***Official*** 4th Test at the MCG

[Spark]

So is this rule only in place for when the match is "obviously" won? What about in the first innings of the game, does it apply there? If the 9th or 10th wicket partnership grows to any significant size, what about then? What if the match is obviously over and it's the last day, but there's rain around and the fielding side is clearly anxious to get the job done?

Arbitrarily enforced rules only applied by inherently inconsistent judgment calls are the sort of things which drive people into a rage in sport. The less of them the better.

 

[Spikey]

So is this rule only in place for when the match is "obviously" won? What about in the first innings of the game, does it apply there? If the 9th or 10th wicket partnership grows to any significant size, what about then? What if the match is obviously over and it's the last day, but there's rain around and the fielding side is clearly anxious to get the job done?

Arbitrarily enforced rules only applied by inherently inconsistent judgment calls are the sort of things which drive people into a rage in sport. The less of them the better.

I refer you back to "common sense" which will drive you into a rage, but the existing rule is basically built on that, so if they're keeping that just add another consideration for the match situation and back the umpire to call it when it should be and leave it when it shouldn't be. Carry a big stick and all that. Or remove the rule. One way or another the rule needs to be cleaned up to reflect how the game is played and umpired in 2017

 

[Spark]

I refer you back to "common sense" which will drive you into a rage, but the existing rule is basically built on that, so if they're keeping that just add another consideration for the match situation and back the umpire to call it when it should be and leave it when it shouldn't be. Carry a big stick and all that. Or remove the rule. One way or another the rule needs to be cleaned up to reflect how the game is played and umpired in 2017

I mean the rule clearly should be removed, because it's completely unenforeable without making the game a total farce.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I'm not an expert on the Laws of Cricket but from what I was watching, the two bouncer rule seemed to be ignored whenever Cummins was bowling.

 

[Top_Cat]

Cricket had a clear rule, easily enforced, in the early 90's; the one bouncer per over per batsman rule. Everyone hated it and it was clearly targeting one team but it didn't result in tail-enders smashing tons or more 4th dig draws at 9-down or whatever so the idea it'll make the game boring isn't really borne out by experience, even if tailenders probably bat better these days.

How much to protect tailenders isn't an easy question. Is context, pitch and batsman specific. There will be subjectivity because having any enforceable totally fair rule that everyone nods their heads at is probably impossible.

 

[TNT]

I refer you back to "common sense" which will drive you into a rage, but the existing rule is basically built on that, so if they're keeping that just add another consideration for the match situation and back the umpire to call it when it should be and leave it when it shouldn't be. Carry a big stick and all that. Or remove the rule. One way or another the rule needs to be cleaned up to reflect how the game is played and umpired in 2017

The laws of cricket cover not only test matches, club matches and other minor competitions are covered by the laws and in these situations the umpire could apply these rules because of the skill level. But at test match level it becomes a bit irrelevant as the players are elite players that are playing at an elite level where the skill base is much higher. If Anderson has problems facing short pitched balls then he has some of the best batting coaches in england available to him so he can sort the problem out. We dont need to dumb down test cricket so that Anderson can ignore his responsibility to add a bit of spine to the england tail. A good example is McGrath, as useless as he was with the bat at least he made the effort to improve and put some value on his wicket. Anderson needs to improve his batting not because of this law but because he could at some stage be required to bring his team home in a tight match.

 

[Spikey]

in any case there's a thing called the ICC playing conditions which I thought went without saying is what would be changed around if changes were made

also anderson has a higher test score than mcgrath and saved a test match which ended up basically winning england the 2009 ashes so thanks champ

 

[TNT]

also anderson has a higher test score than mcgrath and saved a test match which ended up basically winning england the 2009 ashes so thanks champ

So that removes any consideration the umpires would have on the skill level of Anderson the batsman and effectively make the umpires decision correct.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Post-Hughes, Cricket is in a sort of denial on bouncers. A lot of the cricketers who use it lie also, about ''not wanting to hurt anyone'' which is blatantly bollocks when you are aiming a ball at someone's head! The problem is, nothing gets a cricket fan excited more than fast bowling and express bowlers have been unbelievably romanticised over the years - especially the West Indians of the late-70s -1980s and Lillee-Thomson.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Is it always a coincidence that majority of the time it is English players(former or current) and media that have complaints about the short ball....and it always seems to come out during series losses. Please man up.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Is it always a coincidence that majority of the time it is English players(former or current) and media that have complaints about the short ball....and it always seems to come out during series losses. Please man up.

I'm not sure I agree. The Australians kicked up a hell of a fuss on Bodyline, didn't they, and I remember a lot of stuff in the Australian media when Phil Hughes was killed by a projectile deliberately sent hurtling towards his head that we call a ''cricket delivery'' in this strange sport? I'm not sure I'd ever say to someone ''man up'' after that tragedy.

Too many people enjoy jizzing themselves silly over youtube clips of Holding v Boycott and Mitchell Johnson in 2013 have a distorted view on bouncers.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

I'm not sure I agree. The Australians kicked up a hell of a fuss on Bodyline, didn't they, and I remember a lot of stuff in the Australian media when Phil Hughes was killed by a projectile deliberately sent hurtling towards his head that we call a ''cricket delivery'' in this strange sport? I'm not sure I'd ever say to someone ''man up'' after that tragedy.

Too many people enjoy jizzing themselves silly over youtube clips of Holding v Boycott and Mitchell Johnson in 2013 have a distorted view on bouncers.

Whether you agree or not majority of condemnation has always come from the English during losing causes...and I see you bring up the late Phil (who enjoyed gritting it out if need be with never a complaint) Nobody likes to see a death on the field but most cricketers and spectators in the modern era who are not English seem accept the short ball and deal with it whether they kop it or not. Why is it always a issue when England are targeted ask yourself that question.

 

[Compton]

I don’t think the idea of a tailender that is incapable of playing the bouncer is all that relevant in 2017.

James Anderson has an 81 in Test Cricket. He can play the short ball.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Whether you agree or not majority of condemnation has always come from the English during losing causes...and I see you bring up the late Phil (who enjoyed gritting it out if need be with never a complaint) Nobody likes to see a death on the field but most cricketers and spectators in the modern era who are not English seem accept the short ball and deal with it whether they kop it or not. Why is it always a issue when England are targeted ask yourself that question.

This is not true though, otherwise Australia wouldn't have made such an ordeal over Bodyline. I also seem to remember most of the teams, not just England, kicking up a stink about the West Indian quartet. Also, what about that Australian ''whinging'' over John Snow's delivery to Jenner?

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is not true though, otherwise Australia wouldn't have made such an ordeal over Bodyline. I also seem to remember most of the teams, not just England, kicking up a stink about the West Indian quartet. Also, what about that Australian ''whinging'' over John Snow's delivery to Jenner?

Comparing any of this to bodyline is absurdly ignorant. And you've done it twice now.

 

[Furball]

No issue with the odd well directed bouncer at a tail ender; if you can smack him on the head/upper body then you'll likely mess up his already mediocre footwork which is why the smart thing is to follow it up with something full.

A bouncer barrage aimed at tail enders is not on and is something that needs enforced.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Comparing any of this to bodyline is absurdly ignorant. And you've done it twice now.

The proposition is the English complain about fast bowling when they have been defeated?

Bodyline: Australians complain about fast bowling.
John Snow v Jenner: Australians complain about fast bowling
West Indies, '80s: Australians complain about fast bowling (as do Englishmen)
Phil Hughes: huge domestic issue in Australia which went beyond cricket, involving much criticism of (drum roll) fast bowling

Conclusion: Australians complain also about fast bowling.

 

[Burgey]

Spikey, I love you man but get in the nets and fix your back foot game ffs

 

[stephen]

I think that the law, in its current state is quite useless.

The two bouncer limit is fine. Other than a beamer, how do you define a dangerous delivery? Because ultimately a well-directed bouncer is inherently dangerous, especially with the clause about protective equipment being ignored.

So should we ban short pitched bowling and take that spectacle out of the sport, like the pitches in the subcontinent do? No. We live with the very slight risk. If a batter is facing the ball when they are struck and are wearing a helmet, the worst they will cop is a concussion. Getting hit in the heart is FAR more dangerous because that can cause an immediate cardiac arrest. But if we're to eliminate that risk we'd basically have to ban balls that went much above waist height.

The reason for the Phil Hughes tragedy was because Hughes was playing a shot, his head was turned which exposed the back of his neck. It wasn't the delivery that was dangerous but where it hit the batsman and the angle the ball struck him.

The only case where bouncers should be restricted is against batsmen so clueless that a half volley will get them out ala Chris Martin.

 

[Gnske]

I changed my mind on this actually, this is like a problem in rugby. For years I've seen halfbacks, hookers etc. get hammered by the big forwards and second rowers even though they're smaller fellas who can't take hits as well and generally have problems tackling themselves. Frankly, I've always thought that tackling them just as hard or running into them just as hard as anyone else on the park is absolutely pissweak thuggery, and this is no different. It's not fair at all.