Should we ban bouncers? (I don't know)

In the latest Ashes hype, Steve Smith once again reminded the world that while Jofra Archer hit him on the head (ruling the Australian out with concussion), he didn’t do what really hurts: getting him out. This idea that a potentially life-altering concussion injury is preferable to a cricket dismissal is, to me, symptomatic of the macho approach to cricket generally, and bouncers in particular. The physical threat of bouncers has visceral appeal but people putting themselves up for physical injury for the sake of entertainment makes me uneasy.

Bouncers are part of cricket’s mythos: Viv Richards swaggering out to hook bowlers with just a cap for protection is undeniably cool; Bodyline is a touchstone of cricket history; and the iconic West Indies bowlers defined men's cricket in the 70s & 80s.

Robin Smith acrobatically avoiding a bouncer at Old Trafford, 1995, Getty Images. 

Taking enjoyment out of what is potentially life-ending moment for a batter feels a little gladiatorial. Whatever way a batter deals with a bouncer, be it manoeuvring, fending it off with the bat, or attacking the ball with the hook, it is dangerous. And part of the appeal is in the danger, and to me that provides a moral conundrum.

The thrill of people risking their bodies for entertainment is always questionable; while that is not the aim of cricket, it is part of the bouncer appeal. The whole approach of ‘Bodyline’ supposedly came about after Douglas Jardine sensed Bradman’s uneasiness at facing short stuff: “He’s yellow!” – conforming to the idea that the Don may be extremely good at cricket, but he lacks “courage” to play it. Jeff Thomson when part of the machismo-drenched Australian team of the mid-1970s said he wanted to see batters’ blood on the pitch, and certainly caused a few uncomfortable hits.

Although most bowlers do not set out to hit batters, the intent is irrelevant as it is just dangerous and that danger is part of our enjoyment as fans.

Famously it took nearly 200 years of organised cricket for helmets to be widely-adopted for a game which involves a hard 160g missile being launched at speeds of over 80 miles-per-hour towards a batter 22 yards away, while the box has been used in various forms since the mid-19th-century. From the muscular Christianity of the Victorians onwards, there was resistance to wearing any batting protection. Even pads were at first seen as ‘unmanly’ and the ultimate Victorian macho-man WG Grace refused to wear a box.

This is all clearly ridiculous. Cricket is a game, not a test of ‘manliness’ (whatever that means), and it’s downright stupid to not protect the most valuable object you’ll ever possess while playing a game. 86 billion neurons make up the brain; a number so big it’s difficult for the brain to comprehend, without even taking into account the myriad of connections and other complexities. Your brain is you. So it makes sense to protect your head at all costs, even at the huge costs of the aesthetics of crickets. If it were true that cricket is a test of physical “courage” or “manliness” (whatever that means), that test should not reach into areas of life-changing or mortal danger.

Should bouncers be banned? I don’t know. Helmets should always be compulsory for fielders and batters, as welcoming recent changes have enforced. Additionally, umpires should immediately stop bouncers when the batters clearly aren’t up to defending themselves, and we shouldn’t fetish-ise ‘bravery’ of batters being hit by bouncers. Of course, the response is that batters are adults, who know the dangers and do it anyway, so cricket’s laws should not nanny them, but people knowing the danger doesn’t make it right and people do sometimes need protecting from themselves. Especially when protection is from a heavy ball flung very fast at uncomfortably close distance.