• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

HyperExtension and Chucking

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
open365 said:
Of course slowing down bowlers would make the game more batsman dominated!!

If you make all bowlers 10 MPH slower, they would be cannon fodder!! Look at Hoggard, he gets smacked everywhere in ODIs because he's too slow!!
Err, what? Hoggard's pace has nothing to do with him getting smacked all the time in ODIs - he's only a fraction quicker than Mark Ealham, and the same pace as Alan Mullally, neither of whom got smacked all the time.
Pace doesn't make bowlers harder to hit. Bounce does, yes, but if anything a brace would only help get a bit more bounce.
The 15 degree rule is not ludicrous, how many people are currently under suspicion by the ICC for chucking(pace bowlers)?

Hardly any!

Making everyone where a brace just because of one or two chuckers is crazy, it would completely alter the dynamics of cricket.
Err, you don't make everyone wear one because of that, you make everyone wear one to stop some getting advantages that others don't. You also do it to stop people from chucking the odd delivery and no-one ever noticing. You also do it to stop people from performing differently in tests to matches.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Goughy said:
Agreed, Agreed, Agreed and Agreed.

Far easier and quicker than actually repying to Richard post
Why not just not bother, then?
Because agreed etc. is just a waste of time.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
C_C said:
I simply cannot believe that someone would suggest a brace in an actual game of cricket.
It is quite ridiculous to expect a bowler to run in perfectly stiff armed and bowl.
Why?
Because no-one has ever tried it?
Just because it's never been done doesn't mean it's remotely impossible to create a situation where it is done.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
But seeing as the flexing happens for every person to some degree or other, it kind of removes Cricket as a career option doesn't it?

Therefore there is no more cricket as we know it.
Err, yes, what's wrong with that?
The point is, if you put braces on the flexing doesn't happen any more.
Heck, maybe you could then introduce a new game played by robots who play exactly as you've decided they'll play - that'll really get the punters in (!)
Maybe you could stop bringing robots into it when they have precisely nothing to do with any suggestion.
 

open365

Well-known member
Richard said:
Err, yes, what's wrong with that?
The point is, if you put braces on the flexing doesn't happen any more.

.
But if a brace wil stop flexing, then it woulde surely cause the bowler damage to his elbow no?

The same theory that says if you put a brick wall in front of a speeding car the car will crash.
 

Son Of Coco

Well-known member
Richard said:
Exactly - damage can occur when flexing happens, and not when it doesn't.
It will still occur if the arm is kept perfectly straight, just not in the joint being braced.
 

Son Of Coco

Well-known member
Richard said:
Why?
Because no-one has ever tried it?
Just because it's never been done doesn't mean it's remotely impossible to create a situation where it is done.
The only positive I can see from your suggestion is that it would be hilarious to watch.

It'd be like 'The Village of the Damned'
 

C_C

Well-known member
Richard said:
Why?
Because no-one has ever tried it?
Just because it's never been done doesn't mean it's remotely impossible to create a situation where it is done.
No because i think the arm flexing and a loose limbed approach to the crease is very essential in bowling well. If you deliberately restrict the flexion of the elbow by wearing a bracket, i can see injuries galore.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
C_C said:
I simply cannot believe that someone would suggest a brace in an actual game of cricket.
It is quite ridiculous to expect a bowler to run in perfectly stiff armed and bowl.
Well look who made the suggestion!
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Err, yes, what's wrong with that?
The point is, if you put braces on the flexing doesn't happen any more.
No, instead it will wrench the bowlers arm so much that within a short period of time they'll be crippled for life.

Richard said:
Maybe you could stop bringing robots into it when they have precisely nothing to do with any suggestion.
Well you're the one who seems to think that the game has to work out exactly how you think it should, with every catch held, batsmen never playing false shots etc.

Surely by making it a game played by robots that would ensure that's exactly what happens...
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Why not just not bother, then?
Because agreed etc. is just a waste of time.
And absolutely refusing to accept you're wrong by posting the same thing time and time again isn't?
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
It'd hinder bowlers when they went for a caught and bowled, if they wore a brace.

It'd also be hard to scratch certain areas when these areas get itchy.
 

Dasa

Well-known member
Jono said:
It'd hinder bowlers when they went for a caught and bowled, if they wore a brace.

It'd also be hard to scratch certain areas when these areas get itchy.
You could use the brace to scratch certain areas. It'd do the job.
 

Son Of Coco

Well-known member
Dasa said:
You could use the brace to scratch certain areas. It'd do the job.
It could be a 'Swiss Army Brace', with a number of attachments to serve different purposes. There'd be hell to pay though if Jason Gillespie took Warnie's home by mistake.
 

Top_Cat

Well-known member
Man, all of those advocating arm braces need to learn some basic physiology and physics. If you're able to totally immobilise the arm and elbow joint (i.e. make the arm rigidly straight), the pressure being put upon the area by movement of the arm in bowling would result in injury. Why? The joint is full of fluid parcels and flexible tissue; that force generated by the arm's momentum has to go somewhere and instead of being dissipated by natural flexibility in joint, it would put shear movement pressure on the bones and if you bowl fast enough, probably go a long way towards bursitis in the joint (elbow and shoulder would be my guess). The biceps would be fully extended and the triceps slack so force would transfer straight to the nearest joints/pivot points; i.e. the elbow and shoulder.

And let's not forget that when you immobilise an area, stabiliser muscles and ligaments pick up the slack. The muscles aren't anywhere near as strong as the bicep/tricep muscles but they're stronger than the ligaments and I'd imagine, without flexibility, the ligaments would be shredded by the pressure transferred by the stabilisers. The immobilisation of the elbow would also put a great deal more pressure on the shoulder muscles and they wouldn't last long (for the above reasons; shoulder ligaments aren't super-strong and do a lot of work anyway). A lot more of the bowling momentum would come from rotation of the shoulder (rather than use of the much stronger chest muscles) again, causing many physical problems.

Yes small amounts of damage are caused by the flexion in joints but they're flexible and that flexibility is what allows the force to be spread evenly so that damage is limited to micro-tears in many places as opposed to big tears in few places in an immobilised joint.

In weight training, it's similar to the difference between isolation exercises and muscle 'recruitment' (compound exercises). I've been doing weight training for some time now and isolation exercises (where you immobilise as many parts of your body as you can to exercise one muscle group) always cause more injuries. Why? In muscle development, muscle tearing from doing work causes muscle growth in the rebuilding process when it comes to rest. It's just the way bodies work. So when you isolate muscles, all of the force of the weight hits that area only so you get greater numbers of micro-tears (and therefore muscle build-up) but a greater chance of injury if your technique isn't quite right and (most importantly) the pressure on your joints is much, much greater. Why? The force from the weight hits the muscle, yes, but as soon as the muscle starts to fatigue, the joints and stabilisers take progressively more and more of the mass so you can continue to support it (after all, there are fewer muscle groups available to 'recruit'). It's why isolation exercises are so dangerous if your technique isn't up to scratch. Examples of this sort of exercise are things like bicep curls on the machine where you rest your elbows on a platform and full extend your arms downwards, grab the weight and then pull upwards to your chest.

In the opposite case, such as in chest exercises like bench-presses, the reason why few injuries are ever done on the bench is because when you lift a weight like that, the weight is, maybe 70% supported by chest muscles but the rest is supported by biceps, triceps, shoulders and a little bit of the abs. In effect, more muscles are 'recuited' to do the job (lift the heavy weight). So muscle bulk gains are slightly less than isolation exercises but overstrength is greater and the chance of injury is much less.

So yeah, immobilising joints under stress would likely cause some pretty serious injuries even if there was specific strength-training to build up areas surrounding it.
 

Son Of Coco

Well-known member
Top_Cat said:
Man, all of those advocating arm braces need to learn some basic physiology and physics. If you're able to totally immobilise the arm and elbow joint (i.e. make the arm rigidly straight), the pressure being put upon the area by movement of the arm in bowling would result in injury. Why? The joint is full of fluid parcels and flexible tissue; that force generated by the arm's momentum has to go somewhere and instead of being dissipated by natural flexibility in joint, it would put shear movement pressure on the bones and if you bowl fast enough, probably go a long way towards bursitis in the joint (elbow and shoulder would be my guess). The biceps would be fully extended and the triceps slack so force would transfer straight to the nearest joints/pivot points; i.e. the elbow and shoulder.

And let's not forget that when you immobilise an area, stabiliser muscles and ligaments pick up the slack. The muscles aren't anywhere near as strong as the bicep/tricep muscles but they're stronger than the ligaments and I'd imagine, without flexibility, the ligaments would be shredded by the pressure transferred by the stabilisers. The immobilisation of the elbow would also put a great deal more pressure on the shoulder muscles and they wouldn't last long (for the above reasons; shoulder ligaments aren't super-strong and do a lot of work anyway). A lot more of the bowling momentum would come from rotation of the shoulder (rather than use of the much stronger chest muscles) again, causing many physical problems.

Yes small amounts of damage are caused by the flexion in joints but they're flexible and that flexibility is what allows the force to be spread evenly so that damage is limited to micro-tears in many places as opposed to big tears in few places in an immobilised joint.

In weight training, it's similar to the difference between isolation exercises and muscle 'recruitment' (compound exercises). I've been doing weight training for some time now and isolation exercises (where you immobilise as many parts of your body as you can to exercise one muscle group) always cause more injuries. Why? In muscle development, muscle tearing from doing work causes muscle growth in the rebuilding process when it comes to rest. It's just the way bodies work. So when you isolate muscles, all of the force of the weight hits that area only so you get greater numbers of micro-tears (and therefore muscle build-up) but a greater chance of injury if your technique isn't quite right and (most importantly) the pressure on your joints is much, much greater. Why? The force from the weight hits the muscle, yes, but as soon as the muscle starts to fatigue, the joints and stabilisers take progressively more and more of the mass so you can continue to support it (after all, there are fewer muscle groups available to 'recruit'). It's why isolation exercises are so dangerous if your technique isn't up to scratch. Examples of this sort of exercise are things like bicep curls on the machine where you rest your elbows on a platform and full extend your arms downwards, grab the weight and then pull upwards to your chest.

In the opposite case, such as in chest exercises like bench-presses, the reason why few injuries are ever done on the bench is because when you lift a weight like that, the weight is, maybe 70% supported by chest muscles but the rest is supported by biceps, triceps, shoulders and a little bit of the abs. In effect, more muscles are 'recuited' to do the job (lift the heavy weight). So muscle bulk gains are slightly less than isolation exercises but overstrength is greater and the chance of injury is much less.

So yeah, immobilising joints under stress would likely cause some pretty serious injuries even if there was specific strength-training to build up areas surrounding it.
Thank you...we tried to explain this to Richard before but as you can imagine it lead to too much of this: :wallbash:

When the conversation came back full circle to this whole brace thing again I didn't bother. :happy:

I never managed this good a job the first time round.
 

Jamee999

Well-known member
Don't you bend your bowling arm by bringing it towards your face before bringing it back to go into your action?
 
Top