The End of The Bouncer?



Bad, there has to be some jeopardy in sport for gods sake. What next, cricket balls are a bit hard, maybe we should use tennis balls?

Of course bouncers need to be regulated but they’re a crucial part of a fast bowlers armoury. There is no better spectacle in test cricket than a fast bowler in full effect.

Getting rid of bouncers would be another victory to short format cricket, it’ll probably therefore happen.
 

scaly_piscine

Goalkeeper
Just the usual murmuring of bureaucrats. Just read about all the other stuff they're consulting about, which included the usual tinkering on DRS because umpire's call is confusing to wuckfits. I mean a) everything is confusing to such people and b) cricket probably ain't your game.
 

Thurston

Winger
Bad, there has to be some jeopardy in sport for gods sake. What next, cricket balls are a bit hard, maybe we should use tennis balls?

Of course bouncers need to be regulated but they’re a crucial part of a fast bowlers armoury. There is no better spectacle in test cricket than a fast bowler in full effect.

Getting rid of bouncers would be another victory to short format cricket, it’ll probably therefore happen.
Literally having the same conversation at the moment on PF about heading a ball, where some are actually arguing it should be removed from the game altogether.

Managing risk is one thing, completely removing risk altogether is the path to a world where no-one actually leaves the house to do anything at all for fear something unfortunate may happen. You’re left asking, and not to be all existential, without some degree of risk, what is even the point of life?
 

smoker

Striker
This was discussed on here at the time of Phillip Hughes tragedy and my view hasn't changed. Bowling a ball at someone's head to induce them into an error through fear of injury is clearly intimidatory and illegal under law 42:8.

Its become customary and accepted over time, and people like how it gives a frisson of danger to the game but it was a tactic largely absent from the game for three decades after bodyline and people don't regard those years as some sort of dark age of cricket.

People would quickly get used to the change and it would push bowlers to try more innovative techniques to dismiss batsmen.
 

scotch

Winger
This was discussed on here at the time of Phillip Hughes tragedy and my view hasn't changed. Bowling a ball at someone's head to induce them into an error through fear of injury is clearly intimidatory and illegal under law 42:8.

Its become customary and accepted over time, and people like how it gives a frisson of danger to the game but it was a tactic largely absent from the game for three decades after bodyline and people don't regard those years as some sort of dark age of cricket.

People would quickly get used to the change and it would push bowlers to try more innovative techniques to dismiss batsmen.
Would erode back foot technique i.e it would go extinct as every batsman would be on the front foot
 

Bcacca

New Member
Might as well just set up a bowling machine at either end of the pitch on a length so the batsman can do what they want, crickets dead in the water if bowling a bouncer is no longer allowed
 

smoker

Striker
Would erode back foot technique i.e it would go extinct as every batsman would be on the front foot
That's clearly nonsense. You could still bowl a delivery between thigh and shoulder height which would need to be played off the back foot.
Might as well just set up a bowling machine at either end of the pitch on a length so the batsman can do what they want, crickets dead in the water if bowling a bouncer is no longer allowed
Exaggeration much? How did you get over the pink ball?

Been loads of changes to the laws and the game survives.
 
Last edited:

Top