London: The 18 Associate Members of the International Cricket Conference may not play topflight cricket but they did the game favor by helping to vote out an invidious resolution to restrict the bowling of bouncers to one, an over.

The manner in. which the negative vote was managed, presumably by the West Indians who would have stand to lost the most if such a law were passed did raise ‘eyebrows. Are the votes of Associate Members such as Argentina, Gibraltar, Fiju and Papua New Guinea to be allowed to dictate what is to be done with regard to problems affecting Test cricket?

The constitution of the ICC is such that despite the placing of two votes each at the hands of the seven Foundation and Full members any legislation is subject to majority support being found. That a simple majority of 17 can be whipped up with the ‘support of the Associate Members has to be tackled on a different plane.

‘The manner of voting is however not to be ‘confused with the good that is bound to flow from this particular resolution being defeated. The basic sporting principle is that no team is to be discriminated against merely because it has certain strengths that ‘others do not have at this point in time.

The bouncer is a valid weapon which when used with discretion can give the pace bower the whip hand over the batsman. It is only the power of pace that is actually holding the balance in an increasingly batsman dominated and bats man oriented ‘game, It should not matter that the West Indians alone seem to have this power in abundance, All Test playing countries are perfectly free to find fast bowlers and play them in greater numbers in their Test plying eleven as the West Indians do. ‘Sustained intimidatory bowling which pre~ supposes repeated use of the bouncer is the real problem and that is not going to be solved by quantifying the number of bouncers that can be sent down in an over. ‘Would it be fair to the bowler if the batsman is allowed the freedom to get on to the front foot in the reminder of the over ‘once, a bouncer has been bowled?

Stricter policing of the use of the bouncer without hindering its legitimate deployment is best left to the umpires. They ‘are already fully armed with the powers to curb the use of the short pitched ball as a ‘weapon of intimidation. The weakness has Jain in the fact that the umpires have been known to prefer the soft approach to the issue by ignoring any breach of the provisions built into the laws to control fast bowlers.

Umpires are helpless in a game in which only one country is at present capable of overstepping the limits as envisaged in the laws. A satisfactory solution to the cynical overuse of the bouncer can be found only if the administration shows the will, publicly, to throw its weight behind its umpires more than it has been known to The excessive use of the short ball with a view to intimidating the batsman by persistently aiming for his body rather than his wickets peculiar only to the faster and bouncier Test pitches of the world. Rarely is the phenomenon seen in the subcontinent where the short ball quickly becomes counterproductive or even in many parts Of the West Indies which too have very slow playing surfaces. So it boils down to the Australian and English umpires coming down more harshly on any unethical practices on the part of the fast bowlers.

It is only the “have-nots” who talk of the monotony of batting against four pronged. pace attacks while the “haves” go about their business winning Test matches. To bring up the imagined offense to the esthetic and esoteric senses by the spectacle of batsmen permanently fencing at balls around their ears smacks of “sour grapes”.

‘Sweeping reforms are to be attempted in the functioning of the ICC, The veto power hitherto enjoyed by England and Australia has been diluted. The President of the Marylebone Cricket Club is no more to be the ex-officio Chairman of the ICC although he will nominate the person for the job. Other changes to give the ICC a more egalitarian system have been recommend by the ICC’s Working Group.

Article extracted from this publication >>  August 18, 1989