Should the ICC drop the two bouncer law?

[Goughy]

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 (whcih 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.

I dont like the way you phrased that. I have no issues with tailenders getting a bouncer to keep them honest and keep them on the back foot to make the stumps exposed. As an ex-fast bowler (I have come to terms with the ex part) the idea of bouncing tailenders repeatedly is sickening. I (and I expect others) to be better than that. Where is the fun? where is the challenge? what is the point? It is over the top bullying for the sake of bullying. That isnt sport. Like fishing with dynamite. If that is what you want to do then find a different sport I'd say.

The intentional hurting of opposition bowlers in order to prevent them bowling is a) unacceptable in the laws of cricket b) unacceptable ethically and most importantly c) illegal in the eyes of the law.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Jenner was not a rabbit but this was an ugly incident

The John Snow Incident

Peter Lever nearly killed Ewen Chatfield circa 1975. Chatfield would have been primo #11 quality at the time. Lever was very contrite, obviously. The fast bowlers club didn't apply all the time.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

Would respectfully suggest it's you who should find another sport. You seem to be confusing cricket with a martial art. I'd hope very few bowlers actually want to hurt the opposition. This was John Lever's reaction after he'd sconed Ewen Chatfield and the brave NZ tailender swallowed his tongue and stopped breathing:

Doesn't look overjoyed to helped his team to victory by incapacitating the Naenae Express, does he?

 

[Goughy]

Getting back to the rule. I dont think the reason the rule should stay is due to safety reasons.

Batsmen are pretty well protected and I have no issue with 6 bouncers bowled at top order players.

However, the reason the rule should stay is due to scoring rates. It was far too easy to bowl 6 head high bouncers to stop the opposition scoring.

It can be used as a negative tactic to slow scoring and not give the batsman anything to hit. Maybe with the stricter wide rules this would not be as much of an issue as was in the past. However, it was heavily abused previously.

 

[silentstriker]

I dont like the way you phrased that. I have no issues with tailenders getting a bouncer to keep them honest and keep them on the back foot to make the stumps exposed. As an ex-fast bowler (I have come to terms with the ex part) the idea of bouncing tailenders repeatedly is sickening. I (and I expect others) to be better than that. Where is the fun? where is the challenge? what is the point? It is over the top bullying for the sake of bullying. That isnt sport. Like fishing with dynamite. If that is what you want to do then find a different sport I'd say.

Well, there are two issues. One, I think it's your job to take your wickets. If you think bowling a bouncer once and then bowling a fast yorker is the best way to do it, then that's what you should do. If on the other hand, you think repeated bouncers are the best way to achieve that goal, then there should not be anything ethically wrong with that. Your job is to win the match.

The intentional hurting of opposition bowlers in order to prevent them bowling is a) unacceptable in the laws of cricket b) unacceptable ethically and most importantly c) illegal in the eyes of the law.

Yes, I could have phrased it better. I should have said, if the batsmen gets hurt while you are bowling legitimate deliveries (e.g a bouncer, not a beamer), then I don't see anything wrong with that. The batsmen knows which types of deliveries are legitimate when he comes out to bat. If he is not willing to accept the fact that he may face those deliveries, he should not be out there.

I wouldn't want to go out in the middle with Malcolm Marshall bowling at me because I'm not willing to take that risk. I know I'll miss his bouncers, and my face won't be nearly as pretty. And that's if I'm lucky. If on the other hand, I decide to go out there anyway, and I cop one in the jaw and it breaks, that's not his fault - that's the risk I took and that's the deal. You can't blame the defensive player in the NFL if you get a concussion from a legitimate tackle.

Against the laws of the game would be purposeful bowling of beamers, like Sreesanth did to KP in England. That's wrong. Bowling bouncers is not.

Would respectfully suggest it's you who should find another sport.

Not saying you as a viewer should find another sport, meant that a player should play another sport if they don't want to take the risk of getting hurt by a cricket ball while playing cricket.

 

[Goughy]

To be fair to Lever (who I got to know a bit a long time ago), Chatfield did hit that ball. Obviously that doesnt change the emotion people feel when they think they may have killed someone.

 

[Goughy]

Against the laws of the game would be purposeful bowling of beamers, like Sreesanth did to KP in England. That's wrong. Bowling bouncers is not.

Do you know the laws?

42.5.1 The bowling of fast short pitched balls is unfair if in the
opinion of the umpire at the bowler’s end he considers that by
their repetition and taking into account their length, height and
direction, they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker,
irrespective of the protective clothing and equipment he may be
wearing. The relative skill of the striker shall also be taken into
consideration.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, I know also that the umpires can invoke the intimidation clause. That clause is way too general. Let's say if I was a hypothetical top order Indian batsman who had never faced a bowler at 140kph+. All of a sudden, Brett Lee bowls a 160kph bouncer at me, and I am unable to technically handle it. Does that fact mean that clause should be invoked? I clearly may not have the technical ability. If that same situation happened and I was a player batting at nine, it would be invoked?

The fact is that it is invoked so rarely is because it's pretty much irrelevent. I don't believe it was invoked even when Chris Martin was bowled a nasty bouncer by Anderson. If you're not going to invoke it for Martin, you're not ever going to invoke it.

 

[GIMH]

The law states 'repetition' - Jimmeh only bowled the one IIRC, then Vaughan put about thirteen slips in after that

 

[BoyBrumby]

To be fair to Lever (who I got to know a bit a long time ago), Chatfield did hit that ball. Obviously that doesnt change the emotion people feel when they think they may have killed someone.

Lever's reaction was the point I was trying to get across to SS to show that some things are more important than winning. When the enormity of the situation hit him the poor guy was clearly distraught, but if one took SS's position it'd be a job well done; Chatfield wasn't playing on after that any time soo.

 

[silentstriker]

The law states 'repetition' - Jimmeh only bowled the one IIRC, then Vaughan put about thirteen slips in after that

If that rule came into play, the ball would have been a no ball, and Anderson would have been given a first warning.

42.5.1 The bowling of fast short pitched balls is unfair if in the
opinion of the umpire at the bowler’s end he considers that by
their repetition and taking into account their length, height and
direction, they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker,
irrespective of the protective clothing and equipment he may be
wearing. The relative skill of the striker shall also be taken into
consideration.
42.5.2 In the event of such unfair bowling, the umpire at the bowler’s
end shall adopt the following procedure:
a In the first instance the umpire shall call and signal no
ball, caution the bowler and inform the other umpire,
the captain of the fielding side and the batsmen of what
has occurred.
b If this caution is ineffective, he shall repeat the above
procedure and indicate to the bowler that this is a
final warning.

 

[Goughy]

The fact is that it is invoked so rarely is because it's pretty much irrelevent. I don't believe it was invoked even when Chris Martin was bowled a nasty bouncer by Anderson. If you're not going to invoke it for Martin, you're not ever going to invoke it.

It is rarely invoked because people dont do it. Though you obviously dont recall the Aaqid Javed and Devon Malcolm incident

 

[Goughy]

If that rule came into play, the ball would have been a no ball, and Anderson would have been given a first warning.

No. It would have been a no-ball if, after their repetition, they were deemed unfair.

Clearly 1 isnt unfair.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually, my apologies - you are right. It is repetition. So one delivery that knocks off their head is OK, I guess you just have to hope it works the first time.

I wonder when that rule was last invoked in Tests.

 

[silentstriker]

Though you obviously dont recall the Aaqid Javed and Devon Malcolm incident

A bit before my adult cricket watching days.

 

[Goughy]

A bit before my adult cricket watching days.

Not before mine and it was a disgrace

 

[Pratters]

Would respectfully suggest it's you who should find another sport. You seem to be confusing cricket with a martial art. I'd hope very few bowlers actually want to hurt the opposition. This was John Lever's reaction after he'd sconed Ewen Chatfield and the brave NZ tailender swallowed his tongue and stopped breathing:

Doesn't look overjoyed to helped his team to victory by incapacitating the Naenae Express, does he?

Point well made.

 

[Pratters]

There have been exceptions to the rule though. Wasn't there a famous fast bowler who infamously said that he liked to hurt batsmen? Can't remember who it was. The exceptions would be a v v v small minority though, must be said.

 

[silentstriker]

Not before mine and it was a disgrace

I've never seen that footage, just read superficially about it. I won't comment until I see it, but was he bowling the same deliveries he would to a top order batsmen?

 

[Pratters]

West Indies was bowling bouncers to Venkatapathy Raju in the early 90s and I remember it vividly. It was ugly and distasteful to watch despite the helmet.