Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihdev.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihdev!pdg
From: pdg@ihdev.UUCP (P. D. Guthrie)
Newsgroups: net.sport,net.nlang.india,net.followup
Subject: Re: MW Gatting
Message-ID: <529@ihdev.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Feb-86 16:05:47 EST
Article-I.D.: ihdev.529
Posted: Fri Feb 28 16:05:47 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Mar-86 16:34:16 EST
References: <1140@abnji.UUCP> <4300@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: pdg@ihdev.UUCP (55224-P. D. Guthrie)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 37
Keywords: Cricket
Xref: watmath net.sport:696 net.nlang.india:1109 net.followup:5771

In article <4300@ut-sally.UUCP> vohra@sally.UUCP (Pavan Vohra) writes:
>In article <1140@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes:
>
>>This past week, in the West Indies, Mike Gatting of England
>>was nearly killed when hit in the head with a bouncer ....  
>>
>>.... Should it be a legal delivery?  (Current rules in the
>>Brittanic County Championship allow I believe one bouncer per
>>over.) .... 
>>
The bouncer should absolutely *not* be legal.  Although the pitch is
generally kept very well,  the introduction of ground into the path of
the ball introduces too many variables.  I remember a bouncer in a small
local north-east England that almost killed someone, but if I remember
correctly, sub-county games have never allowed bouncers anyway.
>
>   Don't most batsmen wear protective headgear these days?  Apparently
>   Mike wasn't. (huh?)  Is there any legislation to make these mandatory?
>   If not, there probably will be now. 
I hope that headgear is not required, as it would remind me too much of
the hideous American game, baseball. [ Put on ring of flame protection ]
>
>   As far as legality is concerned, why should bouncers be singled out
>   as particularly dangerous?  A good batsman should have a "good eye"
>   to either swing at them or let them by.  If bouncers are declared
>   illegal, so should fielding positions like "silly point".  The 
>   inherent danger seems equable. (probably more so for "silly point").
>
A batsman can be hurt by a bouncer even if he does decide to let it go. 
The choice is not his.  `Silly point'?  I haven't heard that one before,
 but I think I know what you are talking about.  I think that the
difference here is that there is more space around to manouever in.
-- 

Paul Guthrie				`When the going gets weird,
ihnp4!ihdev!pdg				 The weird turn pro'
					  - H. Thompson