Should the ICC drop the two bouncer law?

[silentstriker]

Late surge by the SS Brigade.

 

[Sanz]

No, there is no law of cricket which says that a short-leg fielder must be placed - it's entirely optional. There is however a law which states that all eleven batsman must bat barring a declaration.

So there is an option, right ? Actually I see no difference in these two situations.

 

[Richard]

There is a World of difference. I'm not however going to bother going through it again, as I've already done so.

 

[Uppercut]

No, there is no law of cricket which says that a short-leg fielder must be placed - it's entirely optional. There is however a law which states that all eleven batsman must bat barring a declaration.

There's a law stating that all eleven batsmen must bat. Unless they decide not to bat. So really, it's not a law at all.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, you might as well have a law stating that you must have a short-leg unless you decide not to. Or that you must go out to field with an albatross on your shoulder - unless you decide not to.

 

[Goughy]

Lets make something clear and understood. Protective equipment is designed to protect the batsman and reduce injury. It in no way makes batsmen fair game for any onslaught or give the bowlers carte blanche to attack tailenders.

This is completely against the point of wearing protection to protect.

Has it made batting easier? Of course and of course it is not as dangerous as before to give a tailender a bumper. Im not against the practice in small doeses but the argument of targeting tailenders because they are wearing 'armour' is nonsensical.

 

[Sanz]

Is it fair that the same tailender with the ball in his hand should be allowed to attack batsmen with the deliveries he himself seeks protection against ? TBH the injury (to tailenders ) from Bouncers is being overstated here. When was the last time a tailender war injured from a Bouncer or are we saying that a tailender is more precious than top order batsmen ?


YouTube - Shoaib Akthar bouncer Kirsten bleeding oww

YouTube - Shoaib Akhtar Bouncer Brian Lara

YouTube - Shoaib Akthar Bouncer Ganguly Floored

YouTube - Ponting hit by Steve Harmison bouncer

 

[Richard]

Is it fair that the same tailender with the ball in his hand should be allowed to attack batsmen with the deliveries he himself seeks protection against ?

So in short it's fair for a rank-rabbit bowler to be bounced by a batsman who can get the ball down at 65 mph at best and consequently never bowls? Yeah, pretty much.

Bit different to the question of proper-bowler-vs-rank-rabbit though.

 

[Richard]

There's a law stating that all eleven batsmen must bat. Unless they decide not to bat. So really, it's not a law at all.

Yeah, you might as well have a law stating that you must have a short-leg unless you decide not to. Or that you must go out to field with an albatross on your shoulder - unless you decide not to.

Regardless of any legal stipulation, the way is and always has been that even rank rabbits bat. There is absolutely no way on Earth that the short-leg position is remotely comparable.

 

[Uppercut]

Regardless of any legal stipulation, the way is and always has been that even rank rabbits bat. There is absolutely no way on Earth that the short-leg position is remotely comparable.

Well the fact that they have the option to get out of the kitchen if they can't stand the heat is certainly relevant. You can't make the other team stay in the field with an infuriating last-wicket partnership then expect the umpires to step in if they start trying a little bit "too" hard to get your last batsmen out.

 

[Richard]

No-one's suggesting that. If an infuriating last-wicket partnership is developing, then by definition the chance of a rank rabbit facing any significant number of deliveries is exceptionally remote. The absolute last thing any bowling side wants to do is waste what few deliveries they're getting at said rank rabbit by bowling short, because short balls almost never take wickets.

Infuriating last-wicket stands generally involve either a semi-decent number-eleven or a top-order batsman who's manipulating the strike with extraordinary skill.

The point I'm making has no relevance whatsoever to last-wicket stands.

 

[silentstriker]

Hypothetically, let's say there is an opener out and you know he has hurt himself fielding and is hurting at the ribs. Do you, as an opening bowler, target that area?

 

[Sanz]

So in short it's fair for a rank-rabbit bowler to be bounced by a batsman who can get the ball down at 65 mph at best and consequently never bowls? Yeah, pretty much.

Bit different to the question of proper-bowler-vs-rank-rabbit though.

Law should be same for everyone, only then it can be fair.

 

[fredfertang]

Hypothetically, let's say there is an opener out and you know he has hurt himself fielding and is hurting at the ribs. Do you, as an opening bowler, target that area?

Depends whether he's Gordon Greenidge

... but seriously I would think the ideal is to make him believe you're going to and then concentrate on his stumps

 

[Richard]

Hypothetically, let's say there is an opener out and you know he has hurt himself fielding and is hurting at the ribs. Do you, as an opening bowler, target that area?

I'd say to do that is pretty poor form, on a personal level. On a professional level it's hard to be quite so critical, but I'd also say that a batsman who has a potentially nasty injury has a responsibility to himself to not bat if neccessary and realise that a game is just a game.

 

[Richard]

Law should be same for everyone, only then it can be fair.

Not really. In the same way that a child under 10 years of age cannot be liable for criminal offences in England and Wales (it's 8 in Scotland), some laws have to recognise that not all are equal.

 

[Sanz]

Not really. In the same way that a child under 10 years of age cannot be liable for criminal offences in England and Wales (it's 8 in Scotland), some laws have to recognise that not all are equal.

When both parties are adults and able to participate in the same activity, the law has to be same. Besides It was the cricket law that was being discussed not Criminal law.

 

[silentstriker]

Depends whether he's Gordon Greenidge

... but seriously I would think the ideal is to make him believe you're going to and then concentrate on his stumps

But that's not what I asked. I asked if it would be legal/ethical/allowed. Because if it's not legal, then obviously the batsman won't worry about you bowling there in the first place.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well the fact that they have the option to get out of the kitchen if they can't stand the heat is certainly relevant. You can't make the other team stay in the field with an infuriating last-wicket partnership then expect the umpires to step in if they start trying a little bit "too" hard to get your last batsmen out.

With respect, a sustained spell of short-pitched bowling isn't trying to get a rank tailend batsman out at all, much less "trying a little bit too hard". At the risk of repeating myself, genuine #11s won't have the ability to lay bat on a decent bouncer and, by definition, the ball won't hit the stumps, so such bowling to players unable to defend themselves against it is nothing more than deliberate intimidation.

 

[Richard]

When both parties are adults and able to participate in the same activity, the law has to be same.

Not really either, there are different laws governing, for example, the activities of goalkeepers and outfield players in football (soccer). Sometimes, laws of a game must recognise that not all are equal.

Besides It was the cricket law that was being discussed not Criminal law.

Not really, the phrase used was "law should be the same for everyone". That's as impractical in cricket law as it is in criminal law.