Flexis, it seems that risk v reward is the general answer, and I’m happy to go with that, except that some bowlers manage to bowl yorkers effectively, even against the big hitters. My research indicated that the yorker was a greater risk later in the game, particularly in T20, but it was very effective when delivered somewhere between the bottom of the stumps and about half a metre in front of the popping crease, that’s 1.5 metre range, if the batsman didn’t move. I’m not saying that a ball in this area isn’t hit, but it is generally effective run wise.
Yes Malinga is different, but Siddle bowls at 135 kph tops and bowls it very effectively.
Overall, yes I agree that it’s very difficult to bowl, get it wrong and it’s punished, but I still want to see more of them, perhaps I just love it when it comes off. Thanks for your comments. RowiE

Hi TIGER, interesting game view, but I was left hanging, a bit like Mitchell, wondering what was coming next. Can you give us an idea of what aspects of the game that you think the NRL need to address to keep it moving forward?

Thanks Greg, I’m not sure how, but I may have misunderstood your comment, my apologies. I think any way we can stop arms coming in contact with heads, I would support. No matter what is done, I think there would be a great deal of discretion required by refs. This in turn leads to inconsistencies and we have plenty of that already. I certainly don’t think the issue has an easy fix, I wrote the article to highlight what I think is a situation that needs to be resolved proactively, ie stop the contact before you need a HIA. Thanks for your input, cheers RowiE

Thanks Nat, I certainly should have said ‘fewer’ instead of no swinging arms – my mistake. And I agree about social play, that can be a nightmare. I would disagree that the ball carrier gets any better opportunity to offload, all I’m saying is, stop the deliberate swinging arm. There is no other change, so the defender grabs and holds just as they do now, so the ball is wrapped up with the tackle exactly as it is now. Perhaps our understanding of what constitutes a swinging arm may differ and I’m happy to agree to disagree on the subject. Thanks for your comments, I value them, and I hope we have a League season with no head injuries. Cheers

Hi Greg, I don’t see how making the tackle below the arm pit helps the situation. If it doesn’t stop the swinging arm bouncing up how does it prevent the potential for a forearm coming in contact with a head. If you think it’s too subjective, can you imagine the ref trying to work out whether or not initial contact was above or below the arm pit, when you have 2 or 3 players in the tackle. Particularly when the 3rd tackler comes in an the ball carrier is on the way down. I think making a below the arm pit type rule would provide significant issues.
I don’t think it’s that difficult to determine if the tackler has artificially accelerated the arm in a tackle as opposed to a natural grabbing action. As Nat admitted above, while there’s no such thing as a swinging arm, it is actually a normal tackling action! I have viewed a number of games and tried to identify instances of swinging arms and I think I can with some level of confidence. Certainly it’s very easy to identify the obvious instances. Thanks for your comments.

Thank Nat, I think your first sentence pretty much confirms my position, that being the swinging arm is now a normal part of tackling. Interestingly no-one has yet commented on the fact that you don’t see swinging arm type head contacts in Junior or NRLW, I think this proves it’s not a necessary part of the game. You agree that this is the way players are coached and talk about wrapping up the ball, but players wrap up the ball in under age and NRLW, it’s clear that the swinging arm is coached for intimidation and ball dislodging. You don’t need to wrap up the ball by swinging your arm, as I said it is an unnatural way to stop someone’s progress. The lack of intent you mention is irrelevant, I recognise this, also lack of intent is not a plausible argument, it’s a matter of whether it happened or not, intentional or otherwise.

I’m not concerned with all incidental contact, I am only concerned with swinging arms, ie the act of deliberately accelerating your forearm and making contact with the arm/body. This is the action that morphs into head contact.
Saying it doesn’t happen very often is not a great argument for the player who was one of those instances and ends up with permanent injuries.

Sorry dungerBob I didn’t fully respond to your comment. Hitting the stumps with your bat or leg is no doubt a risk and you’d need to practice a lot to get used to it. Would it make the technique unworkable? I don’t think so but it’s just a theory that’s why I am so keen for a good cricketer to trial it.
I don’t think you need to play any more horizontal bat shots than normal, why wouldn’t you play the same vertical bat shot that you normally do?

Thanks dungerBob, I don’t understand why you think it’s a half sweep shot. Effectively the ball pitches 1 metre in front of me and say half a metre to the leg side. Why would you try to hit that with anything but a straight bat? It’s a very good ball, play little forward defense and keep it out. I think a little more time to play negates the additional swing. Happy to discuss

Thanks again Paul, for health reasons I am short on time to respond, but I will try to cover your response. The underlying benefits come from angles. Because the relative line you would play down is much more toward say mid on, or wider when you play full face. This is no more across the line than conventional batsman playing to mid off. However because the ball is already inclined somewhat off to leg, if released from normal position and hitting the stumps, your body position to the off side of the ball makes it much easier to hit anywhere to the leg side. To explain, exaggerate this notion and stand out towards the return crease line, your body is outside every ball forcing you to play towards the on side. So, the combination of playing square on and starting stump high opens up the leg side greatly. If the bowler attacks the stumps your natural playing line is towards the on side. Because of the greater access and ease of playing to leg you force at least a 4-5 field. Immediately you benefit because you’ve reduced the chance of being dismissed caught on the offside and batting square on as described the chances of nicking off are reduced. If the bowler opts to bowl 6th stump line the same benefits are there and bowled is now a lower chance. Field placing would require a very straight fine leg because any ball coming straight at your body or inside can potentially be glanced. If it’s pitched outside off this is not a high risk shot. So one guy at straight fine leg and max one more to patrol everything else, when the batsman has so much access to the leg side? If the ball is pullable, from stump high you can hit it easily to beat one fielder. Fair contest? Regardless you still have close to your full range of shots so I don’t think you’re otherwise that limited. Where would you bowl seamers/quicks to get the stump high batsman out? What field setting? The issue of safety would be for short leg, leg slip and keeper when spinners bowl. This includes protective equipment. Eg, RA leggy bowling around the wicket trying to hit the rough and/or stumps. I move forward slightly and kick it until he drops one short. Do you want to be any of these fielders with current protection if I can step forward and away with my right foot and hit a full blooded pull shot at you from point blank range? I hope all of this helps clarify things and thanks again for the response.

Hi DaveJ thanks for the response. I’ve commented separately on the Yorker, please have a look. Re that Lyon ball, I can’t see why I can’t block it just because it’s going to hit leg stick. I mentioned that you’d have to know where stumps were. If I’m facing Lyon I’m good enough to hit it without hitting the stumps. If I’m doubt play forward and get hit outside the line ???? For Warney if you knew about this strategy you’d move forward a little and kick it away like normal.

Hi Brett, again. I might have been dropped on my head. Please see my response to the yorker on other comments.
Why do you think you can’t score in front of the wicket? I would agree that the cut shot and late cut would be far less used.

Hi dungerBob, why are you in more trouble than conventional stance? You have a metre extra time to sight it and your feet aren’t in the way. It’s effectively the same as a ball pitching a metre in front and say half metre to leg side if you use normal stance. If you’re likely to get this type of delivery I reckon you’re playing high level and so a batsman should be able to hit it.

Thanks Caspian, why do you think that you’d get out bowled so often? I do agree that an up and down pitch would cause complications, it does when you bat normally. I suggest that when you played forward from batting stump high you are less likely to be hit on the pads in line with the stumps , when it stays low or jags back. So you’re better off. The real issue is that you’re so far back that the umpire factors in less risk in decision making

Jarrod, you may not get all the benefits. So I will challenge you. Bat stump high and play with a straight bat as if you are batting from the crease. You don’t need to play to the leg side, it may just happen that the occasional ball will go there. Try it.

I agree Elvis, all I ask for is someone to try it. I don’t have the ability to organise it.

Hi Paul, thanks for the comment. In my effort to keep it simple I may not have explained the technique clearly enough. I have studied all lengths and all lines by all types of bowlers bowling over and around the wicket to test this technique in theory. I believe it would work, all I want for a good cricketer to try it. I will leave all the implications for later.

Why are you in any more trouble than you would be normally?

Why can’t I block it. I have a bat.

Thanks Brett, what stops me hitting the Yorker, it would be exactly the same as you hitting a ball that pitched outside your leg stump and a metre in front of you. Can’t you hit that?
Why is play in front of the wicket reduced. Plenty of batsman stand square on and score plenty of Test runs.

Thanks so much for all the comments, I expected the general comments that have been posted since no-one else has spent the time looking at this technique as I have. It does need to be studied.

Some say you need to be de Villiers to make it work then another wants a technique to handle a Lyon spit ball.

Just remember when batsmen started jumping all over the place to manufacture shots and the general reaction was that batting like that won’t work because bowlers will work you out.
Don’t knock it till you try it. That’s all I ask. Prove me wrong in the nets or in the middle I don’t care.
In regard to the Law, just one instance, a spinner bowls outside off and the batsman moves straight backwards to make the length to pull, and runs into the keeper. You reckon that wouldn’t result in a look at the Law on obstructing?