Should the ICC drop the two bouncer law?

[Goughy]

Of course you can. Short-pitched delivery and "Bouncer" (which is defined as a ball that passes over head-height) aren't one and the same.

Whoa. Time-Out.

Exactly who defines a bouncer as a ball that passes over head height? Certainly not anyone that have ever bowled one. That isnt the definition.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Whoa. Time-Out.

Exactly who defines a bouncer as a ball that passes over head height? Certainly not anyone that have ever bowled one. That isnt the definition.

Well quite. The definition of a ball that passes over head height is "****ing pointless."

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't mind scrapping the rule, as long as they keep the umpires' subjectivity out of it. If there's a tail ender who's getting it at the throat 6 balls out of 6, let him have it.

Abused by a #11 as a child, IMHO.

Nah, are you being serious? If so a barrage of bumpers to tailenders are effectively punches by proxy when a bloke doesn't have the ability to avoid or play them, which just isn't cricket, tbh.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Abused by a #11 as a child, IMHO.

Nah, are you being serious? If so a barrage of bumpers to tailenders are effectively punches by proxy when a bloke doesn't have the ability to avoid or play them, which just isn't cricket, tbh.

Can you tell Bishen Bedi isn't my favourite cricketer?

 

[Pratters]

Seriously, how many times do you think a batsman has gone onto the front-foot knowing two official-Bouncers have already been bowled that over?

I knew some one would come up with the smart arse reply. Knowing a bowler can bowl only two bouncers makes it highly unlikely that the bowler will bowl a bouncer the next ball. So if you want to score fast runs, you are much more likely to go to attack going on the front foot with a 2 bouncer per over law.

PS - Going on the front foot doesn't necessarily mean going out of the crease so much that you risk being stumped. It is an attacking way of playing which makes more deliveries 'full'.

 

[stephen]

A really short delivery is a near-guaranteed dot-ball; allowing unlimited numbers of them encourages negative cricket, because it makes things too easy for bowlers to bowl economically but doesn't encourage them to try and take wickets (short deliveries almost never get decent batsmen out).

See this is where you lose me.

I have not seen a hook shot played consistently by any batsman for the last decade. The reason that bouncers result in a dot ball is because batsmen have gotten used to the fact that they can just ignore the one or two bouncers per over and score off the better length balls. I'd like to see batsmen once again master the hook. There were so many better hookers in world cricket back in the 80s than there are today.

Similarly, since when is placing pressure on a batsman or putting them on the back foot "defensive"? The good bowlers realise that it's generally not the wicket taking ball that takes the wicket, but the 7 or 8 deliveries preceding that ball. Test cricket is all about pressure and by being unable to "intimidate" batsmen consistently bowlers lose one of the tools of their trade.

 

[silentstriker]

If so a barrage of bumpers to tailenders are effectively punches by proxy when a bloke doesn't have the ability to avoid or play them, which just isn't cricket, tbh.

Then stay in the pavillion and declare your wicket. If you're going to walk on the pitch, that's just what you have to face.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Genuine question: There used to be this convention that ensured bowlers didn't bounce opposition bowlers when they came out to bat. Did this extend to the 4 great all rounders when they walked in to bat? Did Holding, for instance tend to not bounce Imran; and if he did, was it fair play for Imran to bounce him back in return even though he might be considered a tail ender?

 

[GIMH]

Then stay in the pavillion and declare your wicket. If you're going to walk on the pitch, that's just what you have to face.

Well no it isn't, because the rules say no, stay awake

 

[Goughy]

Genuine question: There used to be this convention that ensured bowlers didn't bounce opposition bowlers when they came out to bat. Did this extend to the 4 great all rounders when they walked in to bat? Did Holding, for instance tend to not bounce Imran; and if he did, was it fair play for Imran to bounce him back in return even though he might be considered a tail ender?

Have you not seen Botham repeatedly hooking Lillee for 6? If he missed the ball he would have died.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LAfrr0Xo7k

 

[G.I.Joe]

Have you not seen Botham repeatedly hooking Lillee for 6? If he missed the ball he would have died.

YouTube - Ian Botham famous hook shots vs Dennis Lillee

Thanks Goughy, only ever watched a few clips from the 80s tbh. Did Botham return the favour btw?

 

[Goughy]

Thanks Goughy, only ever watched a few clips from the 80s tbh. Did Botham return the favour btw?

Actually, that is a great question that I dont know the answer to. Did Botham ever bounce Lillee?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The great fast bowlers of the past like Fred Trueman would reckon it was a waste of energy bowling bouncers to non-batsman when a fast yorker would get them out.
Of course the bowlers unwritten rule didn't extend to the likes of Imran Khan, only genuine rabbits. Although Charlie Griffiths once floored Derek Underwood with a bouncer and he was the only member of the West Indies team that didn't go to check on his wellbeing.

 

[Goughy]

Jenner was not a rabbit but this was an ugly incident

The John Snow Incident

 

[BoyBrumby]

Then stay in the pavillion and declare your wicket. If you're going to walk on the pitch, that's just what you have to face.

Ha, SS in "no concept of sportsmanship" non-shocker.

Blood on the pitch may have poetic overtones in the imagination, but I personally find the idea of a gallant but limited tailender being hurt distasteful. There's a clear safety issue here, surely? Cricket is probably unique in that it sends out players (in the form of tailenders) who're totally ill-equipped to face the leading exponents of the form of fast bowling. If (say) Chris Martin was floored by a bouncer, recovers sufficiently to play on and the next ball he faces is a bouncer that's intimidation to my way of thinking and the umpire has a duty to intervene.

 

[GIMH]

I remember Jimmeh bouncing Chris Martin when we were playing in NZ last year. Some raged against it, others defended it.

 

[silentstriker]

Well no it isn't, because the rules say no, stay awake

Really? There is a rule to stop the team from declaring their innings? Or for the batsmen to simply get out on purpose (say hit their own wicket)? If you can't stand the heat, don't get out in the middle.

Ha, SS in "no concept of sportsmanship" non-shocker.

Blood on the pitch may have poetic overtones in the imagination, but I personally find the idea of a gallant but limited tailender being hurt distasteful. There's a clear safety issue here, surely?

The safety issue is only there because the batsman chooses to be there. He can walk in and hit his own wicket, and get out of the way. Or stay up in the pavillian, and have the captain declare the team innings.

Frankly, if you're going to count runs from that tailender the same way you would runs from the opening batsmen, then it makes no sense to treat the tailender differently. Runs are runs, and as the fielding team, if you can take tailender out and stop him from scoring runs, and you don't do it, you aren't trying to win the match. And what's more, if the tailender is a bowler (which they almost always are obviously), breaking their jaw or arm, bruising their ribs, etc can only help your team when its your turn to bat. It's a no brainer and a win-win situation for the bowling team. The batsman chooses to be out there. It's not like the bowler is going into the guy's home and forcing him to face up to the delivery. And it's not like they are bowling beamers. A bouncer is a perfectly legitimate cricket delivery.

Deal with it, or find a different sport I'd say.

 

[GIMH]

Really? There is a rule to stop the team from declaring their innings? Or for the batsmen to simply get out on purpose (say hit their own wicket)? If you can't stand the heat, don't get out in the middle.

There's a rule against bowling six bouncers an over at them....

 

[silentstriker]

I was speaking in general about bowling bouncers at all. I'm neutral about the changing of the law to allow more bouncers. I'm OK with it either way. If it's a safety issue bowling six bouncers, it's still the same issue bowling two at them. If I understood BoyBrumby correctly, he was speaking in general about deliveries that may cause harm to batsmen who are not technically capable of handing high class fast bowling.

 

[silentstriker]

I remember Jimmeh bouncing Chris Martin when we were playing in NZ last year. Some raged against it, others defended it.

Yea, I believe I defended Anderson at that time too, but I could be imagining that.