TOPIC:

I started this thread so the Phil Hughes thread doesn't turn into a shit fight.
Why is there an overreaction every time there are incidents like this, leave the game alone I would seriously doubt that Hughes would want the bouncer banned considering it was one of his favourite shots.

Time would be better spent improving the helmet, the bouncer is used as a way for batsmen to score runs and bowlers to take wickets.

Peter North wrote: I started this thread so the Phil Hughes thread doesn't turn into a shit fight.
Why is there an overreaction every time there are incidents like this, leave the game alone I would seriously doubt that Hughes would want the bouncer banned considering it was one of his favourite shots.

Time would be better spent improving the helmet, the bouncer is used as a way for batsmen to score runs and bowlers to take wickets.

Correct and it wont be banned.
Just so unlucky whichever way you look at it.
He takes 1 or 3 runs off the previous ball,he jumps 2 inches higher,the ball bounces a little higher and hits the helmet,ball stays a little lower and hits his shoulder etc etc...

A very sad day from an incident unlikey to ever happen again on a cricket field.

then why is it not allowed in baseball, hockey or any other sport where a bat and ball is used? lot's of batsmen have been hit by bouncers and I guess they've just been very lucky. as I said on the other thread, show me any other sport in the world where it's within the rules to aim a rock hard missile at very high speed straight at someone's head. bowlers get wickets because batsmen have to take evasive action to avoid getting hurt....batsmen get runs if they're prepared to risk getting hurt by playing a shot...it beggars belief that bowling at someone's head is within the rules of the game

BC wrote: then why is it not allowed in baseball, hockey or any other sport where a bat and ball is used? lot's of batsmen have been hit by bouncers and I guess they've just been very lucky. as I said on the other thread, show me any other sport in the world where it's within the rules to aim a rock hard missile at very high speed straight at someone's head. bowlers get wickets because batsmen have to take evasive action to avoid getting hurt....batsmen get runs if they're prepared to risk getting hurt by playing a shot...it beggars belief that bowling at someone's head is within the rules of the game

Mate your talking about a tradition of the game which would spell the end of cricket, sounds like a overreaction doesn't it a bit like banning the bouncer after a freak accident which has only ever happened 100 times in history and once in cricket, ffs imagine how boring the game would become, its a batsmen game as it is, anyway it will never happen the custodians of the game wont allow it.

I'll be interested to see what the likes of Johnson does from now on.....at his pace he openly used the short ball as a fear factor tatic to intimidate the opposition......will he use it now post the Hughes event knowing there is real possibility now he could be feeling what Sean Abbott is feeling right now? One thing using the short ball when no one has died from it......but now some one has, some one he knows pretty well and who could hold a bat, might play on his conscience too much.

Everyone knows the bouncer is directed at the batsmen head to put a bit of doubt and fear into their head.....not there to kill them but definitely to distract them......but how many times have we heard the bravado from fast bowlers they want to inadvertently "kill" a batsmen......"knock" their head off.......all huff and puff I know.....but only because no one actually got killed or had their head knocked off......can see a lot of genuine fast bowlers being reluctant to use it now......sad in one way for the spectator who love seeing a batsman hopping all over the place protecting their scone.....not wanting them dead but definitely feeling uncomfortable!

Also how many batsmen are gonna refrain from hooking now in fear of actually dissecting a vertebral artery and having a massive SAH like Hughes did......yeah one in a million chance I know but when it happens to someone you actually know percentages and statistics go well and truly out the door....only takes one and that one stat could be them....do they take the risk?...

...PN I reckon the bouncer won't be banned, not for any of your reasons but I reckon a lot of bowlers will voluntarily take it out of their arsenal.....and similar to batsmen with hooking.....interesting times ahead!

The ball didnt rise that sharply and in terms of "bouncers" it was probably at the lower end of the scale in terms of height,he wasnt a tall man.
A full on bouncer would have sailed way over his head with plenty of time to duck.
Its the ball that goes around throat area that is harder to deal with,imo.

I agree with you Freeze re-how the quicks will now react,for the short term anyway.

agree with all you've said freez...i dont think it will be banned either but you've got to wonder about the purpose and intent of such a delivery. every time someone gets whacked in the head by a bouncer whether they get hurt or not will increase the pressure on crickets lawmakers to look very closely at its legitimacy. i could be wrong but it appears to me at first blush the head is sacrosanct in every sport in the world except cricket and boxing/martial arts...the difference being you enter a boxing ring expecting to get hit in the head by a fist...not so cricket with a rock hard ball.

Of course Johnson will keep using the bouncer also players will still hook & pull.. nothing will change..

BC wrote: then why is it not allowed in baseball, hockey or any other sport where a bat and ball is used? lot's of batsmen have been hit by bouncers and I guess they've just been very lucky. as I said on the other thread, show me any other sport in the world where it's within the rules to aim a rock hard missile at very high speed straight at someone's head. bowlers get wickets because batsmen have to take evasive action to avoid getting hurt....batsmen get runs if they're prepared to risk getting hurt by playing a shot...it beggars belief that bowling at someone's head is within the rules of the game

I agree mate - its needs to be looked at, at the very least proper safety gear worn and mandatory..but as you say - its quite bizzsre the head is scarsant in every sport all over the world, bar this one, infact its sort of encouraged as "part of the game" to direct a sold rock hard projectile at 140 KMH deflected off a foreign surface that can be cracked thus becoming unpredictable and more dangerous..

One sport I can think of that has a very dangerous projectile is Ice Hockey, have a look at the safety gear they wear esp the Goalie.

We hear about this one, but how many juniors, amatuers and country players suffer cracked skulls, eye sockets and the like we never hear about.

Even Bob Hawke copped one in the eye socket, I didnt know the injury was as bad as it was until I watched Australian Story, his sight never recovered fully.

There will of course be a coronial inquiry, the findings will be interesting, as the very least recommendations as too minimum safety gear.

PN, well done on starting this thread

Personally I say no, we cant change the game and ban bouncers, its set up for batsmen as it is.

Remember guys, bouncers are not bowled to maim a batsmen, bouncers are traditionally bowled to get the batsmen on the back foot, if you could just rock on the front foot every ball batting is easy, so bowlers bounce batsmen to push them back, and try to confuse the footwork having them go back to balls they should have gone forward too and trying to get batsmen out snicking to slips. That is the idea of a bouncer, not to hurt or maim someone.

Now to add to the thoughts of people out there, we give the batsmen a lot of protective gear now, a lot more so than the older days. This added to the introduction of 20/20 cricket has taught batsmen to be a lot more adventurous in their stroke play. We regularly see batsmen pull off the front foot now, or when the ball is a foot outside off stump, when they are in no position to do so, sometimes they get away with it and sometimes they get caught by hitting the ball straight up.

If you ever get the chance to listen to Ian Chappel speak he will talk about this a lot. Ian was known as a compulsive hooker in his time. he makes 1 points clear when talking about hooking.

1) in the older days they didn't wear helmets, but they also didn't pull a ball from outside off stump and try to hit it through the leg side like a lot of batters did, they swayed out of the way of the ball. he believes if he played now with the extra skills and technology that batters currently use then he would be a compulsive hooker like the rest of them.

So do we ban the bouncer, do we ban the technology that has advanced the game that has put players into this position, or do we just put this down to a terrible incident, and allow the game to continue to evolve. Don't get me wrong this incident sucks and is terrible for all concerned.

BC you talk about baseball, hockey and other sports, Its like comparing apples and oranges mate. I understand your comments about the head and agree that head should always be protected, however going back to my initial point, the bouncer isn't bowled to hit a player in the head, its bowled to try to get him out, if he gets hit anywhere that's a by product of playing a game that takes a lot of bravery.

My thoughts guys, would be interested in your thoughts.......