Review the chucking law

[StrengthThroughLoyalty]

Was this law introduced when under arm bowlers thought it was an unfair advantage to throw the ball??
Is it really an advantage to straighten the elbow when bowling?
How antiquated is this law??
The actions of Akhtar, Lee, Murilli, Frog in a blender, may sometimes infringe on the law but does it really give them an unfair advantage over the batsman.

IMHO NO.

 

[servo]

I think Murili's action definately gives him an advantage. It allows him to impart much more spin on the ball than he could otherwise. Having said that I am not positive he throws.

The others don't gain a great deal though.

We cannot repeal the law otherwise it would leave the door open for real chuckers ala baseball and I don't know that they could define it better than it is now.

Currently the law states that if an umpire is not certain that the delivery is fair then he should call a no ball. I do believe that should be changed so that it is only called a no ball if they are certain it is illegal rather than uncertain that it is legal.

 

[Guest]

I think Akhtar's action looks a bit suspect when he goes for extra pace or a bouncer and Murilli really looks like he's using more than his fingers and wrist to spin the ball.

But I think they are two of the most exciting bowlers to watch in the world and to cut either of them out of the game would be a kick in the guts that cricket doesn't need now. A couple of Akhtar's spells last year were when he was up around the 100mph mark were sensational to watch.

As Servo said, unless its really obvious just them get on with it.


[This message has been edited by Spogs (edited 13 November 2000).]

 

[karnaby]

The law regarding throwing has actually been changed this year (as part of a complete update of The Laws Of Cricket)
Previously umpires were supposed to call a bowler if they were not completely satisfied with the fairness of the delivery, which meant that anything at all questionable should have been called.
Now a throw is fairly well defined & noball is to be called if the umpire considers the ball has been thrown.
Small differences, but significant.
As well the panel that assesses suss bowlers seems to be shying away from ultra slow mo dissection of a bowlers action, although if they can get simultaneous shots from front & side on these can be pretty damning.

I used to be a penguin

 

[servo]

So the ICC has shown some common sense at last.