Right: the death of Phil Hughes resulted in controversy about bowling "bouncers", as well as inevitable references to Harold Larwood's "bodyline" deliveries in the notorious post-war test series.
 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 in favour of banning bouncers
1. Bouncers place batsmen at significant physical risk
Some commentators have claimed that the cricketing community has become complacent about the dangers inherent in cricket. They argue that an event such as the recent death of Phillip Hughes was required to remind players and administrators of the risks and the need to moderate them.
Writing in the Courier Mail on December 12, 2014, Graham Cornes noted, 'That red five-ounce projectile can cause enormous damage, either out of the hand, off the pitch or the off bat.' His conclusion was 'Perhaps it is time to ban the bouncer altogether.'
An editorial published in The New Daily on November 26, 2014, further noted, 'A ball hurled at 140-150 km/h can cause devastating damage if it hits someone in the wrong spot, as was the case with Hughes...'
Although the injury sustained by Phillip Hughes was rare, some commentators have noted that such incidents have occurred before and represent an unacceptable risk. Some of these incidents are listed below.
In January 1959, while batting in the first-innings of the Quaid-e-Azam final against Pakistan Combined Services, 17-year-old Abdul Aziz was struck over the heart. While preparing to receive the next ball, Aziz fell to the ground and never regained consciousness, dying en route to hospital.
In 1962, India captain Nari Contractor was felled by West Indian Charlie Griffith in Barbados, where there was no sightscreen and Contractor later said he was distracted by a window opening. Contractor suffered a skull fracture, was unconscious for six days and never played again.
In 1975 New Zealand cricketer Ewen Chatfield was hit on the temple by England pace bowler Peter Lever during a Test match. Chatfield's respiratory system stopped as he swallowed his tongue but quick resuscitation administered by England physiotherapist Bernard Thomas saved his life. At the time safety helmets were not required to be worn. They were introduced shortly after.
During a One Day International in Jamaica in 1986, West Indies pace bowler Malcolm Marshal's bouncer hit English batsman Mike Gatting on the nose leaving it broken.
An awkward delivery from former West Indies pace bowler Mervyn Dillon fractured Anil Kumble's jaw on India's West Indies tour of 2002.
In 2008 Australian pace bowler Brett Lee knocked out West Indies batsman Shivnarine Chanderpaul for several minutes after hitting him with a bouncer. He also struck Englishman Alex Tudor in the face in 2002 in a Test at Perth.
Pakistani cricketer, Shoab Akhtar, one of the world's fastest bowlers, injured South Africa's Gary Kirsten (2003) and West Indian Brian Lara (2004) badly enough with bouncers that both had to leave the field. In 2006, Australian opener Justin Langer was hospitalised by a bouncer from South Africa's Makhaya Ntini. In 2008, New Zealand batsman Daniel Flynn lost a tooth from a bouncer by English paceman James Anderson.
Bangladesh batsman Shahriar Naafees retired with a bleeding nose after being struck by a bouncer from West Indian Fidel Edwards in 2011, while his countryman Kieron Pollard was hit in the face by a short ball from Dominic Cork during a T20 Final in 2010.
In a blog published in The Times of India on November 28, 2014, Vaibhav Purandare wrote 'According to the cricket writer David Frith, at least 40 cricketers hit on their heads, arms, ribs and hands by the Windies [West Indian] pacers had to be taken to casualty wards at hospitals [during the 1970s and 80s].'
Sydney Morning Herald sportswriter, Sam de Brito, has concluded from instances such as those listed above 'Even the best batsman in the world get hit in the head and it's not a million-to-one chance. Batsmen get struck in the head regularly and often they are injured.'
2. The bouncer is an inappropriate tactic intended to intimidate
It has been claimed that bouncers are an inappropriate tactic to employ in cricket as the game is not a contact sport, but one which relies on strategy and skill and has built up its own elaborate code of ethics sometimes referred to as 'the spirit of the game'.
In a blog published in The Times of India on November 28, 2014, Vaibhav Purandare wrote, 'Bouncers are purely intimidatory stuff, and intimidation has no role in cricket because this sport, unlike some others, was never meant to be a gladiatorial contest.'
Cricket Australia's Internet site includes a subsection titled 'Mission & Values' which elaborates on what it refers to as the 'Spirit of Cricket'. The site claims 'Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself.'
Among the behaviours which it is claimed are contrary to the 'spirit of the game' is violence. The Cricket Australia website specifically states 'There is no place for any act of violence on the field of play.' Opponents of bouncers claim that such deliveries are always an inherently violent act as they rely for their effectiveness on the threat of serious injury to the batsman.
3. Bowlers have other strategies with which to gain wickets
Those who argue that bouncers should be banned note that this style of delivery is not the only means available to bowlers to take wickets.
In a blog published in The Times of India on November 28, 2014, Vaibhav Purandare wrote, 'Fast bowlers should use pace, cut and swing to trap batsmen.' Similarly, slow and medium pace bowlers do not use bouncers in order to take wickets; they have to rely exclusively on their skill in placing the ball on the wicket and determining the angle on which it presents to a batsman and yet they regularly succeed in getting bowlers out.
Against accusations that banning bouncers would make it too difficult to get batsmen out, it has been noted that there are other measures that could be taken to diminish any apparent advantage given to batsmen.
Vaibhav Purandare has suggested, 'To address complaints that the game thus becomes even more batsman-friendly, cricket authorities must stop the deliberate shrinking of boundaries across the world and consider easing restrictions on fielders in the limited-overs format.'
It has further been claimed that rather than demonstrating the skill of the bowlers or showcasing the prowess of the batsmen, bouncers frequently reduce batsmen to having to duck and dive rather than take strokes.
In a letter published in The Belfast Telegraph, Andy Horton wrote 'Is it too much to hope that head-high bouncers will be definitely outlawed (maybe with a five-run penalty at least), so that we may enjoy a contest between bat and ball rather than having to watch ducking and weaving in avoidance of deliveries persistently and deliberately aimed at a batsman?'
4. Helmets cannot provide full protection
It has been claimed that no helmet construction could ever offer a batsman complete protection. Phillip Hughes was struck on the neck, in an area below that which is protected by any helmet.
The manufacturers of the helmet Hughes was wearing, Masuri, have noted 'From the footage and pictures currently available to Masuri, it appears that Phil Hughes was struck by the ball to the rear of the grille and below the back of the shell, missing his Masuri Original Test model helmet. This is a vulnerable area of the head and neck that helmets cannot fully protect, while enabling batsmen to have full and proper movement.'
David Horne, writing in The Roar on November 26, 2014, stated, 'With lower protection, the batsman would have less free head movement, and that would be even more dangerous.'
Sydney University biomechanics expert Dr Edouard Ferdinands has stated, 'It [cricket] is fraught with a certain amount of risk. It's like grand prix car racing, you can improve safety standards but there's always a chance (of an accident).
When you're looking at balls coming at you at 145km/h - the amount of force that's there and the short reaction time, it's always going to be one of those sports where the batsman has to avoid the ball and not rely on the helmet.'
Even with improved helmet design, it has been claimed the risks are too great. In a blog published in The Times of India on November 28, 2014, Vaibhav Purandare wrote, 'The helmet manufacturer has said Hughes was not wearing the latest version which is far more protective. That may be available to international cricketers, but how many school and college kids across the world are going to get it so that they are absolutely safe?'
In addition, some commentators have claimed that rather than adding to safety, protective helmets have made batsmen more willing to take risks when facing fast deliveries.
In an opinion piece published in Cricket Country on November 27, Abhishek Mukherjee wrote, 'Helmets have changed all that [taking precautions to avoid being struck by a ball.]... Keeping eyes on the ball till the last moment is not a necessary concept anymore. .. As a result men are being hit more and more on the helmet... Growing up with the helmet, batsmen will perhaps never be cautious the way their counterparts from earlier generations used to be.'
Some critics have claimed that this is placing a greater burden on the helmet than it can be expected to bear. Every so often there will be catastrophic consequences from a batsman being hit in the head, even when wearing a helmet. In such situations there are those who argue that the best way to reduce risks is to ban bouncers.
5. Other related sports have taken action to reduce the risk to players
It has been noted that in most sports there is a deliberate intention to protect the players' heads because it is recognised that life-threatening and permanently deliberating injuries can result from a blow to the head. Cricket has been condemned by some because its regulations actually allow fast bowlers to deliver a maximum of two bouncers per over.
In an opinion piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald on November 27, 2014, Sam de Brito stated, 'It's a sign of how anachronistic the rules of cricket are...that even in the USA - which still chuckles indulgently about brawling in ice hockey - umpires will eject a baseball pitcher from a game if they "throw at the head" of a batter.
Yes, there is leeway in this sort of decision in major league baseball because pitches like curveballs and splitters can sometimes see pitchers get it wrong and lose control of the ball. However, if the umpire decides there's intent, you're gone. Outta there. Hit someone in the head, you'll be suspended.'
Not only are deliberate measures included in the rules of baseball to protect batters against pitches aimed at their heads, it has been established that players who are fielding are at significant risk of being struck by a flying ball. This risk is likely to be reduced by fitting fielders and pitchers with protective skull caps.
Comparing the likelihood of head injuries across a number of sports it has been determined that cricketers are at similar levels of risk to those competing in what are usually regarded as more dangerous contact sports. Sam de Brito cites the following, 'The recent Australian Sports Injury Hospitalisations report by Flinders University revealed 18 per cent of injuries requiring hospitalisation in cricket were to the head, compared to 25 per cent for rugby (league and union) and 21 per cent for AFL.'
Statistics such as these have lead some commentators to maintain that the level of risk of head injury within cricket has to be reduced and that current regulations which actually allow a certain number of balls per over to be directed at a batsman's head have to be altered.