Bounced ball travels faster than direct throw...

[superstar]

HOW?? He is hiding from me on twitter... Ravi shastri of ECB has mentioned this

What we are also witnessing is an unofficial ICC clampdown on England's habit of throwing the ball into the stumps on the bounce to deliberately roughen up the ball. The technique is entirely legal - and it is adopted by England not just because it can hasten the arrival of reverse swing but because it gets the ball to the stumps faster. You can hardly legislate against that.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/642389.html

[rkt.india]

What? This is ridiculous to hear that ball travels faster on bounce. It does not happen while a fast bowler is bowling then how will happen while throwing the ball.

[Precambrian]

Seriously this chap is so on ECB s payroll. The amount of nationalistic chav he displays in his writings. Incredible

[cowboysfan]

what a load of crap. bounced balls are useful sometimes in relays and run out situations but they dont get there faster than a direct throw.

[Raghav_12]

what a load of crap. bounced balls are useful sometimes in relays and run out situations but they dont get there faster than a direct throw.

They are good in such situations that as bounced balls ensure easy gathering for wicketkeepers, right on the top of stumps. Also you may have better control on your throw. But saying that bounced ball travels faster than direct throw is undoing of what Newton, Einstein and other physicists have achieved collectively for human kind over ages.

[moniker]

I don't think he means that balls travel faster after bouncing. He probably means that balls roughed up due to deliberate bouncing would travel faster than a new ball. Here's something on golf balls that supports this:

First, the dimples on the surface of a golf ball cause the boundary layer on the upstream side of the ball to transition from laminar to turbulent. The turbulent boundary layer is able to remain attached to the surface of the ball much longer than a laminar boundary and so creates a narrower, low pressure, wake and hence less pressure drag. The reduction in pressure drag causes the ball to travel farther.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_ball

[Precambrian]

I don't think he means that balls travel faster after bouncing. He probably means that balls roughed up due to deliberate bouncing would travel faster than a new ball. Here's something on golf balls that supports this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_ball

But any such gain would be negated by the friction from the ground contact, isn't it? Or the suggestion is that once the balls have been roughened up they would cease to throw it on bounce? :P

[Crookbond]

The one-bounce throw to the wicket keeper rather than direct bounce was widely adopted by the great Aussie team of the 2000s. It was supposed to be an idea of their fielding coach (someone from baseball) and yes it is said to get the ball quicker to the WK. Even during my playing days there was enough shift at the grass root levels to ask us to do so.

[jalebi_bhai]

:hysterical::hysterical:.......Pommie chelas are re-writing the laws of physics to support their crooks.......

[Pagalpanti]

If anything the ball probably loses its pace after pitching. Who're they trying to fool

[G_B_]

ravi shastri now works for the ecb? how many pay checks does this man have?

[MCcricket]

Laws of physics and logic does not support this at all, only three things that might make a bit of a difference, the fielder can release the ball a bit quickly as due to the angle of elevation required for throwing on the bounce to on the full varies, so less effort and quick release is possible , also the ball travels in a smaller arc and so lesser distance , finally the keeper gets the ball knee high and can hit the stumps faster, it is a concept but unless there is some video comparisons it doesn't make sense at all.

[Crookbond]

We must note - that when cricketers say it is "faster"; it would be faster to effect the run-out and not necessarily fast as in speed.

[Precambrian]

The one-bounce throw to the wicket keeper rather than direct bounce was widely adopted by the great Aussie team of the 2000s. It was supposed to be an idea of their fielding coach (someone from baseball) and yes it is said to get the ball quicker to the WK. Even during my playing days there was enough shift at the grass root levels to ask us to do so.

Question is whether there is any scientific background for the same?

[Precambrian]

We must note - that when cricketers say it is "faster"; it would be faster to effect the run-out and not necessarily fast as in speed.

lol WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

[jalebi_bhai]

The one-bounce throw to the wicket keeper rather than direct bounce was widely adopted by the great Aussie team of the 2000s. It was supposed to be an idea of their fielding coach (someone from baseball) and yes it is said to get the ball quicker to the WK. Even during my playing days there was enough shift at the grass root levels to ask us to do so.

Scientifically.....this is highly improbable......as the ball would have to come in contact with two opposing forces in the case of a one-bounce throw......air resistance (aided by wind sometimes) and the opposite-reactionary force exerted by the earth which makes the ball bounce of the earth and reduces its momentum........a ball that doesn't bounce would only have to deal with air resistance.......if the same amount of force is applied when the ball is released......the ball that doesn't bounce would reach quicker......

[Precambrian]

Why outlaw full toss aimed at the head when two bouncers are permitted every over??

[Crookbond]

Scientifically.....this is highly improbable......as the ball would have to come in contact with two opposing forces in the case of a one-bounce throw......air resistance (aided by wind sometimes) and the opposite-reactionary force exerted by the earth which makes the ball bounce of the earth and reduces its momentum........a ball that doesn't bounce would only have to deal with air resistance.......if the same amount of force is applied when the ball is released......the ball that doesn't bounce would reach quicker......

I know a fair bit of physics and I know a fair bit of cricket too. But, it's about affecting the run out and not a speed competition of getting the ball to the WK. This includes release of the ball, power of the throw, collection of the WK at a comfortable height amongst other factors. Now, the cricketers believe that 1-bounce gets their job done better than a direct throw (particularly from the deep). I think there's some merit - it's difficult to go full scientific in a sport, this coming from a scientist.

[Crookbond]

lol WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

Not just me; read post #112.

[jalebi_bhai]

I know a fair bit of physics and I know a fair bit of cricket too. But, it's about affecting the run out and not a speed competition of getting the ball to the WK. This includes release of the ball, power of the throw, collection of the WK at a comfortable height amongst other factors. Now, the cricketers believe that 1-bounce gets their job done better than a direct throw (particularly from the deep). I think there's some merit - it's difficult to go full scientific in a sport, this coming from a scientist.

I realize that.....one bounce is easier for keepers to gather and effect a run-out......I'm just saying that the notion that bouncing the ball makes it go faster is rather silly.....