Does the law about intimidatory bowling need to change?

[Blenkinsop]

England and Australia have spent the last four days hurling bouncers at each other. England repeatedly bounced Nathan Lyon when he could barely stand. Jimmy Anderson was lucky to leave the crease today with nothing worse a few bruises. The umpires did nothing, presumably because according to the guidelines, a delivery only counts as "fast short-pitched bowling" if it gets above shoulder height.

This seems daft to me. The bowling on both sides clearly was intimidatory in practice, and probably all the more so because it was mostly thudding into arms and ribcages rather than sailing over the batsman's head.

Should we just ditch this law altogether now that batsmen have helmets? Or should the guidance be changed to acknowledge that bowling doesn't have to be above shoulder height to be intimidatory?

 

[loterry1994]

Don’t think so in general about the short stuff because both teams this test had trouble getting each other out while pitching it up on a hard pitch to bowl in and then turned to the short stuff and was very successful in getting wickets and reducing the run rate.

But really think they need to look at what is a wide in tests and also what counts as two bouncers for the over. I mean a lot of overs this test went way past the batsmen’s head and wasn’t called a wide or counted as a bouncer over the the head for the over. Then you got like 3-4 balls an over going way leg side of the batsman and tough to even get a bat on it

 

[TheJediBrah]

Maybe. Or at least the 2 bouncers an over rule needs to be enforced properly. Safety issue of course but also it's just bad cricket to watch

 

[Daemon]

They’ve got to start calling wides properly. So inconsistent this game.

 

[Spark]

They’ve got to start calling wides properly. So inconsistent this game.

the biggest myth in world cricket...

...is the test match wide, bouncers excluded. like, look at this ****: but sure, batsmen are definitely capable of playing a normal cricket shot to that.

www.cricketweb.net

 

[Spark]

Although I very mistakenly excluded bouncers from that complaint. I don't think the batsman could have physically reached some of the non-wides in this game without jumping in the air

England and Australia have spent the last four days hurling bouncers at each other. England repeatedly bounced Nathan Lyon when he could barely stand. Jimmy Anderson was lucky to leave the crease today with nothing worse a few bruises. The umpires did nothing, presumably because according to the guidelines, a delivery only counts as "fast short-pitched bowling" if it gets above shoulder height.

This seems daft to me. The bowling on both sides clearly was intimidatory in practice, and probably all the more so because it was mostly thudding into arms and ribcages rather than sailing over the batsman's head.

Should we just ditch this law altogether now that batsmen have helmets? Or should the guidance be changed to acknowledge that bowling doesn't have to be above shoulder height to be intimidatory?

As for this - intimidatory bowling only comes into play if it's clear that the short bowling isn't intended to get the batsman out, but just to hurt them. That wasn't the case in this game at all (and frankly it never is; short bowling is a legitimate and generally effective tactic to tailenders, though it can certainly backfire and is often overdone)

 

[mr_mister]

Did ODI sides kill test wides I wonder

Like were wides still called in tests regularly before the ODIs got real strict with the "anything an inch wide of leg" getting called a wide, then tests got more lenient to compensate then they just stopped getting called

 

[Owzat]

Don’t think so in general about the short stuff because both teams this test had trouble getting each other out while pitching it up on a hard pitch to bowl in and then turned to the short stuff and was very successful in getting wickets and reducing the run rate.

But really think they need to look at what is a wide in tests and also what counts as two bouncers for the over. I mean a lot of overs this test went way past the batsmen’s head and wasn’t called a wide or counted as a bouncer over the the head for the over. Then you got like 3-4 balls an over going way leg side of the batsman and tough to even get a bat on it

short doesn't necessarily mean intimidatory, I think there is something in the laws citing about the ability of the batsman so in the 1993 series you have to ask if the aussies peppering Caddick with short stuff because the frustrated them with resistance I'd argue was intimidatory

also does depend on the nature of the short stuff, a ball sailing over the batsman's head or short enough to sway out of the way is one thing, trying the "you miss, it hits" I would say does need to be looked at - funnily enough the bat isn't designed to play the ball when it is around your chest or throat region, might be if "batter" came hand in hand with a baseball bat and pitcher delivery ie where the ball when delivered is expected to be above waist high

 

[number11]

"Don't stop him Max".

If you know, you know.

 

[number11]

I would let bowlers bowl as many short balls as they wish. Things are far too loaded in the batsmens favour.

 

[Ashes81]

I would let bowlers bowl as many short balls as they wish. Things are far too loaded in the batsmens favour.

The key word in your post is batsmen. I have no problem with top order players facing 6 bouncers per over - they should have the ability to play it.

But lower order players aren't batsmen - they don't have the tools to deal with short pitched bowling aimed at their head.

It's obviously difficult to set laws on who is and who isn't a batsmen but it's a pretty hard watch when tailenders are bombarded with short pitched stuff.

 

[number11]

The key word in your post is batsmen. I have no problem with top order players facing 6 bouncers per over - they should have the ability to play it.

But lower order players aren't batsmen - they don't have the tools to deal with short pitched bowling aimed at their head.

It's obviously difficult to set laws on who is and who isn't a batsmen but it's a pretty hard watch when tailenders are bombarded with short pitched stuff.

It's part of the game. Lower order wickets are wickets and they have to learn to tough it out. Modern day players are soft. Brian Close was a true warrior - limited, but his courage in the face of Holding unleashing the dogs of hell gets him enormous credit. Let the game be fair to all and let wickets assist the quicks, let short balls be freely bowled and stop penalizing sledging.

 

[elianelian]

I don't think modern-day players are soft. I just mean the game has evolved, and players have adapted to new strategies) While Brian Close showed courage against fast bowlers like Michael Holding, it's essential to consider the changes in the game over time. I opt for promoting fair competition between bat and ball.

 

[sledger]

Allowing constant bouncers would only result in fielding sides just loading up the legside, and every ball either being a dot, a six, or a catch (i.e. cricket would basically just become baseball).

 

[Ashes81]

It's part of the game. Lower order wickets are wickets and they have to learn to tough it out. Modern day players are soft. Brian Close was a true warrior - limited, but his courage in the face of Holding unleashing the dogs of hell gets him enormous credit. Let the game be fair to all and let wickets assist the quicks, let short balls be freely bowled and stop penalizing sledging.

Close wasn't a limited batsmen in any sense of the word - he scored 30 odd thousands runs and over 50 centuries.

I'm talking about players who don't have the ability to play balls aimed to hurt them.

 

[Prince EWS]

Allowing constant bouncers would only result in fielding sides just loading up the legside, and every ball either being a dot, a six, or a catch (i.e. cricket would basically just become Bazball).

Fixed.

 

[Coronis]

If players don’t have the ability to play bouncers thats their fault. Its basically saying we should have one rule for good batsmen and another for **** batsmen.

Teams should be able to bowl the same amount of bouncers to a Viv Richards as a Chris Martin. If one can handle it and the other can’t, so be it.

 

[Himannv]

Increase the armour and bring on the short stuff!