From: andyc@is.morgan.com (Andrew Coad)
Subject: Re: One Bouncer Law...
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:10:11 GMT

AKBAR MATIN included an article by Imran Khan on the ICC regulation limiting
bouncers to one per over.

Just for the hell of it I looked at the oldest copy of the MCC Laws of Cricket
that I own - 1939 - and surprisingly there was a specific ruling on bouncers.
I don't know when the ruling was introduced into the Laws - it could have been
earlier than 1939 (possibly after the Bodyline series?). The wording of the
ruling is almost identical to how it is today (i.e. it hasn't changed for at
least 53 years). The ruling is under the section "Fair and Unfair Play"
subsection "Intimidatory Bowling" and empowers the umpire to restrict the
number of bouncers that can be bowled in any one over if those bouncers are
considered to be intimidatory in nature. Intimidatory is further defined as being
directed at the body, rising to above shoulder height wherein the ball would
cause physical injury if evasive actions were not taken. The ruling also
instructs the umpire to take into account the relative skill of the batsman when
judging intimidatory bowling. (The above is not the exact wording of the ruling,
just the general jist. I don't mind producing the exact wording if anyone is that
interested).

Now, the MCC laws as they stand today do not specifically limit bouncers to one
per over, they simply empower the umpire to make a judgement call based on the
ferocity of the bowler and the ability of the batsman (and presumeably, the
quality of the light at the time). So I have the following questions:

	1) Has the ICC made a specific ruling above and beyond that provided
	for in the MCC laws? If so, can anyone produce the exact wording and
	scope of the ruling (e.g. to what level of cricket does it apply? County
	Test, village green?)

	2) If the ICC has not made a specific ruling above and beyond the MCC
	laws, does this mean that there is no "one bouncer per over" rule and
	references to it should be interpreted as meaning the intimidatory
	bowling ruling?

	3) Regardless of the existence or not of any ICC ruling, what do you
	netters out there think? Should the umpire be empowered to limit bouncers
	to tail-end batsmen? Or should bowlers just be able to rip through the
	tail-end by attempting to knock their heads off?

P.S. I remember an England vs West Indies Test where Roberts, Holding and Marshall
were causing havoc. Boycott and Knott were batting and they were both getting
peppered with bouncers. Knott, who is not the greatest batsman spent a lot of
his time just ducking out of the way without attempting to play the ball. After
a while, out of frustration, he devised a shot wherein he got his entire body 
below the rising ball, pushed his hands up with the face of the bat facing the
sky and flipped the ball over the keeper for four (before third man could move).
Boycott scored a ton, and Knott reached a hundred just a few overs later. If I
recall, this was Knott's maiden Test hundred which goes to show that with a little
ingenuity, even a mediocre batsman can play bouncers!

Andrew Coad
Morgan Stanley
New York
(212) 703-2379