Australia & England opposing the doosra?

[War]

Somehow i doubt, even if AUS & ENG never produce a spinner who can bowl the doosra, that could cause them to decline in the rankings.

 

[spooony]

Answer me this. Why do spinners get 15 degrees and fast bowlers only 5 degrees?

After the law was set at 10 degrees for spin bowlers why did they move it to 15 after getting evidence that 10 degrees is needed to bowl the doosra?

Muralo and Shoab was cleared due to a condition they have. Shoaib has hyper-extensible joints and wide carry angle elbow that places him outside the letter of the law but within the spirit of it, and Murali has a fixed-flexion elbow deformity that means he is not an outlaw technically speaking, but just an unusual human being.

That is why he was cleared. So did this unusual condition suddenly appeared in a bunch of spinners? It is starting to become a epidemicl

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Answer me this. Why do spinners get 15 degrees and fast bowlers only 5 degrees?

After the law was set at 10 degrees for spin bowlers why did they move it to 15 after getting evidence that 10 degrees is needed to bowl the doosra?

they don't, the set it at 15 for all I believe and when there was two different sets of regulation it was fast bowlers that were allowed a larger degree of flexion, I think it was 10 for fast bowlers and 5 for spinners actually.

secondly, the 15 degrees limit isn't about what's possible to bowl with, it was set at 15 because anything less is apparently too difficult for the human eye to discern. so it wasn't necessarily about about making all bowling legal it was about making the law practical to enforce.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

There was also the case that under the old laws, only 1% of the bowlers in the ICC Champions League were found to be within the 10% extension.

Surely this debate is dead by now? I can't believe people still claim that Murali chucks.

 

[sami ullah khan]

Muali is old story now. The new target is Ajmal especially when he is too hot to handle for Aussies and The English.

 

[spooony]

they don't, the set it at 15 for all I believe and when there was two different sets of regulation it was fast bowlers that were allowed a larger degree of flexion, I think it was 10 for fast bowlers and 5 for spinners actually.

No the ICC chose to specify a range of elbow extension tolerance levels that it considered acceptable, but which were dependent on ball release speed. In short some blokes told them without proper data everyone is who straightening their arm prior to release so no one will really bowl legally under the law Law 24.3 in 2000

secondly, the 15 degrees limit isn't about what's possible to bowl with, it was set at 15 because anything less is apparently too difficult for the human eye to discern. so it wasn't necessarily about about making all bowling legal it was about making the law practical to enforce.[

In 2004 Rene Ferdinands and Uwe Kersting decided to do the first lab work on this issue as outside testing was highly inaccurate. They took 69 bowlers sixty-nine bowlers,, grouped into fast, med-fast, medium, slow, and finger-spin categories. 40% of these were first class or test cricketers. 8 bowlers in their sample were observed as possibly having a throwing-type or jerky action.

It was found that none of the 69 complied with the 2000 law sated below or could comply with it.

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.

Further more although 100% of the medium bowlers met the ICC?s constraints, only 86.7% of the fast, 87.5% of the fast/medium, 35.7% of the slow and 60% of the spin bowlers satisfied the 10, 7 and 5% limits respectively.

So ICC had two choices. Either tell most of them to alter their actions or to legalize the bigger portion. The latter is what they exactly did.

Of the 69, 28 had come through the trial by batsman to become first class or Test bowlers, a process that selects not for legitimacy of action but for effectiveness.

The ICC then chose to set a limit according to 1) a one-angle-fits-all i.e. regardless of bowling style, thus, avoiding issues of interpretation as to style of bowling,
2) at a extent of angle that would allow accurate observation floppy long sleeved shirts and all, and
3) at an angle, incidentally, that identified as legal all but one of the 8 ?throwers? in the sample. This was 15 degrees.

First of all bowlers are capable of changing their action. In matches the will always steal a couple of extra degrees because there is no way to do in match conditions testing. modifying their actions to gain the maximum permitted advantage. Like speeding drivers they will see a ?limit? as a target if it increases their performance.

If they they could have set the elbow angle extension limit at 10% it would have required 13.3% of the fast bowlers, 12.5% of the fast/medium and 40% of the spinners in the sample to modify their actions.

So it has nothing with illusions to do.

There was also the case that under the old laws, only 1% of the bowlers in the ICC Champions League were found to be within the 10% extension.

How do you know that? There is no way to test in match conditions. You can be tested then bowls within your 15 degree limit then go get on a field and bowl with a extension of 20 to 25. Umpires can't do anything as you "were" already cleared by the ICC.

Surely this debate is dead by now? I can't believe people still claim that Murali chucks.

You clearly did not read the 2nd part of my previous post. It has nothing to do if Murali chucks or not but the Doosra. Let me explain it like this for you

Muttiah Muralitharan did under go clinical examinations, electrogoniometer angle measurements, and three-dimensional motion analysis of his bowling arm. The tests revealed that Muttiah Muralitharan had a fixed flexion deformity of his bowling elbow

I repeat Muttiah Muralitharan had a fixed flexion deformity of his bowling elbow

For those who missed the key word fixed flexion deformity

de?for?mi?ty [di f?wrm?tee]
(plural de?for?mi?ties)
noun
1. disfigurement: the condition of being disfigured or badly formed
the deformity of the pine trees at such a high altitude in the mountains

2. structural change from normal: a permanent change from normal body structure
3. something with shape far from normal: something that has a shape not normal for its kind or nature

Note

something that has a shape not normal for its kind or nature

Then the University of Western Australia (Department of Human Movement and Exercise Science) tested his doosra. They measured it 14 degrees and modified his action which was subsequently reduced to a mean of 10.2? with a modified action.

Eliott said the following

?Mr. Muralitharan be permitted to continue bowling his doosra at least until a valid data base is collected on the various spin bowling disciplines?, the overwhelming response was that Murali?s doosra contravened the established ICC elbow extension limit of 5? for spinners.

But Murali CAN bowl it effectively thanks to his deformity. SO thanks to his something that is not natural nor common freak of nature whatever you want to call it he could bowl the doosra with a extension of 10.4.

So you want to tell me all the crop of spinners suddenly developed a deformity? Cause within laws without that deformity they will be chucking and be over the limit.

Then Shoaib Akhtar was found to have hyperextension abnormality which prevented him from bowling with a straight arm. So he was a freak of nature as well. Brett Lee wasn't. But like the others bowling the Doosra he continued to bowl and take advantage of it I mean why not they can't prove it in a match.

But let me put it like this

Angle extension limit is not important. They looked at the wrong thing. A Olympic javelin thrower is bowling not throwing according to the ICC laws asthey for got to look at the ANGLE slope. More sideways and MaSlinga action you got a bowler with a elbow angle of 60 degrees but by no more than 15 degrees, say to 48 degrees his action would have the properties of a throw despite him having an elbow extension of 12 degrees from shoulder height to ball release.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

but erm, that's a lot of words and some of it directly contradicts what you said earlier?

look, you said fast bowlers were set at 5 and spinners were at 15. they weren't, this was never the case. then you said they set flexion at 10 degrees for slow bowlers, again, I don't think this was ever the case.

the naked eye stuff is relevant because it was because certain actions flexing near 15 still looked ok, and they were up at 20-30 before they looked dodgey. thus it was assumed acceptable to set the limit at 15. if those bowlers bowling at 15 degrees had looked like they were throwing obviously 10 should have been chosen.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

How do you know that? There is no way to test in match conditions. You can be tested then bowls within your 15 degree limit then go get on a field and bowl with a extension of 20 to 25. Umpires can't do anything as you "were" already cleared by the ICC.

You clearly did not read the 2nd part of my previous post. It has nothing to do if Murali chucks or not but the Doosra. Let me explain it like this for you

Muttiah Muralitharan did under go clinical examinations, electrogoniometer angle measurements, and three-dimensional motion analysis of his bowling arm. The tests revealed that Muttiah Muralitharan had a fixed flexion deformity of his bowling elbow

I repeat Muttiah Muralitharan had a fixed flexion deformity of his bowling elbow

For those who missed the key word fixed flexion deformity

There is an article on cricinfo/the interwebs somewhere that talked about it. And an old thread on PC where this is all discussed to excruciating depth, with reference to that old article. CBF to find it.

And I don't know why you're getting worked up. Aren't you saying Murali is not a chucker? Cause I was saying the same thing.

 

[spooony]

but erm, that's a lot of words and some of it directly contradicts what you said earlier?

look, you said fast bowlers were set at 5 and spinners were at 15. they weren't, this was never the case. then you said they set flexion at 10 degrees for slow bowlers, again, I don't think this was ever the case.

the naked eye stuff is relevant because it was because those actions that were over the old limits looked ok, and they were up at 20-30 before they looked dodgey. thus it was assumed acceptable to set the limit at 15. if those bowlers bowling at 15 degrees had looked like they were throwing obviously 10 should have been chosen.

No you have not being paying attention as my reply to you was the reason why the ICC did what they did and why throwing is legal today in cricket.

Murali physical abnormalities gave him 2advantages.

1. The arm that could not straighten meant that he had a naturally large distance between the wrist and the axis of rotation of the humerus. This gave him an exceptionally strong wrist flick. The use of this strength helped the flexibility of his wrist, increasing the force and the number of rotations he could put on the ball.

2. Bowlers tried to mimick his action without the (without the abnormality but they had to sacrifice flight which is one of the most important factors in spin bowling disguising your deliveries as well as putting the batsman in 2 minds by using the horizontal plane just above the batsman eye line where tey are vulnerable and lose sight of the ball. Not Murali because the 2nd abnormality, the one in his shoulder, meant that he was able to keep both the height of the arm and the distance of the wrist from the axis.

Ajmal has to bowl with his head lent to the left so that the arm can be upright except for his new delivery. Cough* Cough* you know what that is

Important point is that he could put on the extra revs and bowl the doosra without having to extra flex and extension prior to and through release of the ball. With an elbow extension limited to 5 degree (as it was originally set by the ICC) Murali could bowl the doosra. He didn't need 15 degrees.

That exception provided the rule which made the mechanics of throwing possible in all types of bowling without exceeding the 15 degree extension rule. Kind of rotations of the of the humerus which is defy as throwing and is used when guys without those abnormality tries to bowl the doosra. The doosrra gets thrown out of the back of the hand. Do not think of Murali when the doora is mentioned as he had a abnormality which enabled him to do something others can't. And it is those guys who do not have the abnormality that we are/should discuss because they can't bowl the doosra without throwing it.

----------

There is an article on cricinfo/the interwebs somewhere that talked about it. And an old thread on PC where this is all discussed to excruciating depth, with reference to that old article. CBF to find it.

And I don't know why you're getting worked up. Aren't you saying Murali is not a chucker? Cause I was saying the same thing.

Eh? Worked up lol. Just because I seperated everything easy to understand doesn't mean I am getting worked up. This post is not about Murali as he had a medical reason. The others don't

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

spoony, you are my favourite exasperating poster.

Answer me this. Why do spinners get 15 degrees and fast bowlers only 5 degrees?

this never ever happened.

After the law was set at 10 degrees for spin bowlers

neither did this.

maybe you don't believe the stuff about being visible to the naked eye, I'm not bothered really either way, I'm just pointing out that was the reason the ICC gave. New ICC illegal deliveries process announced | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo that's them declaring their review process.

1. An acceptance that the focus of the Law concerning illegal actions is that it seeks to deal with the extension of the arm that is visible to the naked eye.

2. All bowlers will be permitted to straighten their bowling arm up to 15 degrees, which has been established as the point at which any straightening will become visible to the naked eye.

the stuff about percentage of bowlers throwing is nicely convenient but whether it was incredibly clever by the ICC or not they explicitly state they did not change the rules just because it would mean banning lots of players.

I dunno man, you seem to be going down a conspiracy root, I'm not really bothered by all that stuff (and given the ICC couldn't organise a piss up in brewery I'm sceptical of their ability to organise any sort of secret conspiracy). I'm not even arguing, just pointing out your original questions weren't based on reality.

 

[Sedition]

Muali is old story now. The new target is Ajmal especially when he is too hot to handle for Aussies and The English.

He's played one test against Australia and managed 2/223

 

[macintosh]

ICC has created a big mess here, it failed to take tough decisions when the time was right and now we have a lot more bowlers with a suspect action, 15 degrees is just a bit too much,
but m sure there are bowlers who are going even beyond the current limits of bending the elbow, the bowling actions should be scrutinized in live match situations, there is no better way to judge a bowler's action except for in live matches.
And regarding the doosra, I don't think its illegal, but at the same time, its just Murali and Saqlain who bowled it legally.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Whatever happened to Maurice Holmes, the English mystery spinner? | Andy Bull | Sport | guardian.co.uk

this article is about maurice holmes, who was the guy mentioned in the article I posted earlier, an english bowler who could bowl a doosra but was shut out of the county game.

it touches on a lot of stuff we've been discussing in this thread, the point I wonder if andy bull was inspired to write it by going through this forum.

 

[Owzat]

walking when you've nicked it etc.

They are grey areas that haven't been legislated.

Feel free to go look yourself and quote me where it does say it, but when I've looked in the rules it says NOTHING about having to be given out. It says that if you get an edge you are out, or words to that effect.

The reason batsmen don't walk when they know they've nicked it is they are hoping the umpire makes a mistake, so it is CHEATING. Still annoys me over a decade later that Nasser didn't walk TWICE against Sri Lanka when the ball came off the face of the bat.

In fact I'd say it's even worse cheating because the dismissal is so obviously out that the batsman is putting doubt in the mind of, and pressure on, the umpire. If the umpire didn't give that these days they'd force the fielding side to risk a review, not much of a risk maybe, but what happens if (under the current system) they don't have any left?

I think a number of deliveries and bowlers are suspect and they gain advantage from it. Doesn't matter if the pitches are too batting friendly, that is an issue to address with the people who want to give s*y five days of cricket to fill their schedule with. Grounds also don't like rain and short matches.

Shame more can't take a lead from this

Adam Gilchrist's famous walking incident - YouTube

----------

ICC has created a big mess here, it failed to take tough decisions when the time was right and now we have a lot more bowlers with a suspect action, 15 degrees is just a bit too much,
but m sure there are bowlers who are going even beyond the current limits of bending the elbow, the bowling actions should be scrutinized in live match situations, there is no better way to judge a bowler's action except for in live matches.
And regarding the doosra, I don't think its illegal, but at the same time, its just Murali and Saqlain who bowled it legally.

I think there should be a review of angles too, bowlers like Malinga must gain an advantage by bowling round the wicket to batsmen.

There will be one crunch question, how far do you relax rules in order to let people play who might not otherwise if you want it to be a level playing field?

Of course there was a hoo haa about the switch hit as well, personally I'm thinking the batsman should not be allowed to move before the ball has been released any more than fielders should or the non-striker. If he can switch round after the ball has been released then fair enough, and it would clarify LBW as his off stump would be determined by his stance at release.

 

[sifter132]

Walking is a big grey area in general - not even sure where I stand on it, that's why I used it as an example And yes, I guess not walking is technically cheating, but I can understand why batsmen don't walk. For one thing, it's often difficult to KNOW you're out. I know in my times on a cricket field it can sometimes be unclear if I've nicked it. Often it's really obvious sure, but other times I'm not sure what it's touched if anything and my senses are dulled in the fuzziness of the moment. Was it Dravid who walked after he hit his shoelace and thought he'd nicked it?
Another areas of 'self legislation' that interest me is when fielders throw the ball on the bounce to the keeper, technically it's ball tampering, and umpires are often seen telling fielders to stop throwing it into the dirt so deliberately. Would a pure hearted cricketer NEVER do a bounce throw?

Then of course there are other areas that are legislated eg. Mankading where players are looked down on for doing it. And there are other things that are completely ignored eg. picking up the ball and throwing it to a fielder once it's out of harms way.

All interesting questions really