Our fast bowling delusion

The IRB's enforced laws around short pitched bowling because it can become a sideline focus. The original laws were the 'leg theory' laws, intended to prevent bodyline being bowled again. Bodyline wasn't created to hurt, although clearly it did! It was created in an attempt to prevent the scoring of runs and gain wickets, based on stacking the field in the only areas where you might be able to score, by forcing the batsmen to play (given he could be hit or bowled if he didn't play the ball), and then either stopping the runs or catching the mishits. In order to prevent cricket becoming a boring bloodsport, and restore goodwill internationally. Since the introduction of helmets and greater padding to the sport, risk has undoubtedly diminished. But the majority of laws around bowling at the body and proscribing maximum numbers of short pitched balls have come in since then. In fact, as a kid, I can remember bouncers being no-balled for too many over the shoulder in an over, but I can't remember them being called as 'wides' (unplayable) until much more recently. The reason for this hasn't been safety concerns, but an attempt to force the pace of the game. If you could bowl 6 bouncers an over, then that's 6 balls every over that don't have the same chance of getting a batsman out, don't have the same chance of runs being scored. And therefore don't provide the same contest between batsman and bowler as a mixed over, or an over bowled at the top of off stump. Better entertainment = better ratings. Given the rate of injury, ratings and money are a much greater driver of this supposed push for safety. The bouncer isn't a weapon aimed to hurt. It's a method of making the batsman think about where the ball's going. Baseball pitchers use the same methods, and they have a much more tightly controlled area where they're allowed to deliver the ball. If they feel the batter's 'crowding the plate' - which allows them a better chance of hitting a pitch on the outside of the plate - then they'll throw 'chin music' - a baseball term first claimed in cricket around Brett Lee's time - in order to back the batter off the plate. Similarly, a short ball in cricket is there to push the batsman back inside his crease, smart bowlers use it then to trap him LBW or catch him playing a shot on the crease, not quite getting to the ball, and edging it to the slips. And in terms of bowling at the chest instead of the head? Sure, it's got most of the same impact. Aiming at the armpit/heart is just as effective. But the reality is that, in cricket, batsmen are of varying height (Mr Hughes wasn't tall, Matt Hayden's not short), and bowlers don't control the ball that well all the time No one can forget Harmison bowling the opening ball of the 2006/7 Ashes series to second slip! So, bowlers don't always get it where they want it. Further, batsmen have a choice. They can duck, They can sway. They can defend. They can attack. Unfortunately, there was a failing in execution of technique last week. Ordinarily, a batsman would look to step inside or outside the line of the ball if they're hooking/pulling the ball - hooking, you step inside the ball and play it behind you, pulling, you stay outside the ball and try to drag it from the offside of your body to the leg side of the stumps. Unfortunately, that didn't happen last week...

Don't be fooled by the notion of the spirit of the game because according to that, you also shouldn't Mankad a batsman who constantly walks halfway down the pitch before the bowler has bowled the ball even though he is well within his rights to do so. You may think that the 2 bouncer's an over limit is there for safety or for the spirit of the game but it's not. This and other rules have been brought in to favour the batsman because people would rather see sixes hit. You say that the bouncer is inherently dangerous and largely unplayable. To be frank, it's only dangerous and unplayable if the batsman doesn't get his head inside the line of the ball and fails to watch the ball all the way on to the bat. Just have a look at the likes of Ponting, Gilchrist and Richards. The reason why they were so prolific with that shot is because they had proper technique. It's also why Richards could get away with playing without a helmet. I'm for keeping the bouncer and not just because it's been part of the game for so long but because it's a legitimate tactic and a fair one at that. If you get rid of it then you also have to be prepared to accept that the hook shot will go and it will just be yet another rule in favour of the batsmen.

Agree Joel. If we are to outlaw every action that has caused a fatality in any sport then soccer players could kick the ball above head height, no motor sports or cycling, no horse events, no marathons, an on and on and on. Life sadly comes with risks. If a player dies on an annual basis then an inquiry is required. Where do we draw the line?

Yep

Yep, one incident in more than 100 years doesn't make the bouncer evil.

Exactly. Correct technique should be your first line of defense and not your helmet. Your helmet is your backup if you make a mistake. This includes getting your head outside the line of the ball by taking a small step forward and watching the ball ALL the way on to the bat as you play the shot. Getting your head outside the line of the ball protects in the event you mis-time the shot so that the ball doesn't canon into your head. I cringe when I see a batsman close his eyes and turn his head away from the ball because he's made a poor decision as it's just asking for trouble.

Typical knee jerk reaction from a comment that's full of tripe, emotion and no sense. The fact remains this was a freak accident and a freak injury. I'll bet my house you won't have the stomach to defend your silly comment and even if you did, you would just continue to dig a hole for yourself.

Hers. If they were replying to yours it would be indented and nested under your comment.

Zulfiqar Bhatti died on the field having been struck in the chest in 2013 playing domestic cricket in Pakistan. Would you suggest that the ball is no longer allowed above waist height? More players have died from heart attacks on the field than having been struck by a cricket ball. Cricket is not cricket without an element of risk. If you take away short bowling it becomes even more of a batsman's game than it is already. It is nothing like wanting to injure the batsman, but scaring him onto the back foot to set him up for Lbw, or to force a rash shot for a catch or to have him second guessing what is coming next is what it is about. No reasonable player wants to hurt his opponent, but he does want his opponent to believe that he wants to hurt him. Trying to wrap the game in cotton wool over incidents that happen very rarely is short sighted and reactive. It would only serve to weaken the sport in the long run.

Are you as a fan, or as a player, okay with those 'most difficult circumstances' including deliberate attempts to inflict pain, concussion, brain injury or death? Because that is kind of the point here - you can't just abstract away the underlying intent of the bouncer as 'part of the challenge' or merely as a 'fear to be overcome'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that the ICC already acknowledges, and has for some time, that the bouncer is not particularly in keeping with the spirit of the game (that it's inherently dangerous and largely unplayable - at least without enhancing the aforementioned danger) by enforcing restrictions on the amount of times it can be used. Is it not unthinkable that instead of allowing it be used once per over, it simply be deemed an illegal delivery full stop? I may expose my lack of understanding of cricket here, but do short pitched deliveries around chest height not achieve a similar, albeit slightly less intimidating, outcome for the bowler in a tactical sense? Just to clarify, I'm not advocating eliminating the bouncer from the game, but just genuinely curious about the tangible reasons for it being an issue to do so, because it seems like it mostly comes back to the mantra of 'it's just part of the game'.

In sports like rugby, a head high tackle is not as much of a risk to the head as it is to the neck and the spine, and most of the players do not wear any form of head protection, unlike cricket. A batman overcoming all sorts of fear and pressure to either successfully play or successfully avoid a short ball is part of the challenge. As a player or as a fan you want to see a player succeed in the most difficult circumstances.

If you ban the short ball you moswell bury the game of test cricket with Phil Hughes.

As long as sports like boxing is legal, I don't have a problem with Cricket allowing bouncers. However I will say that this is a bloodsport component of the game cricket The excitement of the bouncer is due to the fact that a player could get hurt from it. We see bravery from players who takes the blows and we celebrate it. We wince when players get hit but we find it compelling viewing. Like the quote from Peter Lever. The thing about the bouncer that elevates this from other sport related tragedy is that it's intentional and deliberate. Not the injury or the death but the action itself A boxer doesn't intend to kill or seriously injure the opponent (as death in boxing does occur occasionally) but the boxer intended to punch the opposition in the face that led to the death. The bowler doesn't intend to kill or seriously injure the opponent but the bowler intended to deliver the ball above shoulder height to the batsman body. That was the point of the quote I posted above from Peter Lever Like I said as long as more violent sports out there are legal and accepted then I don't see why anyone should go and ban the bouncer but I don't think we can deny that the bouncer is a violent part of the game.

Only Mitchell Johnson? Bouncers have been in the game since it began. It isn't about hitting anyone in the head, it is to get them to play a shot that they will get out on. I wonder if you said the same when Morne Morkel was peppering Michael Clarke in South Africa earlier this year and he batted on with a broken shoulder and other injuries. He didn't walk off and say he never wanted to play South Africa ever again. England also have their fair share of bowlers who like to bowl bouncers. It is not just Mitchell Johnson, every bowler on the planet throws one in every now and again. In this incident, the ball wasn't anywhere near Mitchell Johnson speed, Phil played the shot too early and his eyes weren't on the ball. It was an accident. The bouncer should stay as it has forever.

It seems mildly odd to me, admittedly not a huge fan of cricket, that the bouncer is still an acceptable part of the game. If the inexorable truth is that balls to the body, more specifically the head, serve a singular strategic purpose of eliciting fear in the opposing batsmen because of it's inherent ability to cause harm - even if causing harm is an unintended consequence - why should it be an acceptable part of the game? Other sports, such as rugby, football and basketball to name a few obvious ones, have all introduced penalties for actions (high tackles, hard fouls, etc) which were once deemed acceptable (and arguably entertaining) in order to discourage dangerous behaviour and ensure their safety of their players. Again, these tactics were mostly without malice or intent to cause harm, and rarely resulted in serious injury, yet were deemed unacceptable purely on their potential to inflict harm. Perhaps it's because cricket is generally a comparatively innocuous sport, that this one aberration is a largely accepted part of the game? Again, admittedly I'm not a huge fan of cricket, but it doesn't seem to me like a hugely impactful change to penalise every bouncer and discourage the practice entirely.

THere was a famous near miss in the 70's where there was a bouncer that hit Ewan Chatfield head. He was knocked out, swallowed his tongue and had to undergo emergency resuscitation to save his life. Peter Lever the bowler was scarred by it and this is what he said about the delivery 'I don't want any bloody sympathy, do you understand that? It has happened. People who say 'I know how you feel' are just talking bullsh*t. They don't know, not at all. What I can't forget is that the ball was a deliberate short one. Not deliberately at his head, but still deliberate.'

Batmen have certainly got into a false sense of security with the inclusion of helmets. But thousands of balls are bowled every year without deaths. Life goes on. These same players could get killed in the bus to the hotel. Life is risky and undpredictable

Mine or hers?

This is a bafflingly absurd and ill explained comment.

Life involves risk. If we fuss and fiddle and carp, we cut away at challenge and achievement. Watch South Park on 'Sarcastaball'. Cricket can be a tennis ball on a T-ball stand, with a plastic bat and with the fielders in Hazmat suits. But where's the fun in that? I think the balance is about right in Cricket. It was a tragic freak accident.