Explainer
The bouncer rule in cricket explained, format by format
How many bouncers per over in Tests, ODIs and T20Is, where the shoulder and head height lines sit, and the warning ladder that ends a bowler's day.
By CricketTaken EditorialPublished Explainer21 min read
The umpire signals a no ball, then taps himself on the head. Nobody in the ground reacts, because roughly nine people in it know what the second gesture means. The delivery that has just been called was not faster, not shorter, and not more dangerous than the one three balls earlier that everybody applauded. It was simply the third of its kind in that over, and the rulebook that permits two is not the rulebook most people think governs cricket.
That is the whole difficulty with the bouncer rule in cricket, explained badly almost everywhere: there are two rulebooks, they say different things, and the one everybody quotes is the one that contains no number.
The Laws of Cricket do not tell you how many bouncers you get
Open the Laws, published by MCC and used from village greens upwards, and look at Law 41.6, which covers the bowling of dangerous and unfair short deliveries. There is no count in it. No two per over, no one per over, no allowance of any kind.
What the Law contains instead is a judgement. Short bowling is dangerous if the bowler's end umpire considers that, taking into account the skill of the striker, the speed, length, height and direction of the deliveries make them likely to inflict physical injury. Separately, short bowling may be unfair, without being dangerous, if the deliveries repeatedly pass above the head height of the striker standing upright at the crease.
Two tests, both of them qualitative. One is about hurting someone. The other is about ruining the contest by bowling balls nobody can play.
The Law also never uses the phrase shoulder height. That expression, which every commentator reaches for and which sits at the centre of the professional game's version of this rule, does not appear in the short-bowling Law at all. It is an invention of competition regulation, and if you have only ever read the Laws you would have no reason to know it existed.
This matters more than it sounds. A club umpire standing in a Saturday league match has no allowance to administer. He is not counting to two. He is watching a fast bowler and a batter and asking himself whether what he is seeing is likely to hurt somebody, and he is required to answer that question with the batter's actual ability in mind. Two well-directed bouncers at a competent opening batter might trouble him not at all. One at a genuine number eleven might already be over the line.
The playing conditions add the number, and the number changes by format
Every professional competition writes its own playing conditions, which take the Laws as a base and then amend, replace or supplement individual clauses. The bouncer allowance lives there. So does the free hit, the powerplay, the review system and most of the other things spectators assume are Laws. The set of things that are playing conditions rather than Laws is considerably longer than most people expect.
In ICC men's playing conditions the allowance is stated in a single line, and it is not the same line in each document.
Two in the red-ball game and in the fifty-over game. One in the twenty-over game.
The definition attached to that count is precise, and it is where the professional rule diverges from the Law. A fast short-pitched delivery, for the purposes of the allowance, is a ball which passes or would have passed above the shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease.
Read that phrase slowly, because three separate things are doing work in it.
Would have passed. The ball does not have to actually pass above the shoulder. If the batter ducks, sways, or gets hit on the arm at chest height, the umpire still judges where the ball was going. A bouncer that a batter hooks in front of square, taking it at chest height because he moved inside the line, was still going over the shoulder and still counts.
Standing upright. The reference is the batter's normal upright stance, not the crouch he adopts as the bowler loads, and not the ball of contortion he becomes when the delivery arrives. A tall batter who bats low and a short batter who stands tall are measured against their own upright height, not each other's.
At the popping crease. The measurement is taken at the batting crease, not where the batter actually is. A batter who backs away towards square leg, or advances two paces down the pitch, does not move the line. This is what stops a batter manufacturing a bouncer by walking at the bowler.
The umpire at the bowler's end also has an active duty here. He must advise the bowler and the striker each time a fast short-pitched delivery has been bowled. It is not a private tally. Both parties are told, which is why you see an umpire hold up a finger to a fast bowler mid-over and the bowler nod without breaking stride.
Three heights, three different penalties, and only one of them is a bouncer count
The single most confused part of this subject is that there are three separate height thresholds in play on any given delivery, and they belong to three different rules with three different punishments.
Shoulder height. This is the counter. A ball passing or would-be-passing above the striker's shoulder is a fast short-pitched delivery and it consumes one of the over's allowance. On its own it is entirely legal. Nothing is signalled, nothing is added to the total, and the batting side gets nothing.
Head height. A delivery that has landed and then passes above the head height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease is a wide. Under the Laws that is Law 22.1.3, and it is one of the odder-looking outcomes in cricket: the batting side is compensated for a ball that was too short and too high, with the same one-run penalty it gets for a ball that was too wide of off stump. Under ICC playing conditions the same result arrives through clause 22.1.1.2, read with the standard wide definition about whether the ball was sufficiently within reach for a normal cricket stroke.
Waist height, without landing. This is not a bouncer at all. A delivery that reaches or would reach the striker above waist height without pitching is a full toss, and it is a no ball immediately, at any speed, from any bowler. That is Law 41.7, and it is a separate rule with a separate warning ladder. Beamers get filed here, not under the bouncer rule.
Now the part that catches out even good club scorers. A bouncer that goes over the batter's head is called a wide, and it also counts as one of the over's permitted short deliveries. The playing conditions say so explicitly, for the avoidance of doubt, in both the Test and the white-ball documents. In a Twenty20 International, where the allowance is one, a single ball that sails over the batter's head gives away a run, an extra delivery, and the entire short-ball budget for that over in one go.
That combination is expensive in a way the scorecard does not show. The bowler has conceded an extra ball, lost the option he was probably saving for the fifth or sixth delivery, and told the batter he no longer has to respect anything above chest height for the rest of the over.
- Above shoulder height, the permitted maximum2
- At or below shoulder height4
Composition of a six-ball over under ICC men's Test playing conditions, showing the maximum permitted proportion above shoulder height. Any further short delivery in the same over is a no ball. Wides and no balls are excluded from the six.
Show the numbers
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Above shoulder height, the permitted maximum | 2 |
| At or below shoulder height | 4 |
Two out of six is a third of the over. In a Twenty20 International it is one in six. That difference sounds small and is not: it removes the possibility of the two-ball sequence, the setup bouncer followed immediately by the second one from a slightly different angle, which is the whole grammar of short-ball bowling. In T20 a bowler gets a single bullet and has to choose the delivery for it in advance.
Exceeding the allowance is a no ball with its own signal
Bowl a third fast short-pitched delivery in a Test over, or a second in a T20 International over, and the umpire calls and signals no ball. The playing conditions then require a differential signal: the umpire calls no ball and then taps the head with the other hand.
The reason for the second gesture is bookkeeping rather than theatre. A no ball can arise from an overstep, from a throw, from a fielder in the wrong place, from a high full toss, or from an excess short ball, and the scorers, the match officials and the broadcast all need to know which. The head tap tells the scorer that this particular no ball came from the short-ball allowance and belongs on the bowler's short-ball record for the innings. If you are learning to read the officials, the full grammar of what an umpire's arms mean is worth more at a ground than any app.
In white-ball cricket the cost compounds. A no ball brings a free hit on the next delivery, so an over-the-limit bouncer costs a run, an extra ball, the short-ball option, and then a delivery on which the batter cannot be bowled, caught, stumped or given out lbw. That is why you almost never see a T20 bowler go over the limit deliberately and why the ones who do it accidentally look so unhappy about it.
The warning ladder, and the point at which a bowler stops bowling
The bouncer count is a delivery-by-delivery penalty. Sitting above it is a disciplinary sequence that operates on the bowler rather than the ball, and it is the part of this rule that ends careers' worth of overs.
Under ICC playing conditions the sequence runs in three steps, and the same three-step shape applies both to bowling judged dangerous under the general test and to repeated breaches of the numerical allowance.
- The umpire judges the short bowling dangerousThe bowler's end umpire decides that, taking the striker's skill into account, the speed, length, height and direction of the short deliveries make them likely to inflict physical injury. Protective equipment is disregarded in reaching that decision.
- No ball is called and signalledThe delivery itself is penalised immediately. The batting side gets the run and the extra ball whether or not anything further follows.
- When the ball is dead, the bowler is cautionedThe umpire cautions the bowler and informs the other umpire, the fielding captain and both batters of what has happened. The caution applies to that bowler for the whole innings, so a change of end or a spell off does not reset it.
- A second instance brings a final warningThe umpire repeats the entire procedure and tells the bowler explicitly that this is a final warning. It too applies for the remainder of the innings and is recorded against the bowler, not the team.
- A third instance ends the spell permanentlyThe umpire calls no ball, then directs the fielding captain to suspend the bowler immediately from bowling. That bowler may not bowl again in that innings under any circumstances.
- The over is completed by a specific kind of replacementThe remaining deliveries must be bowled by someone who neither bowled any part of the previous over nor may bowl any part of the next one, which quietly costs the captain a second bowler as well as the suspended one.
- The batting captain is informed and the matter is reportedThe umpire tells the batters and, as soon as practicable, the batting captain. The umpires may then report the matter to the ICC Match Referee, who deals with any further sanction under the code of conduct.
The sequence in ICC men's Test, ODI and T20I playing conditions. Each step must be completed in full before the next one is available, and the sanction attaches to the bowler for the remainder of that innings. The playing conditions state that this ladder and the one for dangerous non-pitching deliveries are not cumulative with each other.
Two features of that ladder repay attention.
The first is that the suspension is not for an over or a spell. It is for the innings. A bowler removed under this clause in the fourth over of a Test innings has finished bowling in that innings and cannot be brought back when the second new ball is taken, no matter how the match develops. In a five-day match with a long innings ahead, that is closer to an injury than to a punishment.
The second is the cost of the replacement rule. The over has to be finished by a bowler who did not bowl the previous over and who then cannot bowl the next one. So the captain does not simply lose the suspended bowler. He also burns one of his remaining options for two overs at exactly the moment he can least afford it, and in limited-overs cricket, where every bowler has a quota, that ripples through the rest of the innings.
The ICC playing conditions run two of these ladders in parallel: one for bowling judged dangerous, one for repeatedly exceeding the numerical allowance. They are separate sequences with separate counts, and the documents state that the cautions and warnings under those clauses, and under the high full toss clause, are not cumulative with each other. A bowler cannot be removed by having one strike on each of three different lists.
The Laws are harsher than the playing conditions, which surprises people
Set the two codes beside each other and the amateur game turns out to have the shorter fuse.
Under the Laws, as soon as the umpire decides that short bowling has become dangerous or unfair, he calls no ball and issues a caution that is expressly described as a first and final warning. There is no second caution. Any further such delivery by that bowler in that innings and he is removed from the attack for the rest of the innings.
Under ICC playing conditions the same bowler gets a caution, then a final warning, then removal. Three instances rather than two.
The logic behind the gap is straightforward once you see who each code is written for. A Test umpire has a match referee behind him, a fielding captain who can be spoken to between overs, replays, a professional bowler with a reputation to protect, and batters in a full complement of modern protective equipment. A club umpire has none of that. He has one attempt to make the message land, and a bowler who may genuinely not have understood the first time. So the Law gives him a single, unmistakable, formally described first and final warning and then takes the bowler away.
The final row of that chart is worth isolating. A high full toss that the umpire judges to have been bowled deliberately attracts no warning at all. The caution stage is dispensed with entirely and the bowler is removed on the spot. Under the Laws, that removal extends to the whole match rather than the innings, which is the single most severe on-field sanction available to an umpire against a bowler. Deliberately bowling a head-high full toss at a batter is treated, correctly, as a different category of act from bowling too many bouncers.
What actually protects a tail-ender
Ask most people how the Laws protect a number eleven from a barrage and they will say something about a reduced allowance. There isn't one. A tail-ender faces the same two-per-over in a Test that an opening batter does.
The protection is in the wording of the dangerous test, and it is a single clause: the umpire must reach his judgement while taking into consideration the skill of the striker.
That clause converts a fixed rule into a sliding one. The same delivery, at the same speed, to the same length, is legal against a batter who can play it and dangerous against a batter who cannot. The umpire is not asked whether the bowling would hurt a hypothetical batter. He is asked whether it is likely to injure this one.
Alongside it sits a second clause with more force than it looks: the fact that the striker is wearing protective equipment shall be disregarded. This closes the obvious argument. A fielding captain cannot say that the batter has a helmet, a grille, a chest guard and arm protection and is therefore in no danger. The umpire has to assess the bowling as though the batter were not wearing any of it. Given how much of the modern short ball is bowled at the head with the explicit expectation that equipment will do its job, this is a more radical instruction than it appears, and the history of that equipment is inseparable from the history of the rule, which is why helmets changed the sport rather than merely making it safer.
There is a practical consequence for captains. Bowling short at an established tail-ender who plays the short ball competently is ordinary cricket. Bowling short at a number eleven who visibly cannot get out of the way moves the umpire's threshold, and it moves it quickly, because the umpire is now assessing a batter with no evident skill against exactly this delivery.
The non-striker is not covered by this rule at all
Here is a gap in the code that almost nobody states plainly. Law 41.6 and Law 41.7 are written entirely about the striker. Every measurement in them, shoulder height, head height, waist height, is taken against the striker standing upright at the popping crease. The non-striker appears nowhere in either.
That is not an oversight. The non-striker is standing at the bowler's end, twenty-two yards from the delivery, and the Law's dangerous-bowling machinery has no work to do there. What the Laws do provide is a positioning rule: Law 30.3 says the non-striker, when standing at the bowler's end, should be on the opposite side of the wicket from the one the ball is being delivered from, unless the umpire grants a request to do otherwise.
That single sentence is doing quiet safety work. It keeps the non-striker out of the bowler's follow-through, out of the line of a straight drive, and out of the path of a fielder charging in from mid-on. Left-arm bowlers over the wicket and right-armers round the wicket change which side that is, which is why you see non-strikers move across as the bowler changes.
If something genuinely dangerous is directed at a non-striker, the route is not Law 41.6. It is Law 42, players' conduct, and the disciplinary code of the competition. The distinction matters because the sanctions are entirely different in kind: the bowling Laws take away the bowler's ability to bowl, while the conduct Law and the codes built on it take away appearances and money.
Concussion replacements inherit the warnings, and that is not a footnote
The concussion replacement protocol and the bouncer rule meet at exactly one clause, and it is a clause with real tactical weight.
ICC playing conditions allow a like-for-like concussion replacement where a player sustains a concussion or suspected concussion from a head or neck injury, on a formal diagnosis by the team medical representative and approval by the match referee. The replaced player takes no further part in the match. Both players are treated as having played for records and statistical purposes.
The clause that connects it to this article says that a concussion replacement inherits all warnings, penalty time and suspensions imposed on the replaced player.
Work through what that means. A bowler who has been cautioned and given a final warning for dangerous short bowling is one delivery away from removal. If that bowler is then concussed while batting and replaced, the replacement does not arrive with a clean sheet. He arrives already carrying the final warning, and one dangerous short delivery from him ends his bowling for the innings too. A side cannot launder an accumulated warning by swapping the player carrying it.
The reverse case is worth stating as well, because it is the one that shapes selection. A bowler already suspended from bowling under Law 41.6 cannot be turned back into a bowling option through this route either. The suspension travels with the replacement, so the fielding side stays a bowler down. Everything else about the mechanics of the substitution, including what like-for-like means in practice and who decides, sits in the rules governing concussion substitutes.
There is a deeper connection between these two rules that is worth saying out loud. The concussion protocol exists because the sport concluded that head injuries from short bowling were being managed badly. The bouncer allowance exists because the sport concluded that unrestricted short bowling was both dangerous and dull. They are two answers to the same problem, arrived at decades apart, and the fact that the second one had to be written at all is a comment on how well the first one works on its own.
Why the count is lower in T20, and it is not mainly about safety
The obvious explanation for one bouncer in T20 and two in Tests is that shorter formats are more dangerous. It is also wrong. The ball is the same, the bowlers are the same, and a Test bouncer is not gentler than a T20 one.
The real reason is entertainment economics, and the honest version of it is this: in the format built entirely around scoring, a delivery designed to prevent scoring is rationed.
Consider what a bowler would do with an unlimited allowance in the last five overs of a T20 innings. Six short balls an over, aimed at the ribs, with two men back on the leg side under the fielding restrictions, and a batter who has to hit into the two most heavily protected regions of the ground. It would be effective, it would be legal, and it would be unwatchable. The one-per-over allowance is a deliberate cap on how much of that a bowler may do, and it is set at precisely the level that keeps the bouncer as a surprise rather than a strategy.
The two-per-over allowance in Test cricket reflects a different bargain. A Test innings is long enough for a short-ball plan to be a genuine contest of skill rather than a run-suppression tactic, and it is fought against batters who have hours rather than minutes to work out an answer. Two per over permits the pair, and the pair is where the craft lives.
That constraint runs straight into how bowlers actually plan spells, and it is one reason the short-ball plan is built so differently in each format. The way a captain and a bowler construct a plan and then set a field to it changes fundamentally depending on whether the allowance is one or two.
A constructed example of the T20 budget problem
Every figure in what follows is invented for illustration. It uses no match data and describes no real over.
A bowler is bowling the eighteenth over of a Twenty20 International. His allowance is one fast short-pitched delivery. He has planned a wide yorker, a wide yorker, a bouncer, a slower ball, a yorker, a slower ball. That is one short ball out of six, which fits.
Ball three is the bouncer, and it goes over the batter's head. It is a wide. The batting side gets a run and the over is now seven balls long. The short-ball allowance is spent, because a bouncer called wide still counts against the allowance.
The bowler now has four planned deliveries and one unplanned one to fill, and the only tool he has removed from his own kit is the one that made the batter respect the length. The batter, who has watched the ball go over his head, knows precisely as much. He can now advance without any risk of being pinned back, because a second short ball would be a no ball and a free hit, which is a worse outcome for the bowler than any shot the batter is likely to play.
One misdirected delivery has therefore cost a run, an extra ball, the tactical option and the deterrent. In a Test over the same error would cost a run and an extra ball and leave the bowler with one bouncer still in hand. The arithmetic is the same in both formats. The consequence is not, and that asymmetry is why bowling the last overs of a T20 innings is treated as a separate trade.
Domestic competitions vary, and you have to check
Because the allowance is a playing condition rather than a Law, every competition sets its own. The ICC documents govern international matches. National boards and franchise leagues write their own conditions for their own tournaments, and they do not have to match.
The practical instruction is simple and slightly unsatisfying: for any given match, the allowance is whatever that competition's published playing conditions say it is, and those documents are public. Do not assume a domestic T20 competition uses the international figure, and do not assume a first-class competition uses the Test one. The Laws underneath are common to all of them, which is why the definitions of dangerous and unfair bowling are stable everywhere while the count moves around.
The same is true of first-class cricket in England and Australia, where the short-ball allowance sits alongside a set of local conditions governing the ball, the over rate and the points system. The structure of the county game and the Sheffield Shield's own regulations both illustrate how much competition-specific detail sits on top of a common set of Laws. This is normal, and it is the reason a single confident sentence about how many bouncers are allowed is almost always wrong somewhere.
What to watch for at a ground
Four things, and once you know them the short-ball contest becomes legible from the stands.
Watch the umpire's fingers, not the ball. After a short delivery, the bowler's end umpire tells the bowler and the striker that one has been used. It is usually a discreet hand signal at waist height as the bowler walks back. That is your running count, and it is more reliable than your own judgement about whether the ball passed the shoulder.
Watch for the head tap. No ball plus a hand to the head is not an overstep. It is an excess short delivery, and it tells you the bowler has gone past the allowance and has now started a warning sequence that could end his innings.
Watch where the fielders are before the short ball, not after. No more than two fielders other than the wicketkeeper may be behind square on the leg side at the instant of delivery, so a short-ball plan advertises itself through the field before the delivery arrives. If a second man goes back to deep square leg or fine leg, the bouncer is coming. That interaction between the fielding restrictions and the short ball is the part that makes the rules on where fielders may stand tactically alive rather than administrative.
Watch the batter's height in the umpire's eyeline, not the batter's. The line is drawn at the striker's shoulder and head when standing upright at the popping crease, which is not where anybody is at the moment a bouncer arrives. A ball that looks head-high because the batter has crouched into it may be perfectly legal, and a ball a tall batter swayed away from at chest height may have been going over his head. The umpire is reconstructing a stance that nobody is actually in.
Cricket is full of rules that are simpler than they look. This is one of the rare ones that is more complicated, because the answer to how many bouncers are allowed depends on which document you are standing under. The Laws give you a judgement, the playing conditions give you a number, and the number changes with the format. If you want the deeper background on how the codes fit together, the rest of the cricket archive works through the same split between Law and competition regulation in other corners of the game.
Common questions
How many bouncers are allowed per over in cricket?
It depends on the format, because the number is set by competition playing conditions rather than by the Laws. ICC men's Test and One Day International playing conditions allow two fast short-pitched deliveries per over, and ICC men's Twenty20 International playing conditions allow one. The Laws of Cricket themselves set no number at all, which is why a village match and a Test match are governed by different tests.
When is a bouncer a no ball and when is it a wide?
Exceeding the per-over allowance makes the extra delivery a no ball, signalled by the umpire calling no ball and then tapping the head with the other hand. A bouncer that passes above the head height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease is called a wide instead, and it still counts as one of the allowable short deliveries for that over. A delivery that reaches the striker above waist height without landing first is a no ball whatever its speed, because that is a full toss rather than a bouncer.
What counts as a fast short-pitched delivery?
Under ICC playing conditions a fast short-pitched delivery is one that passes, or would have passed, above the shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease. The reference point is the striker's normal upright stance at the crease, not the crouch he happens to be in, and not where he ends up after ducking. The umpire at the bowler's end must tell both the bowler and the striker each time one has been bowled.
Can a bowler be banned from bowling for too many bouncers?
Yes. Under ICC playing conditions the umpire cautions the bowler at the first instance, issues a final warning at the second, and at the third directs the fielding captain to suspend the bowler from bowling for the rest of the innings. Under the Laws of Cricket the ladder is shorter still: a single first and final warning, then removal from the attack. In both codes the suspension lasts the whole innings and the over has to be finished by someone who did not bowl the previous one.
Does the bouncer rule protect tail-enders differently?
There is no separate per-over count for a number eleven, but the dangerous-bowling test is written so that it bites earlier against an unskilled batter. The umpire must judge danger while taking into consideration the skill of the striker, so the same delivery can be legal to a specialist batter and dangerous to a tail-ender. The umpire is also required to disregard the fact that the batter is wearing protective equipment, which stops a helmet being used as an argument that the bowling was safe.
Filed under Cricket·laws of cricket · fast bowling · umpiring · test cricket · t20 cricket