Should the ICC drop the two bouncer law?

[Lillian Thomson]

Andy Roberts had the right idea. In the West Indies tour match against the University in 1976 he let the then young unknown Peter Roebuck have a bouncer and hit the target leaving him with a black eye and bloody nose. He retired hurt and then when he resumed his innings Roberts let him have another bouncer first ball that knocked his cap off.

It's only funny in retrospect because Roebuck turned out to be such a tit.

 

[silentstriker]

If I were a bowler, and I break McGrath's ribs, or his arm, I've put my team in a significantly better position to win when it's our turn to bat.

That's not unfair. McGrath has an easy way to remedy that situation next time if he doesn't want to give the other side that chance. Don't come out and declare your innings.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If I were a bowler, and I break McGrath's ribs, or his arm, I've put my team in a significantly better position to win when it's our turn to bat.

The likelihood of achieving those injuries would be fairly slim and the attempt might just leave him a tad miffed when it's his to bowl - and revenge could be sweet. McGrath's a bad example because he's not a quick bowler but the principle remains the same for the genuine quicks.

 

[Richard]

Serious injuries are exceptionally rare - if they weren't the risks would quite properly be addressed by the lawmakers - on the other hand if you remove all risk the game becomes sterile

Hmm, don't agree there TBH. I watch cricket because I enjoy seeing bowlers try to get batsmen out, not for anything remotely related to the risk of injury. Always hate seeing injuries, at any given juncture.

as for setting out to cause injury I'm not convinced, whatever Jeff Thomson said, or others have said about Sylvester Clarke/Charlie Griffith/Colin Croft etc that they or anybody else has actually been cricket's equivalent of Roy Keane

That'd depend, I suppose, on how far they'd have to go to become Keane's equivalent. If one actually believes that there have never been times when Thomson, Clarke etc. - as well as many others - have run-up with the sole intention of trying to hurt the batsman then I think they're kidding themselves. I will always find such intention reprehensible myself.

 

[Richard]

If I were a bowler, and I break McGrath's ribs, or his arm, I've put my team in a significantly better position to win when it's our turn to bat.

That's not unfair. McGrath has an easy way to remedy that situation next time if he doesn't want to give the other side that chance. Don't come out and declare your innings.

If that solution were a more accepted way of doing things then yeah, that'd be fine, but it isn't. The way cricket has always been "done" is that rank-rabbit tailenders are expected to bat and bowlers are expected to not attempt to inflict injury on them. If teams declared to protect their rabbits that'd be fine - and there has been an occasional example of sides doing thus. However, such a situation would to me represent borderline anarchy.

 

[silentstriker]

The likelihood of achieving those injuries would be fairly slim and the attempt might just leave him a tad miffed when it's his to bowl - and revenge could be sweet.

And that's fine too. That's the risk you take. And maybe that's why you don't do it to a quick bowler. But that's the point - it'll be handled by the teams themselves. There is no point in making it illegal.

 

[fredfertang]

Hmm, don't agree there TBH. I watch cricket because I enjoy seeing bowlers try to get batsmen out, not for anything remotely related to the risk of injury. Always hate seeing injuries, at any given juncture.

Not disputing that but its the old making omelettes without cracking eggs comment - play the game with a tennis ball and .....................................

 

[Jono]

Did anyone have a problem with Australia's continuous short bowling to Asif, Rauf and particularly Ajmal?

All 3 were bunnies (especially Ajmal who was taking his eye off the ball a lot) but it was a legitimate way to get wickets. And they were facing constant bouncers, like 3-4 balls at least chest high per over.

Legitimate stuff to me.

 

[Uppercut]

The likelihood of achieving those injuries would be fairly slim and the attempt might just leave him a tad miffed when it's his to bowl - and revenge could be sweet. McGrath's a bad example because he's not a quick bowler but the principle remains the same for the genuine quicks.

That's true. But for every genuine quick it's a bad idea to rile there are several Daren Powells who are guaranteed to offer you several sets of five wides over the keeper's head for every bouncer you bowl at them.

 

[Richard]

Not disputing that but its the old making omelettes without cracking eggs comment - play the game with a tennis ball and .....................................

And a good length becomes head-high bounce.

"Tennis-ball bounce" is something of an under-exaggeration. The amount of extra bounce you get with a tennis-ball compared to a cricket-ball is extraordinary.

 

[Top_Cat]

Did anyone have a problem with Australia's continuous short bowling to Asif, Rauf and particularly Ajmal?

All 3 were bunnies (especially Ajmal who was taking his eye off the ball a lot) but it was a legitimate way to get wickets. And they were facing constant bouncers, like 3-4 balls at least chest high per over.

Legitimate stuff to me.

Yeah, if a guy is backing away like Rauf was, that's not the cue for the bowler to back off or the umpire to step in.

 

[GIMH]

Ntini bouncing Onions, thoughts people?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Ntini bouncing Onions, thoughts people?

It shows in his figures. Should try a cricket ball instead.

 

[GIMH]