Right: players gather around the felled Philip Hughes, signalling for a doctor and trying to comfort their fellow player.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against banning bouncers
1. Injuries such as that suffered by Phillip Hughes are very rare as are bouncer-related fatalities
It has been argued that Phillip Hughes's accident does not mean that Cricket Australia or international cricket needs to alter the rules of the game because the injury which led to Hughes's death is extremely uncommon.
On November 27, 2014, ESPNcricinfo published a report by Brydon Coverdale in which he stated, 'Phillip Hughes was the victim of a freakish accident, the kind that is rarely seen in any sphere of life and has only once before been recorded as the result of being struck by a cricket ball.'
Restating the same point, Dr Peter Brukner, the Cricket Australia doctor, remarked after Phillip Hughes's injury, 'This was a freakish accident, because it was an injury to the neck that caused haemorrhage in the brain. This condition is incredibly rare. It's called vertebral artery dissection, leading to subarachnoid haemorrhage - that's the medical term for it.
If you look in the literature there's only about 100 cases ever reported, so this is incredibly rare. Only one previous case ever reported as the result of a cricket ball. So I think it's important to realise that yes, we need to review all our procedures and equipment, but this is an incredibly rare type of injury.'
It has been claimed that the extent of the risks involved in cricket have been exaggerated in response to Phillip Hughes death.
Writing in Swarajya on November 29, 2014, Sandipan Deb stated, 'Over the last day or two, several lists have appeared of cricketers who have died on the field. These run to 11 or 12 names (including Hughes), but on closer scrutiny reveal that only five players and an umpire have actually died from injuries sustained during a match. The others died on the field from heart attacks and seizures unconnected to the game.
In fact, Pakistani cricketer Abdul Aziz was mortally injured during a domestic match in 1959 by an off-spin delivery which hit the rough and rose sharply to strike him in the chest! And Raman Lamba died after he took a pull shot on his head at close quarters, fielding at short leg without a helmet.
So, out of the five relevant deaths, only three had anything to do with fast bowling.'
The relative safety of cricket has also been acknowledged by Antonio Belli, professor of trauma neurosurgery at Birmingham University. Professor Belli has stated, 'For the number of hours played in cricket, it's actually considered a safe sport in terms of concussion.'
Similarly a recent study conducted by Flinders University's Research Centre for Injury Studies found that cricket came in at number 12 on the list of sports most likely to result in a trip to the hospital.
2. There are already measures in place to reduce the risk to batsmen
Cricket Australia and cricket authorities worldwide have stressed that there are numerous measures already in place to safeguard the wellbeing of batsmen.
Since the 1970s helmets worn by batsmen have become progressively more common. In an article published in The Economist on November 26, 2014, it was noted, 'Helmets have improved markedly since then [the 1970s]. At first they offered no facial protection; later the nose and jaw were covered only by a flimsy piece of perspex. Today, they feature a strong metal grill. They are also now lighter and use better energy-absorbing foams. Yet, because of a batsman's need for flexibility at the crease, it is not practical that they cover every inch of the head and neck.'
It has also been suggested that there may be further improvements that could be made to increase the level of protection that helmets provide without unduly restricting the batsman's freedom of movement. A skull cap, worn inside the helmet, is being considered. Though this would not protect against the sort of injury suffered by Philip Hughes, it is believed it may add additional protection when a batsman receives a direct blow to the outer surface of the helmet. Further the newest version of the Masuri helmet (an earlier version of which was worn by Phillip Hughes) has the side grill extend slightly lower on the batsman's neck. While this may not have been sufficient to give Hughes full protection, it could prevent other injuries occurring. Supporters of the bouncer have noted that with ongoing improvements to helmet technology, the risk presented to batsmen is being reduced.
It has also been noted that there are already limits on the number of bouncers that can be bowled per over. During the 1970s to 1980s, bouncers were used as part of a team's intimidatory tactics, especially by the West Indies team. In 1991, the International Cricket Council (ICC) introduced a 'one bouncer per batsman per over' rule in an attempt to discourage use of intimidation These limitations were not popular and on October 29, 2012 the ICC increased the number of bouncers that could be bowled during a One Day International to two. The number of bouncers per over allowed in T20s was kept to one.
Cricket Victoria's General Manager of Cricket and former Australia player Shaun Graf said current restrictions surrounding short balls were adequate.
Former West Indies captain and internationally renowned batsman Brian Lara has similarly stated that cricket authorities have continued to do all they could to protect players from injury. Mr Lara has claimed, '(The bouncer is) part of the game and they've done their best over the years to curb it and manage it as much as possible.'
3. If bouncers were banned it would reduce the excitement and entertainment value of the game
In an analysis piece published in The Independent on November 27, 2014, Jack de Menezes stated, 'Bouncers have been widely accepted as part of the game and are the root of the aggression and intimidation tactics that gives the sport its edge. Removing it completely would take one of the best parts of cricket out of the game, which wouldn't sit too well with fans as well as veterans of the game that had to face much worse during their hay-day. While no one wants to see a batsman get hurt, it's often a bouncer that stokes up the atmosphere both on and off the field, with batsman either electing to take on the bowler or duck out of the way in fear.'
The same point has been made by Mark Richardson writing in The New Zealand Herald on November 30, 2014, 'To take this strategic weapon away from the bowlers by banning the bouncer would tip the favour far too far towards the batsman. With the unresponsive nature of cricket wickets nowadays, it's already too far in their favour.
The more docile the surface, the more important the bouncer becomes as a means of forcing batting mistakes and taking wickets.'
On November 30, 2014, The New Zealand Herald published a comment by Mark Richardson in which he stated, 'If cricket took away the bouncer, then we would have a problem.
It would reduce the spectacle, especially in test cricket which needs to do all it can to re-excite the viewer.
Last year, the sight of Mitchell Johnson charging in, breathing fire and getting right up the Poms was exhilarating and very good for cricket.'
4. Banning bouncers would make it very difficult to take wickets
It has been claimed that banning bouncers would skew the game in favour of the batsmen and make it very difficult to take wickets.
A number of bowlers have stressed that though they may be seeking to intimidate batsmen they are not seeking to injure them. The fast bowler's primary aim is to bowl a ball that will take the batsman's wicket and fast bowlers claim that the bouncer is an important part of their ability to capture a wicket.
This point has been stressed by former Australian fast bowler Merv Hughes. Hughes has stated, 'As a fast bowler we are not trying to hit a batsman or hurt a batsman, we're trying to take wickets so when you bowl a bouncer you are looking for a glove through to the wicketkeeper or possibly a catch down at deep square leg or deep fine leg, so it's not about hitting batsmen it's about taking their wicket.'
Ron Reed, writing in The Daily Telegraph on November 26, 2014, stated regarding the bouncer, '[S]hould it be banned or even discouraged?
Only if you want to turn cricket into an entirely different game, skewing it so far in favour of the batsman that you might struggle to ever finish a match at the elite level.'
Former India allrounder Robin Singh has stated, 'To put an end to bouncers or to curtail it further will create great imbalance in the game.
Already the pacemen are suffering because of flat tracks, better bats and shorter boundaries. If you take out the bouncer as well, everything will be in batsmen's favour.'
Writing in Swarajya on November 29, 2014, Sandipan Deb stated, 'Enough damage has been done to the game already by tilting the rules in favour of batsmen, and (especially in the sub-continent) carefully preparing dead pitches that offer the fast bowler no purchase. We certainly don't need to load the dice any further.'
5. Batsmen accept the risk that bouncers pose
It has been noted that all batsmen, particularly those who aspire to play international cricket are aware of and accept the dangers posed by the bouncer.
Since the injury and subsequent death of Phillip Hughes, a large number of bowlers have expressed their support for the bouncer as an integral part of cricket.
New Zealander Ewen Chatfield, who nearly died after being struck in the temple by a bouncer and swallowing his tongue in a 1975 Test against England, has stated his support for the bouncer. When asked whether the delivery should be banned, Chatfield replied, 'It would eliminate a quick bowler's armoury if you take it away.'
West Indies champion batsmen Brian Lara has similarly defended the status quo. Speaking after Phillip Hughes injury, Lara stated, 'There are some batsmen who feed off that sort of attack and I don't believe it's something that should affect the fast bowlers and the rules governing that.
It's a sport and you're always going to have that element of risk. This is an unfortunate and rare situation. I suppose the authorities will be a little bit worried about something like this, how it happened and if it will ever happen again. I felt pretty safe playing. I knew the element of risk. A little prayer in the morning and hope for the best.'
Former Australian test batsman Matthew Hayden supported the continued use of the bouncer when asked should it be banned. Hayden's response was, 'No I don't reckon, I just think that if you take away that from the game it takes away that combative nature of cricket and I know that as we said, we're not running into massive human men, but you actually just want to challenge yourself and test cricket is called that for a reason - it tests everything.'