Chucking summit

[Mike Small]

read full artcile here

So if everything goes according to plan Murali should be able to bowl his wrong one again (Aravinda Desilva is in that subcomitte, what can we expect?), since the new rules would allow a tolerence level of 15 degrees for both fast and slow bowlers. Dissapointingly enough cricket info suggests the controversy over suspect bowling actions is unlikely to be affected because "other high-profile international bowlers would, according to the latest research which has a five-degree error margin, also exceed a 15-degree tolerance level". Now we only have to guess who these "other high-profile international bowlers" are...October 26th isn't that farway, curosity won't kill any cat in that time, but this highlights yet again for me that chucking abobe all, above match fixing, above the whole Zimbabwe issue , above allegations of an over crowded international calendar, and above all other issues it remains the single biggest problem the ICC has to cope up with.

[Rachael]

I'm not sure how serious the "chucking" issue is for the ICC.. after all, it now seems certain that (according to a strict interpretation of the original laws) bowlers always have chucked and probably always will chuck. If cricket folowers would just get back to appreciating the challenge posed by bowlers (irrespective of their action) and stop getting on their high horse because their particular side is "disadvantaged" by the way the rules are interpreted (it's only a damn game for ***'* sake) then we could all just forget about it.

Sadly, the vocal minority of obsessive, results-centred fans seem unwilling to let this lie.. but again.. I don't see THAT big an issue: Murali's already developed an arm guard that locks his arm within a particular degree of tolerance.. and is well on the way to getting one that he can use in Tests.. and before long any bowler whose action is distracting punters from the cricket wil be able to get a strap on guard to ensure that their action is NOT an issue.

in Murali's case it wil not make one blind bit of difference to his doosra.. which he can deliver just as effectively with his arm completely locked: sad that in order to shut up a bunch of pretty obnoxious Aussie critics he'l have to wear such a device.. but if that's what it takes to make the whole issue go away then that's (for me) what must be done.

The only issue then will be who wears the devices, when, and on what grounds: I wouldn't be surprised if, in the end, EVER bowler is required to wear one... to avoid the politics of finger-pointing.. but to my mind it remains a damn irritant: I wish we could just remove the complaints rather and get on with the cricket.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Rachael

The only issue then will be who wears the devices, when, and on what grounds: I wouldn't be surprised if, in the end, EVER bowler is required to wear one... to avoid the politics of finger-pointing.. but to my mind it remains a damn irritant: I wish we could just remove the complaints rather and get on with the cricket.

We have enough problems with over rates now. If the bowler had to wear a "strap on" every time he was bowling the over rate would go down further!

[Ernest]

Getting stupid now, change the rules, what does it matter if a bowlers arm is bent or not, not one jot, don't confuse chucking with throwing which would be dangerous.

just paying a lot of wages for a lot of researchers.

Ern

[Mike Small]

People have always chuked, yes, that's true. People will continue to chuck. Perhaps that is true as well. But does that make it right? Not in my opinion. I'd be more than willing to appreciate what is in your words the challenge proposed by bowlers given that they are actually BOWLERS - i.e. people who bowl - not THROWERS being people who throw. I'd have to got to the US of Al to appreciate any of that. Baseball, not cricket after all, is the place for chuckers, they seem to call it pitching for some reason.

On the brace Murali wears I'm not sure if he's yet to get permisssion from the ICC to bowl while wearing it in tests. I do believe though that controversies surrounding not only Murali but various other bowlers' action are more than just rambling from obnoxious Australian critics.

[Rachael]

I have some sympathy with all sides in this matter.. but i think Murali is a daft focus for the discussions as his "flexing" really doesn't seem to make a blind bit of difference either to his deliveries (coming in more because he's tired than because he's trying to get something extra on the ball) or to the "readability" of his action (he seems to gain nothing in terms of disguise).

Now.. if it's being alledged that one of the 90+mph speed merchants (or for all I know ALL such speed merchants) are getting a bit extra on the ball.. or getting the same on the ball when appearing to deliver something slower... then there's a clearer focus for discontent as that sort of thing gives a bowler an edge he wouldn't otherwise have.

So.. there is a real issue.. but is anyone really doing ANY such flexing to a level that gives top batsmen cause for complaint? I'm sorry, but I don't see it. The bowlers are not literally pitching the ball, baseball style.. they are endeavouring to do things right. They are all getting pretty close to what might well be a near-unattainable ideal. The challenge they pose to the batsmen is something the top batsmen can cope with.. and ultimately.. if given a choice between watching Murali weave his magic or Batty fail to weave any magic I'd rather have Murali!

[Mike Small]

I think I might agree to some extent, in case of spinners bending of the bowling arm beyond the allowed levels doesn't necessirly in all cases make too much of an impact on the flight, turn and spin the ball would generate but I would definately disagree on the readibility part, some one like Harbajjan Singh for instance would be much eiser to read (and hence in my theory less successful) had he had a less complicated -to say the least- action.

The thing here for me is that a lot of young blokes end up bowling with flawed actions unintentionally - obviously you can't blame those guys. The story starts at a very early level when these players actually pick up things from Television and bowl that same stuff in their clubs and all. Since all players do not get the right sort of coaching during those developing years these young players ending playing through sometimes their entire first class careers without ever being recommended about their actions, especially if they are tear away quicks and bowling 90 mph and above - I know a coacht that would at times neglect correcting minor mistakes once he saw a quy was generating significant pace or extravegant turn since he thought tampering too much with their so called 'natural actions' would tend to lose them that innate ability to either spin the ball or bowl it at great pace.

The type of chucking that I have a completely zero tollerence level is when people seem to know that they are not doing the right thing, and at times they have intentionally modified their actions to get more spead. That is why I was concerned, in all seriousness when some Aussies asked questions about Flintoff and Harmisons' actions as well.

[Oliver]

I think I've already written everything I have to say on this point.

Needless to say, another thread means another post... and I am in the against Murali camp.

Right, so the guy can't straighten his arm... and OK he only flexes fifteen degrees... and it doesn't matter that he bowls with a bent arm because he never straightens it fully... therefore he never gets the total stop and consequent extra surge that the straightening of a perfectly formed elbow joint allows.

(Well here's a thing.)

That's not strictly true is it. It just so happens he does get that extra "surge," however his arm doesn't have to straighten to make that so.

Ok that's confusing... so I'll return to one of my original irritations regarding changing the basic laws of cricket.

*****************

... You've got a new nation joining the Test family... they're not very good... in fact they're in continual danger of finishing bottom of the heap... many Test nations think quite hard about fixing the odd session against them to pick up money through a third party from spreadbetting syndicates... But suddenly they have a player who can take a whole heap of wickets because he spins the ball unbelievably... it is possible he has an illegal action... one guesses from the way he propels the ball that there is something not quite right... but he had polio (or some such mal-forming desease) as a youngster and actually the way he bowls the ball, he uses something of a whip-like snapping action that makes his elbow bend through well over thirty-five degrees.

Well that's against the laws of cricket isn't it? Well it would be. But the ICC (G o d bless the ICC) are going to change the laws to allow a flexing of between five degrees and forty-five degrees and suddenly he is perfectly legal.

Suddenly the said new nation is second in the Test ladder and Murali's old world record is looking in terrible danger.

Right this is an invented scenario. Though it is somehow not so different than one that has recently taken place.

*****************

Here is another view.

Up until the mid nineteen nineties, young lads turn up at cricket coaching schools all over the world where the coach gives them the most severe shellacking for attempting to "chuck in" startling illegal deliveries (throws) at their padded up mates at the other end of the nets.

The coach was allowed to say: "no, no, no you can't do it like that... you must try to keep your elbow straight. The ball that you just bowled is completely illegal and you've just given the other team one run, and an extra ball to have a go at."

Since the ICC's change of the laws (for Murali, and some other current fast and medium fast bowlers) I can almost hear the coach saying: "brilliant ball son, let's see if we can disguise that throw a bit better and we'll have all the batsmen on the hop."

*****************

Yes I agree that rules do change over time. And if "admin" still has a couple of my original posts in "Great Posts" you can read something of how overarm bowling came about...

... but for me it is as basic as this: the skill of the batsman partially comes from being able to focus on the bowler's wrist, from where he (the bowler) produces most of his skillful variations. If, at fifty to ninety-odd miles an hour, the batsman suddenly has to use his split second of viewing time to check out both the bowler's wrist and his elbow... then he is going to be severely handicapped.

And yes, in such a game, horrid powerful batsmen whose mis-hits carry well over the boundary are in all probability going to be the ones that succeed. Artists of the Gower, Bradman, Vaughan etc., type are going to fall by the wayside because they do not possess the eye speed to focus in on the two places necessary and they don't have the sheer brute strength to make their shots count.

So if you want to water down the unutterable horror of those ghastly* powerful batting types (Flintoff, Lehmann, Hayden, Geraint Jones, Trescothick, Chris Gayle etc., etc., etc.,) then put back the original (or late twentieth century) laws and make bowlers bowl with a straight arm.

*Actually I don't think they're ghastly... more awesome, but artistic batsmen will become a thing of the past if the bowling laws continue to be bent in this manner.

And that's just silly.

[Occasional Fan]

With you all the way, Oliver. There is another point, albeit somewhat esoteric. The ICC is not the custodian of the laws of cricket. The MCC is. So what is going on here is that the ICC is issuing (and now considering revising) guidance as to the extent to which bowlers in international games - the only games over which it has jurisdiction - may infringe the laws. The laws, that is, which belong to another body altogether.

Where's the MCC in all this? About time in my opinion that they stood up to these busy-bodies at the ICC and told them to stop buggering about with the laws of our game. Or we'll refuse to let you play it. Now, where the bloody hell is my port?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

With you all the way, Oliver. There is another point, albeit somewhat esoteric.

Where's the MCC in all this? About time in my opinion that they stood up to these busy-bodies at the ICC and told them to stop buggering about with the laws of our game. Or we'll refuse to let you play it. Now, where the bloody hell is my port?

That's an interesting point there OF... I suspect this has something to do with the current political climate... see Boris Johnson and his despised articles about Liverpudlians...

In the United Kingdom today it is considered wise and proper for everyone to be frightfully politically correct.

No-one is allowed to have opinions about another member/other members of society lest it may cause offence.
Jolly difficult given the allowance of freedom of speech. One might almost say that there is no such thing as freedom of speech when it comes to speaking of other people...

But I couldn't possibly comment on that on such an international site.

Personally I think it's skollob... a famous Czech word... no doubt you'll agree... and if the ICC (bless their cotton socks) are treading all over the laws of our game (YES OUR GAME) then perhaps they should mind where they put their muddy feet.

And as a paper EP in the early seventies once said:

Originally Posted by Private Eye

"Nobody goes around cutting off peoples aids (and legs and arms) except me. It's the only way to keep these people on their toes."

That's enough of that. Ed.