Bouncers

[Jakester1288]

I think we should increase the maximum amount of bouncers from 2 per over to 3 in Test Cricket and from 1 per over to 2 per over in One Day Cricket. This helps the game be less batsmen dominated, and gives fast bowlers that extra intimidation factor. It could harm our game, and would just improve it in my opinion. Thoughts?

 

[angryangy]

In Tests I don't even think the limit should exist because the power rests with the umpire to stop a bowler if he is believed to be bowling in malice. Bouncers don't by definition make the batsman play, so there's little chance of six bouncers being equated with good bowling unless they're really that good; and really you can't just defend at head height, you either attack, evade or cop it. Plus, you have bowlers like Brett Lee who are good enough to bowl four balls at the batsman's chest and two at the head, so the rule is just pesky for elite fast bowlers, of which many have said a third bouncer is worth one run anyway. On top of that, plenty of batsmen can handle short balls, especially with all the pitches tending towards slow these days and the fact that many batsmen badly edge a hook and still score six for it, so it's hardly a flat out disadvantage.

 

[Cricketdude]

especially with all the pitches tending towards slow these days and the fact that many batsmen badly edge a hook and still score six for it, so it's hardly a flat out disadvantage.

What a stereotype!

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I think there should be a limit, but it should be increased.

I wasn't aware that umpires are allowed to stop a bowler if they feel he is bowling in Malice. If they could, then maybe there should be no limit. However, how many umpires will actually stop the bowler?

 

[JD10]

Not really it's fine how it is

 

[khalek]

Of course not, for the sake of the Bangladeshi batsmen's heights

 

[angryangy]

I think there should be a limit, but it should be increased.

I wasn't aware that umpires are allowed to stop a bowler if they feel he is bowling in Malice. If they could, then maybe there should be no limit. However, how many umpires will actually stop the bowler?

It's all in Law 42. The umpire is the arbiter of fair and unfair play. Umpires Bucknor and Venkataraghavan abandoned a Test match at Sabina park between the West Indies and England on account of the dangerous bounce off the pitch.

 

[manee]

I had the privledge of watching that match on TV - there really was no decision to be made, the game had to be called off. Walsh and Ambrose at the time were 80mph and were getting length balls to go head high as well as there being a massive amount of seam movement too.

 

[lightbulb]

As the great Nasser Hussain (I think) said at the Essex vs. Sussex T20 game in which Napier hit 152*, having seen James Kirtley go all over the shop in the final over: 'What do you do as a bowler, become a batsman.' Enough said in my opinion lol.

 

[Owzat]

I think you should be allowed as many bouncers in an over as you like. What needs increasing is the action taken by umpires against excess and intimidatory short bowling by fast bowlers, the laws are there to protect less capable batsmen but not applied often enough. Who cares when the ball bounces harmlessly over your head? It's when it is aimed at the ribs and head that it is a problem.