For some reason the media feels the need to keep reminding me that toady is the 30th anniversary of the Chappell's underarm incident. It was a while later before I was in a position to have a reaction to it, and that initial reaction would tell you a lot about my character at the time!
Now, with a more rounded view of things, I still find it interesting that the sport saw almost Hair/Murali-type incidents in response to overarm, and before that even roundarm, bowling should end up removing the underarm or overarm clause from the rules (first routinely through playing conditions, then from the Laws themselves).
The changes have gone further than they need to. The rolling or excessively bouncing ball has been made a no-ball, and this deals with the real problem with the 1981 scenario. There's no reason to take away the underarm option as well, even if it is just a relic. It's not likely to be relevant to serious cricket, but can't hurt it anyway, and to my mind provides a nice link to history that should be allowed if it ever is wanted. Sure, it doesn't really matter whether the underarm balls delivered to kids in the backyard are sanctioned by the MCC, but you might have gathered that I think about hte rules a bit more than necessary.
4 comments:
I think the reintroduction of more than one bouncer per over would liven up stolid ODIs considerably. Poor old Greg Chappell - wonderful player, terrible legacy....
If nothing else, it was certainly a funny incident.
Someone posted a clip of Richie Benuad's reaction to it on their blog recently, it was amazing to see the great man lose his temper, but still appear to do it in a calm way.
That was really an unforgettable incident. He is indeed a great player.
So great your article is! It hard to say how much I have learnt from your article, such as your idea of life and love. I will recommend it to anyone.
Post a Comment