Talk:Throwing (cricket)

message: By asking umpires to distinguish between an arm bent at 14 degrees and at 16 degrees as a bowler releases the ball at 90mph, the ICC has set them an impossible task. Nor should umpires have to decide what type of delivery was bowled; they already have enough to do in a split second. Richie Benaud makes it clear in his book My Spin On Cricket that the buck was passed to them for legal, not cricketing, reasons. Laboratory testing of questionable bowlers is a nonsense as they will be on their best behaviour. The ICC should decide an enforceable law and then back its umpires up. There remains the question of what that law should be... - AG, Stockport.
This article is about information, right? So i dont understand one thing... so he shall have his elbow bent or not to bent... and how they count thos 15 degrees? i v read in wikipedia in other article that bending is allowed. here it says its not allowed... i dont understand now...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.41.149.190 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Elbow angle can change as long as it's less than 15. Which other article said zero tolerance? YellowMonkey  (bananabucket) 05:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

text: What they've done, in choosing 15 degrees, is to determine that nearly all legal actions are well inside this limit, and that any umpire would be able to visually detect throws at this higher level. 210.7.132.83 (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The lead section states "...an illegal bowling action which occurs when a bowler straightens their arm by more than 15 degrees..." yet goes on to say "The Laws of Cricket specify that a bowler's arm must be fully extended and rotated about the shoulder to impart velocity to the ball".  These seem to contradict one another.  If the perfect bowling action is to have as straight an arm as possible, why is it illegal to to straighten one's arm by more than 15°?  Surely it should say "...an illegal bowling action which occurs when a bowler bends their arm by more than 15 degrees...".  Then again, I never was much good at bowling, so it is quite possible I have misunderstood entirely :-)  Astronaut (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've worked it out (I think). If you are ordinarily throwing a ball (not bowling it), your action is to straighten the arm - from an angle at the elbow, to straight.  So, after initially confusing me, I think the article is correct.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree with Astronaut.  Surely what's forbidden is to bend the arm more than 15 degrees.  But I know little about cricket, so I won't edit.  86.0.200.220 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually try throwing a ball, yyou will see that what you do is to straighten the arm. Here's what the Laws of Cricket say (Law 24.3): 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. Stop-motion photography of bowlers' arms in recent years has revealed that it's almost impossinle not to straighten the arm by a small amount, and as a result a regulation was brought in by the ICC for international matches that a straighrening of up to 15 degrees would be permissible. JH (talk page) 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK: thanks for the explanation, JH.  So to take it to an unrealistic extreme: let's suppose I keep my elbow joint at an angle of precisely 90 degrees for my entire bowling action.  (Thus, my forearm makes a right angle with my upper arm.)  Since I haven't straightened my arm by even one degree while bowling, that wouldn't contravene this regulation, right?  86.0.200.220 (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It might sound strange, but I think that's correct. In practice, I suspect that keeping the arm at that angle would be almost impossible to do. JH (talk page) 17:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angle confusion 

message: This article needs a section on /why/ throwing is banned. At the moment, to a non-cricket fan, it seems kind of arbitrary. Chris Martin (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean that its not obvious that allowing throws would mean deliveries so fast and movable that they would be impossible to hit or defend one's wicket against? Mdw0 (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also found it odd that this is missing from the article. What you said (6 years ago) isn't obvious to someone who doesn't have experience with bowling. It also could do with some elaboration. If someone who understands the issues could add a section about this it would improve the article significantly. Ben Arnold (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think finding a suitable citable source that would make the section something more than POV could be difficult. Why throwing should be illegal is rarely discussed within the world of cricket, its undesirability tending to be taken as self-evident. JH (talk page) 15:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for banning throwing 

message: I am also a non-cricket fan. From reading the whole article, it looks like throwing is when a bowler's arm IS straightened, right? Why then does the 2nd sentance say their arm "must be fully extended"? In US English a "fully extended" arm IS a straightened arm. If I understand the rule, then this seems like a difference in Britsh English vs. US English. Can this be rewritten for international clarity please? tahc chat 10:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not an American/British English thing, its in the word extended, which can have a double meaning. There is a single state of extension, a straight arm, and there is a process of extension, which is a throw. I'll try a rewrite. A throw is when the arm is straightened, that is going from bent to straight. A legal delivery must have a straight arm throughout the whole process. Mdw0 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that a throw is when the arm is straightened. But that does not mean that the arm has to be straight throughout. A constant degree of bend throughout would also be legal, as I understand it. JH (talk page) 08:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, new edit done.  Mdw0 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  fully extended arm? 

message: As an American who knows very little about cricket, even after reading this talk page I cannot see how straightening and extension could possibly refer to what is deemed illegal.  This video seems to say that the arm must stay completely straight, and bending it is what makes something illegal.  This article never uses the word 'bend', for completely inexplicable reasons.  I'm guessing the terminology used is derived from the Laws of Cricket, but can someone please explain to me how straightening can possibly refer to bending at the elbow.  —Akrabbimtalk 17:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC
:What is a throw? Its when you project a ball from am extension of the arm from bent to straight. This is a straightening of the arm, not a bending of the arm, which would be the opposite of a throw, that is, making an arm go from straight to bent is bending the arm. The arm must stay as straight as possible while bowling, with velocity imparted from rotation, not from extension from bent to straight. I would suggest that the reason why bending the arm is not mentioned, is because throwing a ball doesn't involve bending the arm, but straightening it. So not only is the non-use of bending not inexplicable, because I have just explained it, I have solved your issue with only the slightest consideration of what throwing involves....Mdw0 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straightening and extension 

message: Instead of using all sorts of words to describe what is and isn't "throwing," how about incorporating some illustrations/pics/graphics/etc. that show the differences ? 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, that's a good idea, though I'd suggest it should be in addition to rather than instead of the words. But it might be difficult to find a suitable set of illustrations that weren't protected by copyright. JH (talk page) 07:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiw about an illustration