cricket

[Flying_Monkey]

Forgot what our argument was, have we?

Come again? Or on second thoughts, don't bother.

 

[Ashtrayhead]

don't know about a lot, maybe a bit.


i doubt that. That means his hand must have been moving at over 100mph when he released the ball from it, which is clearly humanly impossible.


so why DO they bowl it to hit the ground? Why not just lob it straight at the stumps like in baseball?

Although a full-toss can be a legitimate delivery and it will sometimes get a wicket,it is also marginally easier for the batsman to play and score runs from because there is no chance of deviation than if the ball hits the ground.

The speed of the ball depends on more than just the speed of the bowlers hand I'd have thought! Wouldn't the run up, bowling action, wrist movement, wind speed and direction, for instance, be contributory factors?

 

[zimzum42]

Bonj....

People have most definitely bowled at 100mph. They use the same technology they use to measure the speed of a tennis ball. And why do you think that someone's hand can't move at 100mph?

 

[Andy in Sig]

What are you on about Andy in Sig. The "phenomena" or "systems" as you describe them are the theories. They don't decide to behave in such a way and then wait for people to measure them and then it becomes a "theory". There would be no (meaningful at least) universe without them. As someone that bangs on about linguistics I'd expect you to understand that. You're attaching far too much importance on the human side of it. Yes there is a something and process of humans discovering them but that's merely a side issue.

...

No they are not! All a theory is is a big idea, the sort of thing that's too long for Bonj to understand. A theory has to have originated in a person's head and it is an attempt to explain observed phenomena. The phenomena exist independently of the theory.

Take lightning for instance. Somebody in Norway observed it and decided it was the result of Thor bashing his hammer or something. Then later on somebody somewhere else decided it was the effect produced by static electricity discharging between clouds and the earth. Both are theories invented by humans but the phenomenon is entirely independent of them.

 

[Wolf04]

No they are not! All a theory is is a big idea, the sort of thing that's too long for Bonj to understand. A theory has to have originated in a person's head and it is an attempt to explain observed phenomena. The phenomena exist independently of the theory.

Take lightning for instance. Somebody in Norway observed it and decided it was the result of Thor bashing his hammer or something. Then later on somebody somewhere else decided it was the effect produced by static electricity discharging between clouds and the earth. Both are theories invented by humans but the phenomenon is entirely independent of them.

A fine explanation, however we can't play cricket during a lightning storm!
Cucumber sandwich anyone

 

[Speicher]

Getting back to Cricket - as we were.

I watched the YouTube video of Brian Lara being pole-axed by a very hard knock on the head.

I also vaguely remember the "Body Line" controversy many years (or decades ) ago.

Was Shoaib Akhtar's bowling so dangerous because of the speed and the bounce combined with the position of Lara? And how was the "Body Line" so controversial. If you aim at the stumps and the batsman is very near the stumps, surely there is a danger of hitting the batsman?

Lastly, has Trescotthick returned to Cricket yet?

 

[Arch]

Bonj....

People have most definitely bowled at 100mph. They use the same technology they use to measure the speed of a tennis ball. And why do you think that someone's hand can't move at 100mph?

<bonj mode> Oh, well, of course someone's hand COULD travel that fast, if they were in a fast car on an autobahn... </bonj mode>

Ow, that makes my head hurt tryng to think like that.

Bonj. Why does a whip crack?

 

[bonj2]

Although a full-toss can be a legitimate delivery and it will sometimes get a wicket,it is also marginally easier for the batsman to play and score runs from because there is no chance of deviation than if the ball hits the ground.

The speed of the ball depends on more than just the speed of the bowlers hand I'd have thought! Wouldn't the run up, bowling action, wrist movement, wind speed and direction, for instance, be contributory factors?

so the skill of the bowler relies on how much he can vary the deviation of the ball AFTER it has hit the ground?

And the TOTAL speed of his arm, relative to the ground, which may be increased by the fact that he's running, still isn't going to be over 100mph! Do you or do you not accept that (given no wind) for the ball to be travelling at over 100mph then the speed of the part of his hand that launches the ball HAS to be travelling at over 100mph at the point when the ball departs his hand?
You can't just say 'oh there are other contributory factors' without qualifying how the effect they could have manifests itself.

 

[bonj2]

<bonj mode> Oh, well, of course someone's hand COULD travel that fast, if they were in a fast car on an autobahn... </bonj mode>

Ow, that makes my head hurt tryng to think like that.

Bonj. Why does a whip crack?

Because the end of it travels very fast, over the speedof sound, due to velocity ratio. You have a 3-fold multiplier of velocity ratios: 1) velocity ratio of hand to arm muscle, 2) velocity ratio of end of whip stick to handle of whip stick, and 3) velocity ratio of end of whip string to start of whip string.
In tennis, for example, you have a double velocity ratio: hand to arm muscle, and head of racket to grip of racket.
In cricket, you only have one - hand to arm muscle.
In all these cases, the end of the last component of velocity ratio multiplier has to be travelling at the launch speed of the object - in cricket this is the bowler's hand!

 

[bonj2]

Bonj....

People have most definitely bowled at 100mph. They use the same technology they use to measure the speed of a tennis ball. And why do you think that someone's hand can't move at 100mph?

The myth that people can bowl at 100mph is just a myth perpetuated by the cricket industry to get more people to watch it.
Can you move your hand at 100mph? I doubt it.

 

[Arch]

So you reckon all the recorded bowling speeds are just made up, do you?

 

[zimzum42]

The 'cricket industry'!!!!!

I love it!

Think we need to send Bonjy to India to learn a little about the game...

 

[bonj2]

So you reckon all the recorded bowling speeds are just made up, do you?

probably.

 

[rich p]

Getting back to Cricket - as we were.

I watched the YouTube video of Brian Lara being pole-axed by a very hard knock on the head.

I also vaguely remember the "Body Line" controversy many years (or decades ) ago.

Was Shoaib Akhtar's bowling so dangerous because of the speed and the bounce combined with the position of Lara? And how was the "Body Line" so controversial. If you aim at the stumps and the batsman is very near the stumps, surely there is a danger of hitting the batsman?

Lastly, has Trescotthick returned to Cricket yet?

Akhtar has a slinging action, like Dayvo's favo Jeff Thomson, which is harder to see coming from the hand, with a cocked wrist to impart more speed and fatally(?!) Lara took his eyes off the ball and ducked into it.

The bodyline series was controversial because Larwood and Voce bowled from round the wicket at the batsmens head and body which left them fending off balls up to head height towards the leg side. In those days there was no limit on the number of fielders you could have behind square on the legside and consequently the England captain, Douglas Jardine, put lots of fielders there to catch the Aussies out. It prompted a rule change in that the limit of fielders became 2 allowed behind square.
If you aim at the stumps then the pads and gloves and thigh guards defend the batsman.
Trescothick is playing county cricket for Somerset but has retired from internationals.

 

[Andy in Sig]

I think that the bodyline thing was an unsporting disgrace and the England team should have been shot on returning to the UK. That said my knowledge of the controversy is only based on a documentary I saw about it.