4th Test at the Gabba, Brisbane, 15 - 19 Jan 2021

[Spark]

If a bowler gets warned and then dragged for bowling 2 beamers, tbh doesn’t it make sense to apply the same logic to 3+ bouncers in an over? Might not fit our perceptions of what is dangerous (although bouncers plainly are, even if they are part of the game) but at least that can be logically and consistently applied

I just don't see how what Shardul served up there is more dangerous than like a half dozen Cummins spells at the tail. I understand they're applying the guidelines as they currently exist, but clearly the guidelines are not very fit for purpose then.

 

[Daemon]

Siraj playing 5D cricket. Didn't run him out because he wants Australia to bat longer.

 

[cnerd123]

Siraj playing 5D cricket. Didn't run him out because he wants Australia to bat longer.

didn't run him out cuz he wanted the 5-fer. Lacks the selflessness of Jaddu

 

[thierry henry]

Yep. Another reason the rule is silly

Silly? Surely the distinction is about protecting the head. We can argue that itself is silly (ribs and fingers break too) but I think the CTE horse has well and truly bolted.

 

[Starfighter]

Come on Pat, have a ding.

 

[honestbharani]

I believe you have just told me an outright lie, but I’m open to some evidence

Is GAS lying too? And I didn't see you post much here at all, and given you are most likely not watching much, if any, of this series, there is a good chance you are the one talking out of your ass here.

 

[thierry henry]

I just don't see how what Shardul served up there is more dangerous than like a half dozen Cummins spells at the tail. I understand they're applying the guidelines as they currently exist, but clearly the guidelines are not very fit for purpose then.

Because a bouncer can hit a bloke directly in the head and a ball at the ribs can’t.

We can all agree the Cummins spells are scarier but on balance surely you lean towards rules that can be consistently and objectively applied? Umpires effectively adjudicating on how good the short pitched bowling is would be really tricky.

 

[Spark]

Silly? Surely the distinction is about protecting the head. We can argue that itself is silly (ribs and fingers break too) but I think the CTE horse has well and truly bolted.

Oh no I definitely agree with that. It's the implementation that I question.

 

[Shri]

seems like a simple chase tomorrow

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Is GAS lying too? And I didn't see you post much here at all, and given you are most likely not watching much, if any, of this series, there is a good chance you are the one talking out of your ass here.

I have been involved in plenty enough shitfights of my own in recent times, please don't drag me into another one

 

[cnerd123]

Silly? Surely the distinction is about protecting the head. We can argue that itself is silly (ribs and fingers break too) but I think the CTE horse has well and truly bolted.

nah pretty sure it's been this way since well before CTE was a consideration at international cricket. Just a convenient way to apply law 41.6 at international level that doesn't require the umpire to make a judgement call regarding grey areas.

Frankly I think the way forward is to remove this law altogether at the Professional level and instead encourage teams to retire out tailenders who can't cope with short ball safely.

 

[Spark]

Because a bouncer can hit a bloke directly in the head and a ball at the ribs can’t.

We can all agree the Cummins spells are scarier but on balance surely you lean towards rules that can be consistently and objectively applied? Umpires effectively adjudicating on how good the short pitched bowling is would be really tricky.

Yeah that's fair. Does feel a perverse outcome though

 

[Spark]

Cummins isn't good enough to be turning down singles here.

 

[thierry henry]

Is GAS lying too? And I didn't see you post much here at all, and given you are most likely not watching much, if any, of this series, there is a good chance you are the one talking out of your ass here.

I have watched a ton of this series. You are the one making the bizarre accusation that the umpires have conspired to misjudge the height of Cummins’ deliveries throughout the series - or are you saying they forgot the rules?

 

[Burgey]

are you defining bouncer as above the shoulder of the batsman in his normal stance? Because a 3rd bouncer in an over would be called a no-ball. He's probably controlled them so they just get up to rib height, and thus officially don't get counted as a bouncer, but are more intimidatory than anything Thakur serves up.

That's what makes him so ****ing awesome

 

[Spark]

They should declare now. Shower due in about half an hour

 

[Bahnz]

Silly? Surely the distinction is about protecting the head. We can argue that itself is silly (ribs and fingers break too) but I think the CTE horse has well and truly bolted.

Tbh, if we're really worried about CTE we should probably be banning the bouncer all together and changing the rules/ball/pitches to maintain a balance between bowlers and batsmen. Tbh, I don't think it makes a huge difference if bowlers are restricted to bowling 1 in 3 balls at the batsmen's head or if they skirt the rules by aiming a couple at shoulder/armpit height - batsmen are still gonna duck and (sometimes) get hit, and it's gonna cause problems.

 

[Starfighter]

Cummins really doesn't know how to just have a swing.

 

[Burgey]

I just don't see how what Shardul served up there is more dangerous than like a half dozen Cummins spells at the tail. I understand they're applying the guidelines as they currently exist, but clearly the guidelines are not very fit for purpose then.

I haven't played for three years, and as well as he's bowled that wouldn't intimidate me at age 51.

 

[Starfighter]

Haze on the other hand