View Full Version : Brett Lee - Intimidation Bowling?
GoEagles
16 Dec 2001, 22:54
Not too sure who saw Brett Lee's last over he bowled in todays play (over 120), but his first 2 deliveries hit Ntini on the helmet (they got a legbye). Then his next delivery was to Hayward who backed away, trying to pull the ball. Knowing that he was trying to dodge the ball, Lee's 4th delivery tried to 'follow' Hayward as he took about 3-4 steps away from the wickets (resulting in the ball going past Gilchrist for 4 byes)
The upshot of this post: Was Brett Lee guilty of intimidation bowling and do you think he should be warned not to repeat his antics OR is it good for the game (fast bowler vs tailenders)
Kym Hackdork in the WA press today said on radio that it was a terrible piece of cricket, whats your view?
I only heard the radio commentary (so I obviously didn't see Lee's over), and they were desperately trying to be non-critical, but by the end they were none to impressed by Lee's antics.
Tail-enders have trouble getting into line, and a good bouncer frequently totally ruins what little footwork they have for a following Yorker, that is aggressive, legitimate bowling.
Conversely to constantly attack the head of someone barely capable of defending themselves is a gutless piece of 'cricket'.
It's probably caused by frustration. Unable to blast real batsman out, he has clearly lost a yard of pace since last season and this year has only be able to intimidate the tail-end Charlies.
For some one who just copped a fine of 75% of his match fee, he is certainly going about the right way for a match ban. If he keeps this up certainly pariah status in the rest of the world.
blurton
17 Dec 2001, 04:36
I'm not sure that he's lost too much pace, in fact it's when he's bowling to tailenders that he cranks it up. His bowling was intimidatory and I was really feeling for Ntini, just hoping that Lee would put one on the stumps to stop the agony. I don't care if its within the rules or not, as an Australian, I don't want to win with these tactics. I've got no problem if a guy has got some idea on how to protect himself but Ntini and Hayward had no idea. I like Brett Lee and agree that he probably is frustrated, but that doesn't excuse his reckless actions.
WCE2000
17 Dec 2001, 05:23
Who cares, the batsmen have that much protection on them its becoming very rare that they get hurt.
Back in the 70s, we were facing the likes of Thomson, Pascoe in Grade Cricket (tailenders with even less of a clue then test tailenders) without helmets, pads which were as useful as the sun-herald wrapped around our legs, and holes which had a bit of glove protecting your hands.
Should bowlers be then forced to bowl medium pace half trackers to everyone from 8 down?
And how do you define a tailender??
Brett Lee himself has improved out of sight with his batting the last season, he bats at number 9 - tailender??
What goes around comes around, maybe the SA bowlers will think twice about bowling short at Lee next innings!
Cheers
Gonzo
Fat Red
17 Dec 2001, 08:00
If that's the way you see it, should Bodyline be allowed?
It was a terrible piece of cricket. Not so much because it was intimidatory, but because it was stupid. After that ball that followed Hayward and went straight to the boundary, he stood there talking to Hayward. What on earth could he have said to him? "Four byes mate, take that!" What a knob.
He got no wickets, he got a bit frustrated, so he hunted out easy targets. Couldn't get them out either. I think he really believes his average should be around 16, and that it is an affront if he doesn't pick up four or five scalps a test. That's well and good if it makes him work harder, but the longer he goes without a big bag the worse his bowling gets, and the closer he gets to a suspension. Right now he's just about the last person in the team I'd give the ball to if there were 8 runs to win and one wicket in hand.
You don't see Gillespie carrying on like a pork chop when things don't go his way.
Originally posted by Fat Red
If that's the way you see it, should Bodyline be allowed?
I'm not advocating bodyline at all
All I'm trying to say is that the decision to use short pitched bowling should not be determined as to where the batsman is in the batting order.
Where do you draw the line, seven (Gilchrist would be stoked!), eight (Warnie seems to be improving his batting), nine???
A bowler shouldn't be penalised/limited in the type of delivery he uses - it's up to the bowler to work on his batting technique!
Cheers
Gonzo
Does anyone know the actual ruling on intimidatory bowling/bouncers? I know for a while it was banned when bowling to tail enders (I think I have that right); then it was at the umpires' discretion - they could warn a bowler when they felt the bowling was dangerously intimidatory. What is it now? I think I heard there was a limit of two per over per batsman, but I may have that wrong too.
I think the umpires have to decide when the bowling is unnecessarily aggressive. It's not a question of where the batsman comes in the order, but just as a bowler knows who he can target with head high balls without being hooked to the boundary, so an umpire knows when a lower order batsman is likely to get sconed by every short pitched missile. I think Ntini and Hayward fit the latter category quite comfortably.
PrideOf
17 Dec 2001, 10:05
I don't know about it being intimidatory or dangerous ... it was just dumb.
If I had 0/80 and I was bowling to an obvious rabbit, I'd be aiming at the sticks so I could pick up a test wicket.
Sure, give him one bouncer to make your point. But if he was serious about taking wickets he sure didn't show it.
dogboy23
17 Dec 2001, 13:12
I think he should worry more about on actually doing his job rather than trying to show Hayward he is as quick as him(and if you go on this series he clearly isnt).If he had been concentrating he could have knocked Haywards stumps out of the ground.:rolleyes:
Simon_Nesbit
17 Dec 2001, 18:29
Originally posted by RogerC
Does anyone know the actual ruling on intimidatory bowling/bouncers? I know for a while it was banned when bowling to tail enders (I think I have that right); then it was at the umpires' discretion - they could warn a bowler when they felt the bowling was dangerously intimidatory. What is it now? I think I heard there was a limit of two per over per batsman, but I may have that wrong too.
I think the umpires have to decide when the bowling is unnecessarily aggressive. It's not a question of where the batsman comes in the order, but just as a bowler knows who he can target with head high balls without being hooked to the boundary, so an umpire knows when a lower order batsman is likely to get sconed by every short pitched missile. I think Ntini and Hayward fit the latter category quite comfortably.
I'll give it my best shot as an ex-umpire (a cr@p one at that, but anyway).
There are two laws covering the bowling of fast, short-pitched, or high-full-toss deliveries, that run side-by-side, in Test Cricket.
The first, is the 'bouncer rule'. This law states that a bowler of pace (I think the guideline is if the keeper is standing up or back), bowls a short delivery that is over the batsman's shoulder, in a normal UPRIGHT position (NOTE: NOT STANCE), then the umpire shall inform the bowler, the batsman, his fellow umpire, and the fielding captain, that this is the bowler's 1st Bouncer for the over. (Usually by the raising of a finger, ala giving 'out', but directed to bowler). Often the square-leg umpire will make this ruling. Upon the second occurence, the umpire at the bowlers end shall repeat the notification process (bowler, batsman, etc).
Any subsequent deliveries TO THAT PARTICULAR BATSMAN that are in the region above the shoulders, shall be immediately called "no-ball", and the bowler shall receive an official 1st warning. (Bowlers get 2 warnings, then on third recurrance are prevented from bowling in the rest of the innings, and may suffer retribution from match referee).
Should the batsmen change ends, or a new batsmen comes to the crease, the 'bouncer-count' is reset (but not warnings), and the bowler can resume as per normal.
==================
The other law that stands side-by-side with this law is the law of "intimadatory bowling". This law gives the umpire the power, to, at his discretion, advise the bowler, captain, etc (as above) and warn the bowler. In this case, the bowler is usually allowed an unofficial warning (call it a(n) (un)friendly reminder from the umpire), prior to the warning process above.
In this case, consideration is given to the relative abilities of the batsman, and as to whether the actions of the bowler may cause physical harm, (or the intention to do so).
NOTE: The bowling does not have to be over shoulder height for the 'intimadatory bowling' clause to be introduced. (eg, six chest high bouncers, aimed at the body of a #11, may be cause for a warning, yet all are legal deliveries).
====================
So in answer to your questions, or comment regarding the Brett Lee situation.
Ball #1: (To Ntini - hit on helmet). Between shoulder and head high. Ruled 1st bouncer. No warnings under either law. (perfectly legitimate to attempt to 'worry' a batsman out).
Ball #2: (To Ntini - hit on helmet, one bye). Again between shoulder and head high. Ruled 2nd bouncer. Again, no warnings under 'short-pitched-bowling'. Umpires discretionary warning under "intimadatory bowling".
Ball #3: (To Haywood - head high, swing and miss). This time, new batsman, ball between shoulder- & head-high. No warnings under 'short-pitched-bowling' (as different batsman). Consideration may be given to previous (warning to Ntini). Possibly an official warning, at least an unofficial warning under "intimadatory bowling"
Ball #4: (To Haywood - followed him to leg, four byes). This is the one that worries me somewhat. Again, (he's consistant at least!), between shoulder and head high, so no warning under short-pitched-bowling (as 2nd legal bouncer to batsman).
However at this stage, it appeared transparent that Lee was attempting to physically injure the batsman, (as well as significant mental scarring). The umpire should have definitely layed an official warning, and perhaps (depending on result of ball #3), the 2nd warning.
==================
I'm afraid that I lost a lot of respect for Brett Lee today, both as a cricketer and as a person. Fair enough, if it was Kirsten and Gibbs he was bowling too, or even Pollock, Boucher, or any 'recognised' batsman (ie knows which end to hold). But what he did was unethical, uncalled for, and downright (in my opinion) un-Australian.
I wonder if he would have done the same to Allan Donald?
The Hippie
17 Dec 2001, 21:45
OK, so it's alright for Hayward to fire the first shots by bouncing Lee and then not expect any in return? Kind of forgetten that fact haven't we? I'm not saying Lee didn't overdo it, but if Hayward don't wanna face it, Hayward shouldn't bowl it.
I'm with WCE2000 on this, I mean it's hard to see how you can actually really hurt a batsman with all the body armour they have on these days.The head's protected, the chest's protected & they have arm guards.
I love to see bowlers targetting other bowlers & giving them a going over, it's Test cricket not girls cricket.I still remember Devon Malcolm getting hit on the helmet at the Oval, I think from Fanny DeVilliers, it got him so wound up he said something like' You guys are history' & went out & took a 9 for & won the game.
Mind you I remember Courtney walsh giving him such a going over & hitting him so many times in the West Indies that all the commentators to a man were disgusted & saying that this isn't what Test cricket is about, but big Dev was quick enough, he should have gone out & done the same to Walsh but even worse.Because when you dish it out you're running the risk of copping the same back & so it's not exactly gutless, the opposite I'd say.
New Zealand v England, Auckland, 1975, 1st Test
NZ 2nd Innings: Ewan Chatfield 13* Retired Hurt.
The impact of receiving a Peter Lever bouncer resulted in Chatfield having a fractured skull, and his heart stopped beating.
That's right, a tail-ender literally 'died' from receiving a bouncer.
Only prompt treatment by the English physio saved Chatfield's life. On the pitch he performed a heart-massage and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to restart his heart.
I'm not saying ban the bouncer, just moderate its use.
It should be Lee's shock delivery, not his stock delivery.
Yeah but mate that was 1975 that's the whole point there were no proper helmets like there are now.I seem to remember Tony Greig or someone like that wore a motorbike helmet & Gavasker wore some funny little thing that didn't look like it offered any protection.
Nowadays everyone's got a proper cricket helmet with full face guard.
On the subject of Ewan Chatfield the ever sensitive Ian botham had an on pitch spat with him & apparently said something along the lines of ' ...you want to watch your step you've already died once on a cricket pitch you don't want it to happen again'
So let me understand this the modern batsman today wears a helmet so he is invincible?
He can stand like a colossus at the crease secure in the knowledge that a projectile deliberately aimed at his head and travelling at an estimated speed of 95 m.p.h. can have no possible negative consequences should it strike him in the head.
As a tail-ender his limited ability be damned, this is the stuff of Boys Own, a free hit, where ones natural instinct to get the head out off the way is a real hindrance, not a valuable instinctive life skill.
Seriously last time I checked the helmet is only a recommended safety device to minimise risk, not a guarantee of personal safety.
I've seen grills smashed into the face, resulting in the need for stitches to a broken jaw. And who has not seen a close up of delivery that goes between helmet and grill.
Helmets make the game safer. Not repeatedly bowling bouncers at tail-enders makes it safer even still.
I'm sure your opinion would change for next ashes series should Lee have a decent spell at Ed Giddins.
Anyway.
One of the funniest before and after photos I have ever seen was in Jeremy Coney's autobiography from touring the Windies.
Before: Ball smashing into Coney's protected forearm, breaking it. Bat flying in the air, Head whipped back. Windies slip corden going up.
Titled: Marshall adding some numbness to the the arm.
After: Coney, apparently an hour later, in the changing room still in his whites with his pads on, yet to have his arm properly treated. Grinning, slouched in a chair with half empty bottle of whiskey in his hand.
Titled: Adding some more personal numbness.
The_Flying_Egg
18 Dec 2001, 12:37
Brett Lee's a ****ing ****a
Never before have I hated an Australian cricketer so much.
And the **** throws the ball
Blues2001
18 Dec 2001, 13:21
Originally posted by The_Flying_Egg
Brett Lee's a ****ing ****a
I pretty much agree. And why does he feel the need to release a book (with his even less talented brother) and a clothing label when he has pretty much done stuff all in cricket so far. Hope the sales are doing crap.
Originally posted by The Hippie
OK, so it's alright for Hayward to fire the first shots by bouncing Lee and then not expect any in return? Kind of forgetten that fact haven't we? I'm not saying Lee didn't overdo it, but if Hayward don't wanna face it, Hayward shouldn't bowl it.
Spot on. Totally with ya. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
Satay Mat
18 Dec 2001, 17:58
I was at the ground and was not impressed.
I tend to agree with Prideof....I think bouncers to tailenders are OK but clearly he was not even trying to get them out...so what was the point ?
Lee got caned most of the day including going for 28 in his previous 3 overs to recognised batsmen. He tried to be the "big man" and scare a couple of blokes but just ended up looking like a spoilt little boy.
What the team needed was a wicket (even no. 10 or 11) and Lee was more interested in his own ego.
respect = 0
Satay Mat
WCE2000
18 Dec 2001, 19:08
it was ordinary bowling, but as i said earlier, i really dont think dangerous bowling exists these days.
Back in my days of grade cricket things where much much worse than what these guys have it.
There are probably 2 sides to this argument but I will try and accomodate both. In Lee's first 7 tests he took 42 wickets @ 17 a piece which is well above average and he must of thought that test cricket was quite easy. After the England tour he got carted and had to re-assess quite a few things about his bowling, work ethic etc. Up until the advent of helmets the fast bowlers had an un-written law that they wouldn't (most of the time) bowl bouncers at each other, basically don't bowl uncomfotable deliveries to the guys that can bowl them back at you. I think that ended when the Windies sides of the 80's continued to cane lower order batters and the opposition bowlers got fed up and fought fire with fire. In the 1st innings Lee was targeted with a number of bouncers, and the reason why is because the poeple that bowled the bouncers thought they may as well get in first. Now in SA's 1st Innings, Lee hit Ntini twice in a row on the helmet although the 2nd one wasn't above shoulder height. What he bowled to Hayward though was a disgrace. Lee had been carted to all parts of the ground yet felt rather special in making Hayward put self defence ahead of shot making. The ball he bowled that went for 4 byes was certainly trying to injure the "batsmen" as opposed to getting him out and all you could see was Lee grinning from ear to ear.
Was it because Lee is more capable with the bat than Hayward and Ntini that nothing was made of the short pitched bowling he faced, or are we just shooting down another talented Aussie?
Smithy
Originally posted by Player
I'm sure your opinion would change for next ashes series should Lee have a decent spell at Ed Giddins.
Not at all:D I can't stand Ed Giddins & the thought of that arrogant medium pacer squirming with fear backing away to leg as the ball starts pinging around his ears brings a smile to my face;)
Now if he let Tuffers have it that would be a different matter entirely:mad:
As for Hayward, I remember his early Tests against England & he's a chip from the same block as Lee, he's a young, mouthy, nasty bowler who thinks he's the first bowler to bowl real pace & has bugger all respect for opposition batters-basically what goes around comes around.