• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Intimidatory bowling and nonsense like that

DocHead

School Boy/Girl Captain
The intimidatory bowling clause really gets up my nose. This is a horrible law, is it actually in the books or is it some form of gentlemanly conduct thing?

I can accept 2 beamers and you're out, that's bowling an illegal delivery that the batter wouldn't expect in the least.

But bouncers are perfectly legal, why should a bowler be prevented from bowling them just because the batsman is incapable of playing properly? Someone should point out that he's always got the option of retiring. The saying is, If you can't stand the heat...get out of the kitchen, not whine to the cook that it's too hot and he should turn the heat down or he's going to complain to daddy.

Imagine if the 5th day's drawing to a close, the #11 is in and has been hit a couple times, can't play the short ball to save his life, but the pitch is benign, so he's been able to block without too much trouble. He gets hit on the helmet and the umpire says it's intimatory. All off a sudden the batsman knows he can't get too many short balls, so he's better prepared, but the bowling side has just lost one of it's weapons. I'd be livid.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
There has to be a line somewhere tho; no-one (I would hope) wants to see a bloke hurt or worse.

I always remember Courtney Walsh's 11 consecutive bouncers to poor old Dev Malcolm. That, for me, crossed the line. Dev was pretty woeful (& that's being polite) even as ferrets go, so was unlikely to get a bat anywhere near the ball. The only conclusion is that it was deliberate intimidation.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
The rule came in the first place when the Windies quartet was bowling 6 bouncers in an over. I dont find anything wrong with that as long as its not above the head. Above the head balls are unplayable and should be dead IMO. Apart from that, if a bowler feels he can get wickets with the bouncers, his weapon should not be removed from him. Its like telling a spinner not to spin the ball so much as its difficult for the batsman to play it..
 

willb88

Cricket Spectator
I think this is one of the worst rules introduced to cricket, even tail-enders should be able to play the short ball and not get out.
I feel that if a bowler is going to bowl a lot of short balls, cricket evens itself out and that bowler will be in the position of receiving short balls in the same or another game.
The only reason that some people moan about the use of short balls is when their team either loses wickets or a game to it. But they are happy when their team wins a game with it.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
Yes but would you like to see someone get hurt? No problems with me for bouncers under head hight that could take wickets
 

Langeveldt

Soutie
Could it be construed as being a negative tactic? IE continuing to bowl short at a guy who doesnt hook, or a tail ender who can't hook... I can imagine it getting really boring after a while
 

bestfriendh

Cricket Spectator
heya

the worst thing tht a sports fan wants to see is sumun gettin hurt.......tht said.........yeah the bowling rules do need to be changed a bit......but this after all is cricket and there has to be a line somewhere........and tht line should be to ban dead balls......balls way outside leg or above da head.......np with short stuff if a bowler thinks he can get da batsmanout.......... 8-) :D
 

Camel56

Banned
I dont know why anyone would resort to bowling bouncers to intimidate someone. Sending threatening emails or appearing on their doorstep in the middle of the night armed with a sawn-off shot gun would be a far more effective and certainly more masculin form of intimidation IMO.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Pratyush said:
Its like telling a spinner not to spin the ball so much as its difficult for the batsman to play it..
No, it's nothing like it - the rule is to stop someone without the ability to defend themselves getting hurt, not help someone avoid dismissal.
I see no reason, myself, why a bowler has a right to bowl a Bouncer at a player who can't defend himself - he's highly unlikely to get a wicket with it, because the "batsman" won't be able to get his gloves up.
It's simply a pointless act used by bowlers who seek to intimidate, use underhand and immoral tactics and IMO it's quite right to be outside the laws.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You might want to educate yourself on the relevant matters before making ill-informed statements like that.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
I actually have a totally different point of view here. I think repeated bowling of bouncers makes cricket ugly, boring, and dare I say it, "just not cricket". Personally I have never appreciated the visceral, blood and guts element of cricket, and do not agree that it is a natural part of the game. To me, the whole point of cricket is for bowlers to bowl most of their deliveries in an area that makes the game a genuine contest between bat and all- any other bowling is either negative or intimidatory, and not part of the game as I see it. I don't see why a bowler would ever need to bowl 3 or more bouncers in one over to the same batsman.
 

bryce

International Regular
when i bowl i wouldn't normally want to see the batsman hurt but if he is making me angry(usually after facing about an over without making a mistake or slogging me) i would quite like to hurt him and when i do it normally satisfies me for some reason
 

Camel56

Banned
Richo, you might want to educate yourself on anything at all before you open the trap on your beady-eyed little dropped-pie-like head.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
bryce said:
when i bowl i wouldn't normally want to see the batsman hurt but if he is making me angry(usually after facing about an over without making a mistake or slogging me) i would quite like to hurt him and when i do it normally satisfies me for some reason
Which is a worrying trait that you see amongst bowlers a lot ATM.
Personally I take much more satisfaction in splaying the stumps of a batsman who is annoying me - not always easy to achieve, of course!
 

bryce

International Regular
haha yeah, that's why the most satisfaction is in hitting a skilled batsman because satisfaction from other sources could be hard to come by
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Yet - isn't he just as likely to miss a straight, full ball as a straight, short one? Given that the reaction-time for a short one is greater.
A Beamer, of course, you'll get your wish but you'll also get disgraced for unacceptible tactics.
 

Camel56

Banned
Richard said:
You might want to learn that spouting nonsensical insults gets you nowhere in life.

You might want to learn that sitting on the internet posting on this forum gets you nowhere in life. Almost 11000 posts in just over a year says it all really.
 

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
Camel56 said:
You might want to learn that sitting on the internet posting on this forum gets you nowhere in life. Almost 11000 posts in just over a year says it all really.
Now, now, Camel, I'm sure this obsession with first-chance averages and a complete refusal to ever admit he is wrong will hold him in good stead when it comes to tracking out a career.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall during one of Richard's job interviews...
 

Top