From: amatin@prism.poly.edu (Akbar Matin)
Subject: One Bouncer Law...
Organization: Polytechnic University, New York
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 14:29:39 GMT



	BELOW IS AN ARTICLE BY EX-PAKISTANI SKIPPER IMRAN KHAN WHICH HE HAD
CONTRIBUTED TO "THE CRICKETER, PAKISTAN" A FEW MONTHS BACK. THIS WAS POSTED
ON THE NETWORK THEN AND I AM REPRODUCING IT FOR THE NETTERS TO READ AND GIVE
THEIR COMMENTS, IF ANY.

				THANKS. - AKBAR MATIN

THE NEW BOUNCER LAW:

One of the most brainless pieces of legislation ever passed by the ICC

*** By  IMRAN KHAN  ***              (Source: "The Cricketer, Pakistan")


For me the one-bouncer-per-over rule is without doubt one of the most brain-
less pieces of legislation ever passed by the International Cricket Council.
Apart from protecting incompetent and gutless batsmen, I'm not sure what it
is supposed to achieve.

The ICC members should realise that in order to excel in Test cricket, a
player needs to possess talent, technique, intelligence and, above all, 
courage. There have always been highly talented players who, by being
deficient in either technique or courage, could never make the jump from
first-class to Test cricket.

The other incredible thing is that with the wearing of helmets even the risk
of serious injury has been eliminated. The legislation might have made more
sense if a lot of batsmen were being put into hospital after being hit by
bouncers.

The bouncer is one of the most important weapons in the armoury of a fast  
bowler. Through it he tests a batsman's nerve or technical weaknesses. I 
used to use it mostly to stop batsmen coming on to the front foot so that 
they would become vulnerable to myto my in-swinger.



On certain easy-paced wickets, without the use of the short ball at times,
I found it hard even to dismiss tailenders if they launched on the front 
foot. This is especially true on some Pakistani wickets where the ball
neither moves off the seam nor bounces enough to carry to the slips.

Presumably the ICC have not bothered to consider unhelpful bowling conditions
on the indian sub-continent and at times in the     
Caribbean.

In the helpful English or Australian conditions, pace bowlers can get    
wickets just by maintaining a certain line and length. This rule is just 
like telling a bowler like Abdul Qadir 
that he is not allowed to bowl more than one googly per over.

Furthermore, what happens to one of the most glorious shots in the game -
the hook? Few cricketers will disagree that it is the most skillful and most
spectacular stroke. Now, with this nonsensical law, it may well become
extinct.

The biggest headache from this legislation will be felt by the umpires. As
if they haven't already enough on their plates, now they will have to 
decide what constitutes a bouncer.

Imagine Merv Hughes bowling to the diminutive Sachin Tendulkar at Perth,
the bounciest wicket in international cricket. I am willing to bet that one
of two things will happen. The most obvious is that Merv Hughes will be taken
off very quickly for bowling too many bouncers. Or, since he is the easiest
bowler to face once he pitched it up, he will be hit out of the attack. It
is conceivable that his career could be over.

I also foresee a lot of bickering about the interpretation of the bouncer.
I'm afraid this eyewash of appointing a match referee
is not going to help matters. The referee provides a way for the ICC to get
out of the problem of appointing neutral umpires. It is a cop-out and will
not make much difference.

As for the players' code of conduct, we have heard it all before. Every year
the ICC make noises about the deteriorating discipline on the field. Yet they
made no real attempts to find out the root cause of the problems.

Everyone knows about the code of conduct, yet whenever there is a crisis
regarding discipline, the respective cricket boards take the side of their
teams and a stalemate occurs.

During the Gatting-Shakoor Rana incident, according to the code of conduct
for players, Gatting should have been punished by the TCCB. A player was 
seen on television questioning and later abusing the umpire. The TCCB not
only stood by their player but at the end of the tour gave Gatting and his
team a 1,000 pounds hardship bonus.

I do not envisage anything changing as a result of appointing a match
referee or bringing out this code of conduct. The stricter the home umpires
get, the more chance there will be of a confrontation with the touring team.

There is only one way to solve the problems of discipline and bouncers and 
that is for the ICC to insist on neutral umpires.

What amazes me is that the ICC do not consult the Test captains. Almost all
of them were in England at the time of the meeting. Surely they must be in 
a better position to talk about the problems facing cricket than those 
people who either stopped playing cricket years ago or never even played
first-class cricket.

The captains' opinions should be sought as to why Law 42, with which the 
umpires are armed to stop intimidatory bowling, is not always implemented.
In my experience, unless the umpire is from a third country there will 
always be dispute over his interpretation of intimidatory bowling.

Also, if the ICC had consulted great batsmen like Bradman, Gavaskar, Sobers
the Chappell brothers, Miandad, Boycott and Compton, I am certain they 
would all consider the one-bouncer-per-over law to be utterly y
ridiculous. I hope they speak out and that the ICC get rid of this   
ubintelligent law.



                         - Akbar Matin
                           amatin@prism.poly.edu



 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket