Should the ICC drop the two bouncer law?

[G.I.Joe]

Definitely need to relax the laws that punish hookers.

 

[G.I.Joe]

A bit before my adult cricket watching days.

You had to watch tele tubby cricket until you were 18 too?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Two things - think it's really disingenuous and to bring into the argument incidents where tail-enders were hit in pre-helmet and pre-professional days. It's smacks of a emotionalism especially since I don't think they're analogous any more. Sure, with all the protection these days Alex Tudor got hit but that was Brett Lee who hit him - so fast, I doubt any batsman would have been able to avoid that bouncer (or with the addition of a lot of luck) plus Tudor could bat so he doesn't really count as a bunny who needs protection from rules or umpires, in my view. Was an isolated incident, not a sustained barrage of intimidatory bowling he should be saved from because he doesn't bat as well as others in his team.

Second, while we're on the topic of protecting bunnies (of which there are far fewer these days), with better bats, far (far) better protection, better coaching, greater professionalism in the game, etc. I would dispute that any batters need nor should be protected any more. If you can't handle it, find another job (which, sorry, it is). Or get better which is, as I said, what tail-enders have been doing for years now anyway. Tail-enders just aren't the same any more, most can bat and shouldn't be protected because they bat between 8-11 in the order.

Put it this way; with all the Tests tail-enders have scored runs in of late (check any recent scorecard), there's no way they should be protected. If the rule is to go, apply the concept of 'intimidatory bowling' equally to all batters or don't bother. It's a profession, FFS.

I think there's a difference between lower order batsmen (which would include Tudor and Morne Morkel who wore won on the chin from Onions in our current test) and outright ferrets like Chris Martin or Fidel Edwards. I don't just define tailenders by their batting position. Stuart Clark, for instance, has played 11 for Oz, but obviously isn't rank hopeless.

& cricket might be a profession, but guys like Martin obviously aren't earning their living with their batting prowess. It's a peculiarity of cricket amongst professional sport that it makes blokes who're totally out of their depth in the required skillset face up to such a physical challenge. Body armour or not there must be some duty of care on the officials' part to protect overmatched batsmen from the bowler and moreover themselves. After all boxing referees step in when a boxer is absorbing too much punishment and is unable to defend himself.

That, to me, is crazy. That's just having more ability. I guess we'll just disagree here.

That's the trouble with a hypothetical. I can't actually see a situation where a bowler would have 10 opposition players continuously retired hurt, but if there was something would surely have to be done? Bodyline could be effectively countered if the batsman had the nerve and the eye, but because it was potentially dangerous the laws of the game were changed. If your hypothetcal seamer was literally cutting a swathe through the opposition I've little doubt the authorities would step in.

 

[Uppercut]

& cricket might be a profession, but guys like Martin obviously aren't earning their living with their batting prowess. It's a peculiarity of cricket amongst professional sport that it makes blokes who're totally out of their depth in the required skillset face up to such a physical challenge. Body armour or not there must be some duty of care on the officials' part to protect overmatched batsmen from the bowler and moreover themselves. After all boxing referees step in when a boxer is absorbing too much punishment and is unable to defend himself.

No one forces them to bat tbf. If Chris Martin isn't good enough to face the opposition bowling, then New Zealand should just declare at 9 down. What about Fidel Edwards? He bowls some of the most lethal bouncers going. Should he be spared the same treatment he dishes out to everyone else on account of him being crapper at batting than they are?

 

[BoyBrumby]

No one forces them to bat tbf. If Chris Martin isn't good enough to face the opposition bowling, then New Zealand should just declare at 9 down. What about Fidel Edwards? He bowls some of the most lethal bouncers going. Should he be spared the same treatment he dishes out to everyone else on account of him being crapper at batting than they are?

You're just being silly now. No professional cricket worth his salt would ever refuse to face up to any bowler. Even Tufnell, who was about as windy a batsman as I saw, used to come out with two armguards and edge backwards towards leg. Blokes like Martin (turd but game) should be looked after to save them from themselves as much as any quick.

It's a moot point anyway because, as others have shown, the legislation is already in place.

 

[silentstriker]

Save them from themselves? That's like saying if I chose to get into the ring with Mike Tyson, it's him that's responsible for my safety. When you decide to step into the ring, you forfeit your right not to be hit in the jaw.

 

[Uppercut]

Of course they will, but the fact that they're free not to is pretty significant. If you're going to put yourself in the line of fire you can't complain if you're hit.

EDIT: Or what SS said.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Save them from themselves? That's like saying if I chose to get into the ring with Mike Tyson, it's him that's responsible for my safety. When you decide to step into the ring, you forfeit your right not to be hit in the jaw.

Already way ahead of you:

After all boxing referees step in when a boxer is absorbing too much punishment and is unable to defend himself.

It's the authorities who have a duty of care here.

 

[Uppercut]

Already way ahead of you:



It's the authorities who have a duty of care here.

Haha but the boxer forfeits the match when the referee steps in! He doesn't just tell the other boxer to not hit so hard anymore. It's the equivalent of the umpire giving a tail-ender out when he feels they're in danger.

 

[silentstriker]

Right, if the referee felt the batsman in danger, and gave him out so he wouldn't have to face any more dangerous deliveries, that would be one thing - but to tell the other guy not to bowl his best or fastest makes little sense to me.

As Uppercut said, it would be like the ref, instead of calling the fight, merely tells the other boxer to punch a little slower so the other guy has a chance to move out of the way.

 

[GIMH]

Comparing a boxing match to a tailender going out to bat is an awful analogy

 

[silentstriker]

It's about being professional cricketers, and dealing the risks that are inherent to the sport. If Marshall came to my backyard and were bowling to me, it's one thing if I tell him not to take my head off, but to say that in a Test match is ludicrous.

 

[GIMH]

As someone said earlier in the thread, what's the point when you're not going to get them out with a bouncer? Just bowl them a yorker FFS.

 

[silentstriker]

Bedi did that (declare his innings) in Kingston in 1976 against what he thought was intimidatory bowling by the West Indies. That's his right, and New Zealand can do that when Martin comes to bat. But if I were the bowling side, I'd redouble my efforts with the short ball if I knew that the opposing captain will merely declare his innings because they aren't good enough to face me.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Exactly, it's not like there's a full-on moratorium on bouncers. If you want to get the batsman thinking about the bouncer, put in a leg gully and bowl two in a row, then a yorker. You don't need to bowl an over's worth to get him out.

 

[silentstriker]

Exactly, it's not like there's a full-on moratorium on bouncers. If you want to get the batsman thinking about the bouncer, put in a leg gully and bowl two in a row, then a yorker. You don't need to bowl an over's worth to get him out.

We're talking about even bowling two to a batsman who can't handle it - like Chris Martin, not necessarily changing the rules and bowling six. People here seem to be saying you shouldn't even bowl two at them.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Haha but the boxer forfeits the match when the referee steps in! He doesn't just tell the other boxer to not hit so hard anymore. It's the equivalent of the umpire giving a tail-ender out when he feels they're in danger.

No, that's true, but it's also true that the primary objective of boxing is to render one's opponent incapable of being unable to be ready to continue after a count of ten. Despite this, if a boxer is being hurt the ref can step in.

In cricket the bowling side's main objective is to take the batsman's wicket, however much SS seems to wish it were otherwise. A sustained barrage against rank tailenders isn't attempting to take their wicket it's intimidation and, as the law against it already exists, I don't see how what I'm suggesting is particularly out there.

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe a specific tailender is more vulnerable to a few bouncers and then a yorker. Or maybe the opposing captain is Bedi and he'll declare his innings 5 down.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Maybe a specific tailender is more vulnerable to a few bouncers and then a yorker.

He may well be in a physical sense, but I don't see how he'd be more likely to get out. V few specialist #11s have a hook to play, even & I doubt they'd be good enough to get their backward defensive shot anywhere near the ball, so it'd just be a question of him not getting hit by whatever means.

Or maybe the opposing captain is Bedi and he'll declare his innings 5 down.

Would suggest he was obviously making a point about the intimdatory nature of the bowling

 

[silentstriker]

He was, and from the PoV of the West Indies, it was fantastic. From their point of view, hopefully, he'll try to make the point again next match.