Bounced ball travels faster than direct throw...

[Crookbond]

The only way a bounced ball gains speed after pitching is if you bowl/throw a top spinner. Otherwise, it doesnt get from point A to point B faster. Bounced balls can affect run-outs faster though. That is because all bounced balls (if bounced properly) are collected by the wicketkeeper at lower than wicket level and to effect a run-out, they have to simply follow through with their body momentum from gathering the ball low to rising up with it. Direct throws are difficult to make at stump level or lower and any throw at higher than stump level can take longer to affect a run-out, as the wicketkeeper is gathering above the stumps and has to check his body momentum (which is still on the rise) instead of working with it and has to bring his hands down to the stumps. obviously, a direct throw at stump level or lower is the fastest way to affect a run-out. This is why you see direct low throws from the close in fielders and bounced balls comming back from the deep. This is because it is extremely hard to throw a low direct throw from the deep and if third man is returning the ball directly to the keeper, he is better off bouncing it to the keeper than making the keeper collect overhead.

That was the point after all - affecting run outs. Cricketers don't give a sh!t about laws of physics - if it works, it works. Some people here just need a reason to :hysterical: or :giggle: or :cantstop: when they are losing control over an argument. For the latter highlighted, a direct throw (in particular from the deep) will more often than not follow a parabolic trajectory and not a straight line. Unfortunately, the physics experts here think otherwise.

[Swing_n_Speed]

His assumption is wrong. What effects speed more is if the throw is flatter or if it has a high trajectory. High trajectory means the speed is less, flatter means quicker. Bouncing the ball always reduces the speed. Best throw is a flat throw without a bounce.

+1 That said flat throw with bounce also increases the accuracy. A non bounce flat throw can get really awry, but with bounce the fielder would have greater control.

[Swing_n_Speed]

Actually while fielding' date=' I found that I could throw a ball faster to the keeper on the bounce than direct. It's almost impossible to throw direct from a distance flat to the keeper. For that usually you have to throw upwards in an arc which is pretty slow. When you throw into the ground, you can use more of your arm strength and hence it might be faster[/quote'] That is simply brilliant. Throwing the ball into the ground, especially from a distance will be infinitely more preferable. And as you said the it's faster because fielders can exert greater force from a downward throw as compared to an upward throw.

[PriyankaSR]

But Speed should be slower on bounce due to friction :hmmmm:

[Swing_n_Speed]

But Speed should be slower on bounce due to friction :hmmmm:

That is based on the assumption that a 'non-bounce' throw uses the the same amount of force as a 'with bounce' throw. From a short distance, like when Virat ran out Junaid, it's fine to use a 'non-bounce' throw. But from farther distances, and while running in and picking up a ball at awkward angles, the force at which the ball leaves the hand will will greater through a downward throw than an upward. Just try it, run towards a ball and throw it back towards a certain point, which is located at a distance, on the run.

[Crookbond]

But Speed should be slower on bounce due to friction :hmmmm:

The direct throw will follow a parabolic trajectory as well. The friction is compensated by the flight of path.

[Muloghonto]

That was the point after all - affecting run outs. Cricketers don't give a sh!t about laws of physics - if it works, it works. Some people here just need a reason to :hysterical: or :giggle: or :cantstop: when they are losing control over an argument. For the latter highlighted, a direct throw (in particular from the deep) will more often than not follow a parabolic trajectory and not a straight line. Unfortunately, the physics experts here think otherwise.

Yep, which is why direct low throws only happen at close distances: its not very hard to throw a fast hard throw at a downward angle or from the side (ala baseball pitch style) when the distances are short. When distances are long, its practically impossible to throw a flat straight stump-level one from the boundary. Also i think what we are forgetting is the ease of wicketkeeper or fielder to effect the dismissal. its way quicker to effect the run-out when you gather from below bail level and rise up with the ball, than rise up to gather the ball & bring it down. Simple body momentum stuff IMO. I've been a wicketkeeper in the past- its quicker to gather the ball that way. So from the deep, the ball comming back on the bounce would be easier to gather and throw at the stumps than a ball comming back directly on a parabolic curve. Often those ones require moving upwards to gather it at chest/overhead level and then shifting body momentum back towards stumps and getting your hands to go down and low. That always adds a second or two to the dismissal IMO.

[sherpatenzig]

The direct throw will follow a parabolic trajectory as well. The friction is compensated by the flight of path.

Disagree

[Crookbond]

Yep, which is why direct low throws only happen at close distances: its not very hard to throw a fast hard throw at a downward angle or from the side (ala baseball pitch style) when the distances are short. When distances are long, its practically impossible to throw a flat straight stump-level one from the boundary. Also i think what we are forgetting is the ease of wicketkeeper or fielder to effect the dismissal. its way quicker to effect the run-out when you gather from below bail level and rise up with the ball, than rise up to gather the ball & bring it down. Simple body momentum stuff IMO. I've been a wicketkeeper in the past- its quicker to gather the ball that way. So from the deep, the ball comming back on the bounce would be easier to gather and throw at the stumps than a ball comming back directly on a parabolic curve. Often those ones require moving upwards to gather it at chest/overhead level and then shifting body momentum back towards stumps and getting your hands to go down and low. That always adds a second or two to the dismissal IMO.

+1 Multiple people have mentioned that in this thread though. Fast means faster to affect a run out; after all cricketers do not get any points for speed of their throws to the WK.

[thongale]

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.

Unlike a bowl, throw is a long distance one. For the ball to arrive full to the stumps it has to be thrown up as well. The path of the ball assumes a parabola. Longer the distance, you have to throw it up more, and when the distance is quite large you have to settle for 45 degree angle. Unlike a direct throw, which is thrown a larger distance, bounce ball needs a shorter distance to be thrown, hence less elevation, lesser angle (a flatter throw). This may be the reason.

[thongale]

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

Try it over a 35m pitch length