understanding was a false notion. Thats the bottomline

Do you know anything about legislative procedure? Common or statutory? Because it doesn't matter if they were going against law, because the law was void, as you've said before. So if it's void, how can you still accuse people of misinterpreting it? Apart from Murali, and more recent examples, pretty much every other bowler adhered to this understanding. Whether you want to call it understanding or misunderstanding is irrelevant, they were right.

Correction: Common misunderstanding.

Don't quit your day-job .

There is no libel, given that it is scientifically established that it is impossible for almost ALL human beings to bowl a cricket ball with zero flexion of the elbow. Therefore, given what has been established scientifically, the onus lies with the claimaint to prove that there is no flexion in the elbow. Not an assumption contrary to the overwhelming evidence and scientific precidence. Its like claiming you can run 100m under 8 seconds flat. Given that this is not impossible but highly improbable, the onus lies with you to prove it as such rather than assuming as such.

Ah yes there is. You can't say: Wasim Akram was a chucker; Dennis Lillee was a chucker; Hadlee was a chucker, without proving it.

Just the same it's incorrect to say: "No one will ever run under 8 seconds". OR "Nobody ever has run under 8 seconds". It doesn't matter that no one's proved it, the possibility is there. So making a full and defaming definition like "All bowlers were chuckers", is not only being uncareful, it's being incorrect.

What surprises me is your take on this. Usually Mr. Science pops up and we have to give every decimal point to account, yet here...well it's okay to generalise

I guess what's good for you depends on the debate eh ?

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. I don't need you to concede the point. I thought you were purposely ignoring the principle at hand, the truth is you're just foreign to it. Good day.

 

[C_C]

Do you know anything about legislative procedure? Common or statutory? Because it doesn't matter if they were going against law, because the law was void, as you've said before. So if it's void, how can you still accuse people of misinterpreting it? Apart from Murali, and more recent examples, pretty much every other bowler adhered to this understanding. Whether you want to call it understanding or misunderstanding is irrelevant, they were right.

Sorry but this doesnt make any sense.
The law was upheld until proven false- the law was based on the common misconception that it is possible to bowl with zero flexion in their elbows.
The bowlers who adhered to the understanding did so under false premise because:

a) They DID have flexion in their elbows despite notions to the contrary
b) It is quite impossible for the overwhelming majority of human beings to bowl without any flexion in the elbow.

Ah yes there is. You can't say: Wasim Akram was a chucker; Dennis Lillee was a chucker; Hadlee was a chucker, without proving it.

Just the same it's incorrect to say: "No one will ever run under 8 seconds". OR "Nobody ever has run under 8 seconds". It doesn't matter that no one's proved it, the possibility is there. So making a full and defaming definition like "All bowlers were chuckers", is not only being uncareful, it's being incorrect.

What surprises me is your take on this. Usually Mr. Science pops up and we have to give every decimal point to account, yet here...well it's okay to generalise

I guess what's good for you depends on the debate eh ?

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. I don't need you to concede the point. I thought you were purposely ignoring the principle at hand, the truth is you're just foreign to it. Good day.

I most definately can say that Akram,Lillee, Hadlee, Holding,etc. were all chuckers.
Indeed, Angus Fraser himself said so after seeing the evidence at hand.
All those bowlers had flexion in their elbow and it was proven by biomechanists from revewing footage from the past ( they cant say how much due to the shoddy nature of the footages back then but they can say if there is or isnt any flexion).

Based on evidence and scientific principle alone, it is fair to say 'all bowlers are chuckers until proven otherwise'. So far the only one proven as not a chucker by the old law is Sarwan. Besides, its you who is missing the point about scientific presedence and who's onus it is to prove their case.

 

[Richard]

He's not accusing Powar of exploiting the new relaxed rules, just the opposite, but it's an interesting article that I had to post somewhere!

Selvey actually does touch on the doosra & its ramifications too:

"In the years BD (Before Doosra), it is hard to imagine the need for tolerance levels in the bend of the arm in delivery nor, just as an example of one worrying by-product, the need to have an ICC specialist attending the recent Under-19 World Cup in Sri Lanka solely to monitor junior actions and nip any rogue elements in the bud."

Not sure I entirely agree to put all the blame (if blame is the right word) on the doosra; Murali's action was dividing opinion before he developed one &, to my way of thinking, he has (unwittingly perhaps, but perhaps not) been the main driving force towards the new rules.

Full article (titled "The Powar and glory of old off-spin", Powar's name is such a gift to headline writers! ) from Thursday's Guardian here:

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/columnists/story/0,,1747977,00.html

Murali's Wrong-'un is totally different to the common Doosra.

 

[Richard]

****ed wrists - as in the wrist is near perpendicular to the forearm just before delivery and when you do deliver, you 'snap' the wrists down to get additional velocity. Lee does it, Flintoff does it and Walsh did it.
And there simply is no way you are gonna bowl with a ****ed wrist and not damage the muscles in your forearm.

I can see why not, but have we ever had this tested?

 

[Richard]

It doesnt matter what doesnt make sense to you.

Do you know how to bowl the doosra? Obviously not.

Go to someone who knows and aske them to show you and then try to do it without bending your elbow. Then come and write here.

Alternatively come to Mumbai and I will show you how it is bowled. I am willing to pay your return fair and entire boarding and lodging if, after I have shown you how it is bowled, you do the same without beding your arm.

If you are not willing to take this offer then accept my word for it.

If you want to just argue for the sake of arguing be James's guest.

I know how it's bowled - I'm not capable of doing it myself, but I know how it's done.
I'd like to hear why some mechanism of the wrist can force the elbow to flex.

 

[C_C]

I can see why not, but have we ever had this tested?

I dont think it has been tested. But its not too hard to see that if you keep your elbow straight, your wrists ****ed and put a large enough torque on your arm, you are gonna kill the muscles on the underside of your forearm. Unless ofcourse, you are a genetic freak like Murali, who's wrists are about as supple as a gymnast's legs.

 

[Richard]

I can think of several bowlers who do use the ****ed-wrist tactic and don't damage their forearm-tendons, aside from those you named.