23 Apr 2004 18:59:57
CiL
Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra


+++++++++++++++

....This secrecy, this lack of transparency, must not be permitted and
must not continue. The video footage and UWA report on Murali’s
doosra-action must enter the public realm after the ICC and SLC have
had time to digest it. We cannot stop there. A distilled summary of
the video footage revealing the arm actions of those “34 deliveries of
21 different bowlers” that “showed some degree of elbow-straightening”
must be assembled in another video with accompanying reports. Whether
the names of these bowlers are to be disclosed is a moot question.
Personally I would say they should be. Such a listing would make a lot
of people shut up because a significant number of fast bowlers would
enter the doubtful box. Not all of them would have Murali’s deformed
elbow and plasticine wrists, or even Brian Statham’s double
jointed-ness at the elbow (Tyson’s evidence). Either way it will make
commentators aware that we humans do not have uniform arms. We should
then be wary of legislation that is based on imposing uniformity.
Having argued this for quite some time, I do feel vindicated.


MOre at

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/INTERACTIVE/DILMAH/GREATS/TALKINGPOINT/bruce-elliott-doosra.html
++++++++++


23 Apr 2004 20:37:07
CiL
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra


>+++++++++++++++
>
>....This secrecy, this lack of transparency, must not be permitted and
>must not continue. The video footage and UWA report on Murali’s
>doosra-action must enter the public realm after the ICC and SLC have
>had time to digest it. We cannot stop there. A distilled summary of
>the video footage revealing the arm actions of those “34 deliveries of
>21 different bowlers” that “showed some degree of elbow-straightening”
>must be assembled in another video with accompanying reports. Whether
>the names of these bowlers are to be disclosed is a moot question.
>Personally I would say they should be. Such a listing would make a lot
>of people shut up because a significant number of fast bowlers would
>enter the doubtful box. Not all of them would have Murali’s deformed
>elbow and plasticine wrists, or even Brian Statham’s double
>jointed-ness at the elbow (Tyson’s evidence). Either way it will make
>commentators aware that we humans do not have uniform arms. We should
>then be wary of legislation that is based on imposing uniformity.
>Having argued this for quite some time, I do feel vindicated.
>
>
>MOre at
>
>http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/INTERACTIVE/DILMAH/GREATS/TALKINGPOINT/bruce-elliott-doosra.html
>++++++++++


Shatadal. as that Roberts article a Sambit Bal article which in turn
mentions Cricket Australia's sports science officer' s ka research ...

here is a article on that research

+++++++++
...From a fast bowling perspective, new research is now questioning
the very definition of a fair delivery. A study conducted by
scientists from Cricket Australia and the Australian Institute of
Sport suggests that it might be a biomechanical impossibility for fast
bowlers not to straighten the arm immediately before releasing the
ball, as demanded by the laws of the game.

In the MCC laws of cricket 2000, Law 24, section 3, the definition of
a legal delivery states: "A ball is fairly delivered in respect to 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."

The research, presented by Marc Portus (Cricket Australia's sports
science officer) at the second World Congress of Science and Medicine
in Cricket, revealed that if the present letter of the law is applied
to the fast bowling techniques, many Test players might be chucking.

Thirty-four deliveries from 21 different bowlers in match situations
underwent three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Every ball
analysed was bowled with some degree of elbow straightening, thereby
making each delivery illegal under the laws of cricket. The average
straightening about the elbow was 11 degrees, with only two deliveries
showing elbow movement less than five degrees.

The International Cricket Council has stipulated a 10-degree tolerance
threshold for changes in the elbow angle when analysing suspect fast
bowlers. Of the 34 deliveries analysed, 14 exceeded this threshold. At
the higher delivery speeds averaging 140km/h, the amount of elbow
straightening before ball release often exceeded 15 degrees.

Enhanced technology continues to provide enhanced understanding of the
realities on the sporting field - in this case, that elbow
straightening is a biomechanical reality for the world's elite fast
bowlers. With this key criterion for chucking being so consistently
broken, as highlighted by this recent research, perhaps it is time for
a rethink by cricket law-makers as to what now should be deemed a fair
delivery.

From Research throws light on an awkward fact
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145865559.html

+++++++++++++


24 Apr 2004 08:11:31
The Wog
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

"CiL" <cricketislife@rediffmail.com > wrote in message
news:r0ci80lbrl7f5pgogr3lv55l3mipuse6n2@4ax.com...
>
What's the most important word in this para:
>
> Thirty-four deliveries from 21 different bowlers in match situations
> underwent three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Every ball
> analysed was bowled with some degree of elbow straightening, thereby
> making each delivery illegal under the laws of cricket. The average
> straightening about the elbow was 11 degrees, with only two deliveries
> showing elbow movement less than five degrees.

These were in MATCH situations. Maybe the answer is to set the legal limit
at the 90% percentile straightening observed in the LAB. That way there are
two benefits:

- The worst 10% of chuckers are automatically illegal, by definition. I
think most people would consider it a good outcome if we could legislate out
the worst 10% without trying to eliminate microchucking on an invisible
level by the other 90%.

- There would be no worries about people not trying in the lab, and people
saying "The observer was biased, he was bowling 20km/h slow and 30 balls
wasn't time to create fatigue" vs other people saying "The tests were
rigorous, they are directly comparable to match conditions and his arm speed
was equal to Jeff Thomson's." Lab testing would be the de jure standard, but
with the threshhold set at what people can achieve in the lab so that
everyone can agree that it's a fair and comparable test.
>
Wog




24 Apr 2004 10:23:19
bigbadja
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

Murili is still a cheat.
He has always claimed can cannot straighten his bowling arm at all.
He claimed that his standard deliveries that look like throws are just
optical illusions.
Now the "doosra" is shown the arm at delivery to be fully
staightened.........come on ....he has always been a cheat, with or without
the doosra.
Chuck the recalcitrant Sri Lankans out until they learn to play the game
according to the rules and traditions of cricket.
SL shames the Game.

"CiL" <cricketislife@rediffmail.com > wrote in message
news:bf6i80d4kld9637gu6md12lqjouhu4t94a@4ax.com...
>
> +++++++++++++++
>
> ....This secrecy, this lack of transparency, must not be permitted and
> must not continue. The video footage and UWA report on Murali's
> doosra-action




24 Apr 2004 01:23:14
Colin Kynoch
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:59:57 +0530, CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com >
parted their butt cheeks and let rip with this:

>
>+++++++++++++++
>
>....This secrecy, this lack of transparency, must not be permitted and
>must not continue. The video footage and UWA report on Murali’s
>doosra-action must enter the public realm after the ICC and SLC have
>had time to digest it. We cannot stop there. A distilled summary of
>the video footage revealing the arm actions of those “34 deliveries of
>21 different bowlers” that “showed some degree of elbow-straightening”
>must be assembled in another video with accompanying reports. Whether
>the names of these bowlers are to be disclosed is a moot question.
>Personally I would say they should be. Such a listing would make a lot
>of people shut up because a significant number of fast bowlers would
>enter the doubtful box. Not all of them would have Murali’s deformed
>elbow and plasticine wrists, or even Brian Statham’s double
>jointed-ness at the elbow (Tyson’s evidence). Either way it will make
>commentators aware that we humans do not have uniform arms. We should
>then be wary of legislation that is based on imposing uniformity.
>Having argued this for quite some time, I do feel vindicated.
>
>
>MOre at
>
>http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/INTERACTIVE/DILMAH/GREATS/TALKINGPOINT/bruce-elliott-doosra.html
>++++++++++

The writer clearly has no idea about simple arithmetic

"But evidence presented at the World Congress showed that 14
deliveries of the 34 analysed exceeded this threshold, thereby making
it evident that a majority of fast bowlers throw, and demonstrating
that there are no simple answers to the throwing issue. "

A majority is more than 50%.

14 has never been and never will be a majority of 34.

Colin Kynoch



24 Apr 2004 06:59:08
CiL
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:23:14 GMT, Colin Kynoch
<kynochfamily@bigpond.com > wrote:


>>
>>http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/INTERACTIVE/DILMAH/GREATS/TALKINGPOINT/bruce-elliott-doosra.html
>>++++++++++
>
>The writer clearly has no idea about simple arithmetic
>
>"But evidence presented at the World Congress showed that 14
>deliveries of the 34 analysed exceeded this threshold, thereby making
>it evident that a majority of fast bowlers throw, and demonstrating
>that there are no simple answers to the throwing issue. "
>
>A majority is more than 50%.
>
>14 has never been and never will be a majority of 34.
>
>Colin Kynoch


++++
Thirty-four deliveries from 21 different bowlers in match situations
underwent three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Every ball
analysed was bowled with some degree of elbow straightening, thereby
making each delivery illegal under the laws of cricket. The average
straightening about the elbow was 11 degrees, with only two deliveries
showing elbow movement less than five degrees.

++++


24 Apr 2004 01:47:46
Colin Kynoch
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 06:59:08 +0530, CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com >
parted their butt cheeks and let rip with this:

>On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:23:14 GMT, Colin Kynoch
><kynochfamily@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/INTERACTIVE/DILMAH/GREATS/TALKINGPOINT/bruce-elliott-doosra.html
>>>++++++++++
>>
>>The writer clearly has no idea about simple arithmetic
>>
>>"But evidence presented at the World Congress showed that 14
>>deliveries of the 34 analysed exceeded this threshold, thereby making
>>it evident that a majority of fast bowlers throw, and demonstrating
>>that there are no simple answers to the throwing issue. "
>>
>>A majority is more than 50%.
>>
>>14 has never been and never will be a majority of 34.
>>
>>Colin Kynoch
>
>
>++++
>Thirty-four deliveries from 21 different bowlers in match situations
>underwent three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Every ball
>analysed was bowled with some degree of elbow straightening, thereby
>making each delivery illegal under the laws of cricket. The average
>straightening about the elbow was 11 degrees, with only two deliveries
>showing elbow movement less than five degrees.


That the mean (and I assume it was the mean as it could not be the
median) was 11 degrees does not mean that the majority were over 10
degrees.


What is does suggest is that of those 14 deliveries over 10 degrees
most of them were not just over 10 degrees.

Given 2 were below 5 degrees that means 18 were between 5 and 10
degrees.

One of the 2 under 5 degrees was 3 degrees so lets say the other was 4
degrees.

Then assume that the deliveries between 5 and 10 degrees were
reasonably evenly distributed (say 3 @ 5, 3 @ 6, 3 @ 7, 3 @ 8, 3 @ 9
and 3 @ 10)

This would give an average straightening of deliveries 10 degrees or
less of 7.1 degrees.

That would then require the 14 above 10 degrees to average 16.6
degrees.

Colin Kynoch


24 Apr 2004 07:38:44
CiL
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:47:46 GMT, Colin Kynoch
<kynochfamily@bigpond.com > wrote:

>That the mean (and I assume it was the mean as it could not be the
>median) was 11 degrees does not mean that the majority were over 10
>degrees.
>
>
>What is does suggest is that of those 14 deliveries over 10 degrees
>most of them were not just over 10 degrees.
>
>Given 2 were below 5 degrees that means 18 were between 5 and 10
>degrees.
>
>One of the 2 under 5 degrees was 3 degrees so lets say the other was 4
>degrees.
>
>Then assume that the deliveries between 5 and 10 degrees were
>reasonably evenly distributed (say 3 @ 5, 3 @ 6, 3 @ 7, 3 @ 8, 3 @ 9
>and 3 @ 10)
>
>This would give an average straightening of deliveries 10 degrees or
>less of 7.1 degrees.
>
>That would then require the 14 above 10 degrees to average 16.6
>degrees.
>
>Colin Kynoch

Whatever ....!

the point CK, is that many a fastbolwer aroudn the world are chucking
as of now, atleast if not all delveries certain specific deliveries,
and it also says 140kkmph+ speeds were seen recording straightening of
more than 15 dgreess more oftn than not.

so that is a huge worry or atleast a point of debate.

Another article online refering to Portus's research says fast
bowlers ka tolerance level should be extended to 15 degrees... and
similarly tests for spinners art to be conducted and proper new figure
arrived at..

so in the light of all this,.. I dont mind if ICC does a proper
,testing of bowlers once and for all and arrive at a figure of degree
for spinners n pacers alike. cos if so many bowlers are going atleast
in some of their deliveries of pacers over 10 degrees, it does make
sense to think about and discuss over it i ndepth.

Some jokers were saying it was only cos of Murali that laws are being
rewritten unfairly etc but that now imo after these research on pace
bowlers etc ..looks a theory to be thrown right out of the bigot
window.

many fast bowlers seem to be chucking and time has come for a proper
appraisal and as Shatadal , Wog also I think, not sure abt that ) plus
a few others have said, a transparent process shud be set in place and
proper testing of all intrnational bowlers plus quite a few from 1st
class, shoud be done to arrive at a proper figure for degree
straightening





24 Apr 2004 02:36:03
Colin Kynoch
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 07:38:44 +0530, CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com >
parted their butt cheeks and let rip with this:

>On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:47:46 GMT, Colin Kynoch
><kynochfamily@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>That the mean (and I assume it was the mean as it could not be the
>>median) was 11 degrees does not mean that the majority were over 10
>>degrees.
>>
>>
>>What is does suggest is that of those 14 deliveries over 10 degrees
>>most of them were not just over 10 degrees.
>>
>>Given 2 were below 5 degrees that means 18 were between 5 and 10
>>degrees.
>>
>>One of the 2 under 5 degrees was 3 degrees so lets say the other was 4
>>degrees.
>>
>>Then assume that the deliveries between 5 and 10 degrees were
>>reasonably evenly distributed (say 3 @ 5, 3 @ 6, 3 @ 7, 3 @ 8, 3 @ 9
>>and 3 @ 10)
>>
>>This would give an average straightening of deliveries 10 degrees or
>>less of 7.1 degrees.
>>
>>That would then require the 14 above 10 degrees to average 16.6
>>degrees.
>>
>>Colin Kynoch
>
>Whatever ....!
>
>the point CK, is that many a fastbolwer aroudn the world are chucking
>as of now, atleast if not all delveries certain specific deliveries,
>and it also says 140kkmph+ speeds were seen recording straightening of
>more than 15 dgreess more oftn than not.

Interesting how all this has been obtained form 34 deliveries from 21
bowlers.

In other words only one delivery was tested for at least 8 bowlers.

I think the figures are suspect.


>so that is a huge worry or atleast a point of debate.
>
>Another article online refering to Portus's research says fast
>bowlers ka tolerance level should be extended to 15 degrees... and
>similarly tests for spinners art to be conducted and proper new figure
>arrived at..

All on the basis of an extremely small sample.


>so in the light of all this,.. I dont mind if ICC does a proper
>,testing of bowlers once and for all and arrive at a figure of degree
>for spinners n pacers alike. cos if so many bowlers are going atleast
>in some of their deliveries of pacers over 10 degrees, it does make
>sense to think about and discuss over it i ndepth.

And stop them from bowling those deliveries. I don't see that Pace
bowlers and spinners should have the same tolerance levels.


>Some jokers were saying it was only cos of Murali that laws are being
>rewritten unfairly etc but that now imo after these research on pace
>bowlers etc ..looks a theory to be thrown right out of the bigot
>window.

Why?

Murali is NOT a pace bowler he is a spinner.

>many fast bowlers seem to be chucking and time has come for a proper
>appraisal and as Shatadal , Wog also I think, not sure abt that ) plus
>a few others have said, a transparent process shud be set in place and
>proper testing of all intrnational bowlers plus quite a few from 1st
>class, shoud be done to arrive at a proper figure for degree
>straightening

Until such time Murali should not be allowed to bowl his doosra.

What has struck me as ludicrous is the likes of Larry and Ananda who
are using the figures for pace bowlers as justification for changing
the tolerance for Murali.

Murali is clearly not a pace bowler.

Particularly at 40-47 mph.

Colin Kynoch


24 Apr 2004 08:16:46
CiL
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:36:03 GMT, Colin Kynoch
<kynochfamily@bigpond.com > wrote:
>
>All on the basis of an extremely small sample.


I dont whether the figures are suspect or not , it has come from a
specialist appointed for this . but anyway that was my point too.. we
need to get into this properly and tests carreid out extensively.
I also don't see that Pace bowlers and spinners should have the same
tolerance levels.

>
>>Some jokers were saying it was only cos of Murali that laws are being
>>rewritten unfairly etc but that now imo after these research on pace
>>bowlers etc ..looks a theory to be thrown right out of the bigot
>>window.
>
>Why?
>
>Murali is NOT a pace bowler he is a spinner.

yep... what I meant was a few jokers were saying that this whole
straightening researchc issue has been only gone into because of
Murali which is ofcourse balls! as u rightly say.. they are going into
pace bowlers as well and finding hitherto not wellknown stuff like
straigtening .. so it was not just murali, nwo they have the tech,
inclination to go into depth on these issues and see if science can
help in determining whts really goin on, just as tech is progressing
in the other areas of cricekt, umpiring etc...


>>many fast bowlers seem to be chucking and time has come for a proper
>>appraisal and as Shatadal , Wog also I think, not sure abt that ) plus
>>a few others have said, a transparent process shud be set in place and
>>proper testing of all intrnational bowlers plus quite a few from 1st
>>class, shoud be done to arrive at a proper figure for degree
>>straightening
>
>Until such time Murali should not be allowed to bowl his doosra.

definitely .. as ICC as told him as well. I hope Murali gets sane
advice from some cool heads, which means Larry shouldn't get anywhere
near him:-)

<snip >




24 Apr 2004 03:10:08
Spaceman Spiff
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com > scratched his armpit and grunted:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:23:14 GMT, Colin Kynoch
> <kynochfamily@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/INTERACTIVE/DILMAH/GREATS/TALKINGPOINT/bruce-elliott-doosra.html
>>> ++++++++++
>>
>> The writer clearly has no idea about simple arithmetic
>>
>> [snip]
>> A majority is more than 50%.
>>
>> 14 has never been and never will be a majority of 34.
>>
>
> ++++
> Thirty-four deliveries from 21 different bowlers in match situations
> underwent three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Every ball
> analysed was bowled with some degree of elbow straightening, thereby
> making each delivery illegal under the laws of cricket. The average
> straightening about the elbow was 11 degrees, with only two deliveries
> showing elbow movement less than five degrees.
>
> ++++

averages are misleading.
if you were to sit with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and one foot in a
bucket of ice, on the average you would be very comfortable.
if bill gates were posting on rsc, the average net worth of each rsc poster
would be in the range of 300-500 million dollars.

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

No more cryin' and memories find their way back
Tomorrow's waiting let's journey there together
Yesterday is gone but tomorrow is forever




24 Apr 2004 03:32:09
Colin Kynoch
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 08:16:46 +0530, CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com >
parted their butt cheeks and let rip with this:

>On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:36:03 GMT, Colin Kynoch
><kynochfamily@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>All on the basis of an extremely small sample.
>
>
>I dont whether the figures are suspect or not , it has come from a
>specialist appointed for this .

The size of the sample could mean that the figures are quite skewed.

If you chose your bowlers carefully you could make it so it looked
like all fast bowlers had a straightening of more than x degrees or
alternatively less than Y degrees.

21 is a pitiful sample and one or two deliveries per bowler is also a
pitifully small sample.


These figures are certainly not statistically significant.


> but anyway that was my point too.. we
>need to get into this properly and tests carreid out extensively.
> I also don't see that Pace bowlers and spinners should have the same
>tolerance levels.
>
>>
>>>Some jokers were saying it was only cos of Murali that laws are being
>>>rewritten unfairly etc but that now imo after these research on pace
>>>bowlers etc ..looks a theory to be thrown right out of the bigot
>>>window.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>Murali is NOT a pace bowler he is a spinner.
>
>yep... what I meant was a few jokers were saying that this whole
>straightening researchc issue has been only gone into because of
>Murali which is ofcourse balls! as u rightly say.. they are going into
>pace bowlers as well and finding hitherto not wellknown stuff like
>straigtening .. so it was not just murali, nwo they have the tech,
>inclination to go into depth on these issues and see if science can
>help in determining whts really goin on, just as tech is progressing
>in the other areas of cricekt, umpiring etc...

There is a lot of figures being bandied about as significant when in
fact they are not even close.


If Murali's doosra was tested and he straightened his arm by about 10
degrees that is significant as the ICC regs only allow for 5 degrees.

If Murali's tests were conducted and he only bowled at 40-47 mph that
is also significant as he certainly bowls faster than that in matches.

If one bowler happens to bowl one delivery with a certain
straightening that is insignificant.

>>>many fast bowlers seem to be chucking and time has come for a proper
>>>appraisal and as Shatadal , Wog also I think, not sure abt that ) plus
>>>a few others have said, a transparent process shud be set in place and
>>>proper testing of all intrnational bowlers plus quite a few from 1st
>>>class, shoud be done to arrive at a proper figure for degree
>>>straightening
>>
>>Until such time Murali should not be allowed to bowl his doosra.
>
>definitely .. as ICC as told him as well. I hope Murali gets sane
>advice from some cool heads, which means Larry shouldn't get anywhere
>near him:-)

lol

Larry is a much saner person of the newsgroup than on it.

Colin Kynoch
>
><snip>
>



24 Apr 2004 09:20:39
CiL
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 03:10:08 GMT, "Spaceman Spiff"
<spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com > wrote:

>averages are misleading.
>if you were to sit with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and one foot in a
>bucket of ice, on the average you would be very comfortable.
>if bill gates were posting on rsc, the average net worth of each rsc poster
>would be in the range of 300-500 million dollars.

As I said that was not my point, it si the fact that many fastbowlers
aroudn the world are chucking some in certain deliveriies and acc to
the biomechanic expert Mr Marc Portus at times the straigtening is
more than the icc reuriment of 10 degrees.many a bowler is chucking,
why only Murali or Kirtley.. there seems to be quite a few pacers who
are doing this.

my point is that we need to go into this in detail , extensive tests
should be carried out on pacers n spinners alike, in a more
transparent process and we shud arrive at a proper figure.
insted of just rubbishing every expert and every study done saying
that doesnt say much, all this is to allow murali escape n more utter
rubbish like that.

Just cos some jokers have lost patience and baying for the blood
immediately, we shudnt be calling for a execution right away.
Tests need to be carried out, call those experts again, devise a
process and fix it, maybe Icc was wrong initially (as it looks now) in
fixing a 10 degree straigthening, as Portus ka research shows.

Let the research be funded well and carried out properly and then
decide at a proper degree,, be it less that 10 or more than it.. the
ideal figure shud be arrived, tech needs to be used to sort this out
properly. THere is no use saying in good ol days, a bowler who looked
like a chuck was a chucker etc... that theory is no longer valid as
tech advances in ump decision and in other areas have shown.
Let the experts carry out the research extensively and arrive at a
ideal figure.






24 Apr 2004 15:48:50
Mad Hamish
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 06:59:08 +0530, CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com >
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:23:14 GMT, Colin Kynoch
><kynochfamily@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/INTERACTIVE/DILMAH/GREATS/TALKINGPOINT/bruce-elliott-doosra.html
>>>++++++++++
>>
>>The writer clearly has no idea about simple arithmetic
>>
>>"But evidence presented at the World Congress showed that 14
>>deliveries of the 34 analysed exceeded this threshold, thereby making
>>it evident that a majority of fast bowlers throw, and demonstrating
>>that there are no simple answers to the throwing issue. "
>>
>>A majority is more than 50%.
>>
>>14 has never been and never will be a majority of 34.
>>
>>Colin Kynoch
>
>
>++++
>Thirty-four deliveries from 21 different bowlers in match situations
>underwent three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Every ball
>analysed was bowled with some degree of elbow straightening, thereby
>making each delivery illegal under the laws of cricket. The average
>straightening about the elbow was 11 degrees, with only two deliveries
>showing elbow movement less than five degrees.

Which doesn't mean that more than 50% were over 10 degrees.
In fact seeing as the research stated a maximimum straightening of of
20% if there were very few bowlers or deliveries under 5% then you
might well have a clustering just under 10 degrees and outriders
around 20 degrees resulting in a high average but a low percentage of
bowlers over 10 degrees.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newslaws@iinet.net.au


24 Apr 2004 09:45:05
Paul Robson
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

CiL wrote:

> Whatever ....!
>
> the point CK, is that many a fastbolwer aroudn the world are chucking
> as of now, atleast if not all delveries certain specific deliveries,
> and it also says 140kkmph+ speeds were seen recording straightening of
> more than 15 dgreess more oftn than not.
>
> so that is a huge worry or atleast a point of debate.
>
Absolutely. But it's not comparable with Elliott's Murali test.

If you put those bowlers in a testing situation, with their mates
observing it, and (possibly) the option of bowling at half pace,
do you think the results would be different ?

> Another article online refering to Portus's research says fast
> bowlers ka tolerance level should be extended to 15 degrees... and
> similarly tests for spinners art to be conducted and proper new figure
> arrived at..
>
> so in the light of all this,.. I dont mind if ICC does a proper
> ,testing of bowlers once and for all and arrive at a figure of degree
> for spinners n pacers alike. cos if so many bowlers are going atleast
> in some of their deliveries of pacers over 10 degrees, it does make
> sense to think about and discuss over it i ndepth.

I doubt very much there is consistent flexion of over 10 degrees.
These deliveries were in a "match situation". What does that mean,
did they come off the telly ? Who did they select ? How ?

If the purpose of this was to establish limits of throwing, then
one could look at the borderline bowlers - Kirtley, Lee, Murali
for example, to get some kind of upper bound.

> Some jokers were saying it was only cos of Murali that laws are being
> rewritten unfairly etc but that now imo after these research on pace
> bowlers etc ..looks a theory to be thrown right out of the bigot
> window.

> many fast bowlers seem to be chucking and time has come for a proper
> appraisal and as Shatadal , Wog also I think, not sure abt that ) plus
> a few others have said, a transparent process shud be set in place and
> proper testing of all intrnational bowlers plus quite a few from 1st
> class, shoud be done to arrive at a proper figure for degree
> straightening

SL were quite happy with it up to the point that it showed their star
bowler was chucking it even in the most favourable situations they
could contrive.



24 Apr 2004 09:48:36
Paul Robson
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

CiL wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:36:03 GMT, Colin Kynoch
> <kynochfamily@bigpond.com> wrote:

> yep... what I meant was a few jokers were saying that this whole
> straightening researchc issue has been only gone into because of
> Murali which is ofcourse balls! as u rightly say.. they are going into
> pace bowlers as well and finding hitherto not wellknown stuff like
> straigtening .. so it was not just murali, nwo they have the tech,
> inclination to go into depth on these issues and see if science can
> help in determining whts really goin on, just as tech is progressing
> in the other areas of cricekt, umpiring etc...

I think it's fair to say Murali brought it to the forefront, but not it
was created for him. With the chucking panel's appearence, it's obvious
that even the McGrath's of his world are going to flex a bit because you
can't keep your arm ramrod straight.

So the ICC want to differentiate between those who wobble a bit and those
who use that flexion to gain an unfair advantage in either pace or spin.

Examples would be Lee and Kirtley's quicker balls, and Murali's doosra.

This is certainly the case with the doosra which is almost unbowlable
(to the degree Murali turns it) without straightening the arm.



24 Apr 2004 09:51:58
Paul Robson
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

CiL wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 03:10:08 GMT, "Spaceman Spiff"
> <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote:
>
>>averages are misleading.
>>if you were to sit with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and one foot
>>in a bucket of ice, on the average you would be very comfortable.
>>if bill gates were posting on rsc, the average net worth of each rsc
>>poster would be in the range of 300-500 million dollars.
>
> As I said that was not my point, it si the fact that many fastbowlers
> aroudn the world are chucking some in certain deliveriies and acc to
> the biomechanic expert Mr Marc Portus at times the straigtening is
> more than the icc reuriment of 10 degrees.many a bowler is chucking,
> why only Murali or Kirtley.. there seems to be quite a few pacers who
> are doing this.
>
> my point is that we need to go into this in detail , extensive tests
> should be carried out on pacers n spinners alike, in a more
> transparent process and we shud arrive at a proper figure.
> insted of just rubbishing every expert and every study done saying
> that doesnt say much, all this is to allow murali escape n more utter
> rubbish like that.

I would be fine with that IF Sri Lanka would simply accept that Murali's
doosra is in breach of the regulations - seriously so - and stop trying
to get the rules changed to suit him and smear the Match Ref, get the
officials they want etc etc etc.

Like England (kirtley) Aus (Lee) Ban (Hossain) WI (Lawson)
Pak (Shoaib+Shabbir) for example.

All he has to do is stop bowling the illegal delivery. But it appears
he is refusing to do so, despite the advice of his own board president,
who is taking the sensible line of it being unadvisable.

If he continues to carry on this way he deserves anything he gets IMO.



24 Apr 2004 01:22:41
Bob Dubery
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

CiL <cricketislife@rediffmail.com > wrote in message news:<bf6i80d4kld9637gu6md12lqjouhu4t94a@4ax.com>...
> +++++++++++++++
>
> ....This secrecy, this lack of transparency, must not be permitted and
> must not continue. The video footage and UWA report on Murali?s
> doosra-action must enter the public realm after the ICC and SLC have
> had time to digest it. We cannot stop there. A distilled summary of
> the video footage revealing the arm actions of those ?34 deliveries of
> 21 different bowlers? that ?showed some degree of elbow-straightening?
> must be assembled in another video with accompanying reports. Whether
> the names of these bowlers are to be disclosed is a moot question.
> Personally I would say they should be. Such a listing would make a lot
> of people shut up because a significant number of fast bowlers would
> enter the doubtful box.

Lashings were out here about a month or so ago. There was some
interesting footage of Vasbert Drakes straightening the arm whist
bowling. This popped up in a side on slomo replay, one frame the arm
is bent, the next it isn't.

The arm was hyperextended backwards. It did straighten, but ... how
can I put this... the wrist caught up with the elbow. If a straight
arm is 180 deg and Murali's permanently bent arm is 160 degrees,
Drakes was going from 200 to 180. You can argue that this is not what
the law intends to prevent, but it was a contravention of the law - in
slomo at any rate. (those angles are not in any way accurate BTW, I'm
only trying to illustrate the direction of the straightening. I am NOT
accusing Vasbert Drakes of having 20 degrees of straightening in his
delivery).

Now that kind of straightening IS forbidden by the laws (any kind of
straightening is forbidden by the laws). Drakes has not had any doubts
cast over the legality of his action, so I'm wondering how difficult
it would be to cast doubt on the legality of a bowler or bowler's in
general.

I still haven't seen the delivery that has caused all the fuss. I did
see Murali get a wicket with a wrong'un against Zimbabwe. I got only
one look at the delivery (it was part of a highlights package), so I
can't say a lot about it other than that
a) whilst it turned the "wrong" way, it was the kind of ball that
would be described as "straightening" if it came from a medium pacer
like McGrath or Pollock. It wasn't huge spin - not the kind of turn
that was seen in Warne's "ball of the century"
b) Very fast arm action.
c) The arm definitely did not straighten completely as some are saying
it does when Murali bowls the doosra. I can't say it did or didn't
straighen partially, but it didn't straighten COMPLETELY.

I'm hoping to get some real live footage on the weekend.


24 Apr 2004 01:16:25
Andrew Mc
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

In article <40899516$0$4574$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au >, The Wog" <[my org
name]@optusnet.com.au > says...
>
>"CiL" <cricketislife@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
>news:r0ci80lbrl7f5pgogr3lv55l3mipuse6n2@4ax.com...
>>
>What's the most important word in this para:
>>
>> Thirty-four deliveries from 21 different bowlers in match situations
>> underwent three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Every ball
>> analysed was bowled with some degree of elbow straightening, thereby
>> making each delivery illegal under the laws of cricket. The average
>> straightening about the elbow was 11 degrees, with only two deliveries
>> showing elbow movement less than five degrees.
>
>These were in MATCH situations. Maybe the answer is to set the legal limit
>at the 90% percentile straightening observed in the LAB. That way there are
>two benefits:
>
>- The worst 10% of chuckers are automatically illegal, by definition. I
>think most people would consider it a good outcome if we could legislate out
>the worst 10% without trying to eliminate microchucking on an invisible
>level by the other 90%.
>
>- There would be no worries about people not trying in the lab, and people
>saying "The observer was biased, he was bowling 20km/h slow and 30 balls
>wasn't time to create fatigue" vs other people saying "The tests were
>rigorous, they are directly comparable to match conditions and his arm speed
>was equal to Jeff Thomson's." Lab testing would be the de jure standard, but
>with the threshhold set at what people can achieve in the lab so that
>everyone can agree that it's a fair and comparable test.
>>
>Wog

So you basically want to go back to how it was for the first 115 or so years of
cricket when the umpire did the job out in the middle ;).



24 Apr 2004 10:31:27
Paul Robson
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

Bob Dubery wrote:

> I still haven't seen the delivery that has caused all the fuss. I did
> see Murali get a wicket with a wrong'un against Zimbabwe. I got only
> one look at the delivery (it was part of a highlights package), so I
> can't say a lot about it other than that
> a) whilst it turned the "wrong" way, it was the kind of ball that
> would be described as "straightening" if it came from a medium pacer
> like McGrath or Pollock. It wasn't huge spin - not the kind of turn
> that was seen in Warne's "ball of the century"

It's not that much turn. But it is very definitely a "leg break" as
opposed to a toppie that drifts away a bit. The sort of turn generated
by a second class legspinner.

As an example, Murali, bowling over the wicket to a LHB, could not get
an lbw, because his old toppie would more or less go straight on or just
turn a little bit.

He can now, from his normal delivery point. Pitch on middle and hit
middle. In fact, he can probably pitch off and hit leg).

This is part of the reasons the likes of Thorpe were less effective.

He may have stopped bowling it, of course.



24 Apr 2004 06:13:15
Bob Dubery
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

Paul Robson <autismuk@autismuk.muralichucks.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message news:<c6dgnd$4ka$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...

> It's not that much turn. But it is very definitely a "leg break" as
> opposed to a toppie that drifts away a bit. The sort of turn generated
> by a second class legspinner.

I've seen this kind of wrong'un from Murali before. He had something
like this last time SL toured SA. The ball that he unveiled against
England and used against Australia (I presume the new delivery he was
bragging he'd get England with) sounds like a whole lot more.

> As an example, Murali, bowling over the wicket to a LHB, could not get
> an lbw, because his old toppie would more or less go straight on or just
> turn a little bit.
I can recall him giving Smith something to think about with one that
came back into the left hander. Can't recall if he was going over or
round the wicket for that spell.


24 Apr 2004 23:12:58
The Wog
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

"Andrew Mc" <andrew@nospamplease.com > wrote in message
news:c6d7op02p1t@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <40899516$0$4574$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, The Wog" <[my
org
> name]@optusnet.com.au> says...
> >
> >"CiL" <cricketislife@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:r0ci80lbrl7f5pgogr3lv55l3mipuse6n2@4ax.com...
> >>
> >What's the most important word in this para:
> >>
> >> Thirty-four deliveries from 21 different bowlers in match situations
> >> underwent three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Every ball
> >> analysed was bowled with some degree of elbow straightening, thereby
> >> making each delivery illegal under the laws of cricket. The average
> >> straightening about the elbow was 11 degrees, with only two deliveries
> >> showing elbow movement less than five degrees.
> >
> >These were in MATCH situations. Maybe the answer is to set the legal
limit
> >at the 90% percentile straightening observed in the LAB. That way there
are
> >two benefits:
> >
> >- The worst 10% of chuckers are automatically illegal, by definition. I
> >think most people would consider it a good outcome if we could legislate
out
> >the worst 10% without trying to eliminate microchucking on an invisible
> >level by the other 90%.
> >
> >- There would be no worries about people not trying in the lab, and
people
> >saying "The observer was biased, he was bowling 20km/h slow and 30 balls
> >wasn't time to create fatigue" vs other people saying "The tests were
> >rigorous, they are directly comparable to match conditions and his arm
speed
> >was equal to Jeff Thomson's." Lab testing would be the de jure standard,
but
> >with the threshhold set at what people can achieve in the lab so that
> >everyone can agree that it's a fair and comparable test.
> >>
> >Wog
>
> So you basically want to go back to how it was for the first 115 or so
years of
> cricket when the umpire did the job out in the middle ;).

Well I wouldn't mind that either but the suggestion above is that ALL
chucking be adjudged in the UWA lab. I don't care whether they judge in the
middle (where Murali was going for 45 degrees on some doosras last series)
or the lab (where under ideal conditions he could keep it to 10). But I
don't want his lab minichucks assessed against everyone else's onfield
action.

Wog




25 Apr 2004 14:10:25
Ian Galbraith
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 08:11:31 +1000, "The Wog" <[my org
name]@optusnet.com.au > wrote:

>"CiL" <cricketislife@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
>news:r0ci80lbrl7f5pgogr3lv55l3mipuse6n2@4ax.com...

>What's the most important word in this para:

>> Thirty-four deliveries from 21 different bowlers in match situations
>> underwent three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Every ball
>> analysed was bowled with some degree of elbow straightening, thereby
>> making each delivery illegal under the laws of cricket. The average
>> straightening about the elbow was 11 degrees, with only two deliveries
>> showing elbow movement less than five degrees.

>These were in MATCH situations. Maybe the answer is to set the legal limit
>at the 90% percentile straightening observed in the LAB. That way there are
>two benefits:

If they can do this in match situations why can't they assess Murali
in a match situation?

[snip]




24 Apr 2004 22:11:55
Bob Dubery
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

"The Wog" <[my org name]@optusnet.com.au > wrote in message news:<40899516$0$4574$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "CiL" <cricketislife@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> news:r0ci80lbrl7f5pgogr3lv55l3mipuse6n2@4ax.com...
> >
> What's the most important word in this para:
> >
> > Thirty-four deliveries from 21 different bowlers in match situations
> > underwent three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Every ball
> > analysed was bowled with some degree of elbow straightening, thereby
> > making each delivery illegal under the laws of cricket. The average
> > straightening about the elbow was 11 degrees, with only two deliveries
> > showing elbow movement less than five degrees.
>
> These were in MATCH situations. Maybe the answer is to set the legal limit
> at the 90% percentile straightening observed in the LAB. That way there are
> two benefits:

Maybe the ICC had done something similar. Dave Richardson has said the
the ICC tolerances are to be applied in testing, not by umpires on the
field of play - IE when the special kit is calibrated and in place and
the bowler knows he is being tested. So maybe they've said "look, no
bowler is going to give it a full tonk in the lab" and trimmed the
tolerances back to allow for this.


25 Apr 2004 22:48:38
The Wog
Re: Michael Roberts : About Technology, Bruce Elliott & the doosra

"Ian Galbraith" <igalbraith@replace.com > wrote in message
news:pfem80trmn3e6d3n5jcm4ob0r588hhocqg@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 08:11:31 +1000, "The Wog" <[my org
> name]@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >"CiL" <cricketislife@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:r0ci80lbrl7f5pgogr3lv55l3mipuse6n2@4ax.com...
>
> >What's the most important word in this para:
>
> >> Thirty-four deliveries from 21 different bowlers in match situations
> >> underwent three-dimensional biomechanical analysis. Every ball
> >> analysed was bowled with some degree of elbow straightening, thereby
> >> making each delivery illegal under the laws of cricket. The average
> >> straightening about the elbow was 11 degrees, with only two deliveries
> >> showing elbow movement less than five degrees.
>
> >These were in MATCH situations. Maybe the answer is to set the legal
limit
> >at the 90% percentile straightening observed in the LAB. That way there
are
> >two benefits:
>
> If they can do this in match situations why can't they assess Murali
> in a match situation?
>
Good question. In fact, why couldn't they do what Larry asks and test
EVERYBODY all at once. They presumably have footage of absolutely everybody.
My guess is because the unswear would be 45 degrees+ on some of his worst
material and then the shit would hit the fan.