Should the ICC drop the two bouncer law?

[stephen]

I have been thinking recently that one thing that could be done in test matches to tilt the balance back towards the bowlers is to drop the two bouncer rule per over. I mean the law was brought in back in the very early days of helmets and protective gear. Surely now the reason for it being introduced are long past.

What do people think, should bowlers be able to bowl 6 bouncers an over? Why or why not?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yes, IMHO. With the proviso that umpires can step in if the short-pitched stuff is overdone or intimidatory towards a bloke who can't defend himself against it. As game a bloke as he is, no-one would want to see twelve balls straight aimed at Chris Martin's throat. Although one couldn't honestly say the same about his namesake from Coldplay.

"And it was all yellow..." THUD.

 

[wpdavid]

Yes, IMHO. With the proviso that umpires can step in if the short-pitched stuff is overdone or intimidatory towards a bloke who can't defend himself against it. As game a bloke as he is, no-one would want to see twelve balls straight aimed at Chris Martin's throat. Although one couldn't honestly say the same about his namesake from Coldplay.

"And it was all yellow..." THUD.

outrageous but fair

 

[Shri]

Look like a conspiracy to make Raina retire from tests without letting him play a single game.

 

[Pratters]

Yes Stephen.

 

[stephen]

Yes, IMHO. With the proviso that umpires can step in if the short-pitched stuff is overdone or intimidatory towards a bloke who can't defend himself against it. As game a bloke as he is, no-one would want to see twelve balls straight aimed at Chris Martin's throat. Although one couldn't honestly say the same about his namesake from Coldplay.

"And it was all yellow..." THUD.

What's wrong with a little intimidation? Batsmen have helmets, armguards, shoulderguards, chest guards, thigh pads, gloves and pads to protect themselves with these days. I saw a clip recently of Lillee bouncing Viv 5 times and then bowling him on the final ball of the over with a very good yorker. You can't do that these days, which makes me somewhat sad.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Stupid rule in the first place. Only necessary because the umpires didn't impliment the then existing rules on intimidation. Most class batsman would love to be fed the diet of long hops that currently masquerade as bouncers. No one wanted to see Holding, Marshall and Croft etc bowling 4 or 5 bouncers an over and if the umpires had done their job they wouldn't have got away with it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What's wrong with a little intimidation? Batsmen have helmets, armguards, shoulderguards, chest guards, thigh pads, gloves and pads to protect themselves with these days. I saw a clip recently of Lillee bouncing Viv 5 times and then bowling him on the final ball of the over with a very good yorker. You can't do that these days, which makes me somewhat sad.

Sure Chris Martin would be made up to be bracketed with Sir Viv in a batting context.

No, I've nothing against softening up proper batsmen or even half-decent lower order players, but bowlers banging in bouncer after bouncer at rank #11s who just aren't good enough to deal with them (especially those like Martin who're brave enough not to edge halfway to square leg during the bowler's appraoch) is a recipe for someone getting hurt.

 

[fredfertang]

Agreed - Leaving aside the one-day game I'd nominate it as not only the daftest but also the most unnecessary law ever

 

[Manee]

Yes, IMHO. With the proviso that umpires can step in if the short-pitched stuff is overdone or intimidatory towards a bloke who can't defend himself against it. As game a bloke as he is, no-one would want to see twelve balls straight aimed at Chris Martin's throat. Although one couldn't honestly say the same about his namesake from Coldplay.

Would agree with this. I believe that the strict enforcement of the 'over head high wide rule' means that bowlers cannot be lazy and keep bowling short pitched deliveries to simultaneously dry up runs and intimidate the opposition batsmen. With the two bouncer law and this strict enforcement of the wide rule, we have two stones killing one bird, it is unecessary, imo.

I believe that it is clear enough when a tailender is being unfairly bombarded with short pitched bowling and cannot defend himself. However, I see no reason why a batsman of low quality (ie, who can barely defend himself) should be protected by the umpires as there is the option to back away outside leg stump, etc. If a bowler continues to attack the batsman by following him, then perhaps one could step in - but it is all common sense, imo.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't honestly think it would make that much difference. Bouncers rarely work when they're expected. Would bowling three in an over really be especially effective? Only in very rare circumstances. Particularly considering they're only counted as bouncers if they're head height. Bowlers rarely even use the two they're allowed at the moment. Bryce McGain a notable exception.

 

[Pratters]

I don't honestly think it would make that much difference. Bouncers rarely work when they're expected. Would bowling three in an over really be especially effective? Only in very rare circumstances. Particularly considering they're only counted as bouncers if they're head height. Bowlers rarely even use the two they're allowed at the moment. Bryce McGain a notable exception.

It would make a fair amount of difference. Batsmen would be reluctant to go forward and attack as the bowler can always bounce him. So it will make batsmen more cautious and give backing to the bowlers.

 

[jondavluc]

"And it was all yellow..." THUD.

 

[Richard]

What's wrong with a little intimidation? Batsmen have helmets, armguards, shoulderguards, chest guards, thigh pads, gloves and pads to protect themselves with these days. I saw a clip recently of Lillee bouncing Viv 5 times and then bowling him on the final ball of the over with a very good yorker. You can't do that these days, which makes me somewhat sad.

Of course you can. Short-pitched delivery and "Bouncer" (which is defined as a ball that passes over head-height) aren't one and the same.

The current rule requires good-quality short-pitched bowling and debars bowlers from just banging it in any old where non-stop, which any fool can do. A really short delivery is a near-guaranteed dot-ball; allowing unlimited numbers of them encourages negative cricket, because it makes things too easy for bowlers to bowl economically but doesn't encourage them to try and take wickets (short deliveries almost never get decent batsmen out).

Personally I'm more than happy with the no-more-than-two-per-over-over-head-height rule. It makes bowlers who want to bowl consistently short - and there are times when to do so is a useful tactic - have to have a good amount of accuracy in length otherwise they'll be no-balled\wided. It also means that bowlers who want to be really economical have to hit good areas rather than just bowl short all the time.

As for helmets and protective gear they're fairly irrelevant. No-one wanted to see batsmen injured by short-pitched deliveries before the rule was brought in - and it rarely happened - and no-one wants to see such now - and it rarely happens. The main use of the rule is to stop bowling negatively being too easy, same as the rule about deliberately bowling consistently down the leg-side.

 

[duffer]

What Pratters said.

 

[Richard]

It would make a fair amount of difference. Batsmen would be reluctant to go forward and attack as the bowler can always bounce him. So it will make batsmen more cautious and give backing to the bowlers.

Seriously, how many times do you think a batsman has gone onto the front-foot knowing two official-Bouncers have already been bowled that over?

Honestly I can hardly ever recall the Umpire even signalling "that's two for the over" (do the "that's one for the over" often enough), never mind a batsman reacting to it.

Mostly in my experience batsmen get on the front-foot to deliveries because they're full enough to, not as a premeditated tactic. Not in Tests anyway.

If people want to redress the bowler-batsman balance - as I for one do - then there are far better ways of doing it, like trying to make a ball that swings more and just prepare more seam-friendly (and spin-friendly) pitches.

 

[Uppercut]

Seriously, how many times do you think a batsman has gone onto the front-foot knowing two official-Bouncers have already been bowled that over?

Yeah, this. The rule is only applied once in a blue moon. And even then, batsmen don't think "oh sweet, can plant the front foot down to anything now" because they can still legally be thrown a beastly delivery right into their ribcage. The idea that batsmen would be reluctant to get onto the front foot if bowlers were allowed unlimited bouncers is something that, while logical, isn't true at all in practice at test level.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, absolutely. I wouldn't have a huge problem with removing the rule, but if the goal is a better balance, as Richard said, preparing wickets with something in it for the bowlers should be the goal.

Take the example of that Amla dismissal. I don't give a crap what people say, I want these wickets from time to time. It makes games interesting, we certainly have enough wickets that go the other way. So many times, the bowlers are just flat out of luck, about time batsmen feel that way too.

 

[Uppercut]

Yea, absolutely. I wouldn't have a huge problem with removing the rule, but if the goal is a better balance, as Richard said, preparing wickets with something in it for the bowlers should be the goal.

Take the example of that Amla dismissal. I don't give a crap what people say, I want these wickets from time to time. It makes games interesting, we certainly have enough wickets that go the other way. So many times, the bowlers are just flat out of luck, about time batsmen feel that way too.

Totally.

I'm not against the rule change, nor am I for it. I just can't see it changing anything even slightly. There are more important issues.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't mind scrapping the rule, as long as they keep the umpires' subjectivity out of it. If there's a tail ender who's getting it at the throat 6 balls out of 6, let him have it.