The past week has been perhaps the most tragic in the history of cricket. Phil Hughes, only 25, widely believed to Australia’s most promising cricketer and a full life ahead of him, dies when hit by a bouncer while batting in a first class match.To compound the sorrow, the ball’s bowled by a 22-year-old in his breakthrough season, Sean Abbott, who is looking to catch the eye of the selectors. Completely blameless but now will have to carry the burden of this memory for the rest of his life.
The ways of divinity, it is said, are unfathomable. Usually this is meant to convey awe and wonder, but in this sorry episode, they seem cruel. A pall of gloom has descended on the cricket world, and while this will lift with the passage of time, the mood currently is very grim.The first Test between India and Australia, scheduled for December 4, has been delayed. While there are proponents of instant resumption of cricket as the best therapy, the sentiments of Michael Clarke and his team must be respected.
Meanwhile, a debate has been thrown up whether bouncers should be permitted at all in cricket? Those arguing against essentially say fast bowlers should be forced to rely on skill (swing, seam etc) rather than the short-pitched delivery.As I see it, there are some sports that don’t pose a physical threat to the players (like billiards, chess), some that primarily impose challenges to fitness and physical excellence (running, swimming, tennis, badminton etc) some that include danger along with this (skiing, horse racing, speed car racing), those that take it a notch further like football, rugby, hockey, boxing, wrestling, judo etc.
Danger to life varies from category to category and within categories, from sport to sport.Cricket, however, seemed an unlikely inclusion in the last category because but in many ways, the duel between bat and ball can and has always been daunting. The bouncer has been a potent weapon to unsettle batsmen, get them to conceded their wicket if not immediately then later. One of the most controversial chapters in cricket history pertains to the Bodyline theory, where the ball was aimed at the bodies of batsmen rather than the stumps.
This was unsporting, of course, and evoked widespread criticism.In the 80-odd years since Bodyline, several batsmen have been hit by the short-pitched delivery: Nari Contractor, Ewan Chatfield, Iqbal Qasim, Dlip Vengsarakr, Mohinder Amarnath, Colin Cowdrey are some among many who suffered injuries of varying intensity. As is inevitable in any human endeavor, the reply to the problem emerged with a combination of human ingenuity and regulation. Batsmanship has evolved to take this threat in stride — through defensive technique or counter-attack, which have added to the richness and delight of the sport. Over the years, protective gear including helmets have arrived to reduce danger; and intimidation is sought to be dealt with by the Laws of the game.
Those in favour of banning the bouncer say it is a surprise that Hughes the first casualty at the first class level in almost a century and a half.Heartless as this may sound at the present moment, in this statistic itself, that provides the counter-argument.The loss of a life is difficult to rationalise, but banning the bouncer runs contrary to statistical evidence as well as the essential character of cricket: while skill is obviously intrinsic to sport, in cricket (as in several others) so are reflexes, physical and mental courage.
Take these away, and cricket withers away too. Field Sport is about fighting odds, overcoming barriers and thresholds, of pain and hardships. Sport thrills, engages and delights because it carries in it the element of uncertainty.In some, courage and bravery are integral in its passage of play. However remote, there can be the risk of life too. True, such risk must be minimized, but it is almost impossible to remove it entirely — unless the sport is completely transformed. To give the argument a philosophical twist, isn’t living life itself an act of bravado?
