i beg to disagree. for all these years people were not within the old limits. that was proved by ICC. that is why they changed the limits. saying stuff like in the past zillion years, doesn't make the argument any more sound...
If you look at the history of the limits relating to what was defined as a chuck, the laws evolved as follows:
Overarm bowling was legalised in 1864. From this point, straightening the arm was determined by the onfield umpires, visually.
In the 1990s, some 135 years after overarm bowling was legalised, the 10 degrees for fast bowlers, 7.5 degrees for medium pacers and 5 degrees for spinners rule was introduced. This followed testing that demonstrated that it was impossible to bowl without flexing the arm to some extent. The margin of error in the measurements leading to these limits was 1 degree.
During 2000-2003, a study was undertaken looking at a number of elite fast bowlers that showed there was an average of 9 degrees of flex with some getting 10-15. The margin for error in these tests was 3 degrees, suggesting that the range being observed could be 0 to 18 degrees. This is what initiated the review into what was an illegal action.
Note that in both these cases, none of the bowlers were being visually called for throwing.
Following this, during a number of competitions, bowlers were observed and measured and during the 2004 Champions Trophy, all bowlers had 3D video analysis undertaken. The result? The average extension of a normal, seemingly legal delivery was 8-10 degrees for all bowler types. The were almost no examples of zero flexion.
In 2005, the limit was chosen after considering biomechanical findings from 130 pace and spin bowlers, the scientific issues with measurement, and that bowling actions considered to be "throw-like", or illegal, were usually measured to be well above 15 degrees of elbow extension, often in the 20 to 30 degree range.
So, okay, it isn't 350 years of cricket, but the point remains. it is only in the past 20 or so years that any measurement at all has been put in place, and even then, the experimental method of determining whether something is legal or not still has a degree of error that, in partical physics, for example, you wouldn't consider as even useful (10%-20% is a massive margin for error!).
Essentially what this means is that when it was a question of onfield umpires simply going on visual perspective, far fewer people would bowl a delivery that could be interpreted visibly as a chuck. The consequence of a limit is that, you can
throw the ball bowl with an elbow extension up to 15 degrees, which is visible, and if you do it to a greater extent (>15 degrees) on the pitch, but can replicate less than or equal to 15 degrees in the lab, you get away with it.
So I am afraid your "Saying stuff like..." method of discussion misses the point. When the only measure is the human eye, the risk of bowling something that may transgress is significantly higher than where the definition is laid down as a set of rules which have a wide base as a result of the margin for error involved. Or more simply, you can push a clear set of rules right to the limit. Anyone for a mankad...?
Author
Topic: England v Sri Lanka series (Read 34791 times)