Khan I: The New Bouncer Law (Jan93)

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-bouncerper-over law to be utterly y ridiculous. I hope they speak out and that the ICC get rid of this ubintelligent law.