How Relevant is Law 41.5 Today?

I assume the law was drafted to counter Bodyline tactics, which was probably fair enough since in those days batsmen didn't have adequate protection and were not trained to deal with that form of attack - targeting the body rather than the stumps. One of the stronger arguments of the day was that it went against the spirit of cricket. But honestly, when we have restrictions on how many bouncers can be bowled per over, these arguments become irrelevant. Batsman today expect short pitched deliveries and are adequately trained and protected to face them.

Today the spirit of cricket is usually only invoked to divert attention from an ugly incident. There can be little doubt that the game has shifted firmly in favor of batsmen nowadays, and all this law does is take away a legitimate form of attack for the bowling side. The law has virtually cast a death sentence on one of the more interesting fielding placements in cricket - the leg slip. Which is a shame. When the fielding side can have someone at short leg, and two men out at behind and in front of square on the on side it is pretty clear what the tactics are. This is legitimate and considered a test of the batsman's ability to handle short deliveries aimed at his chest. Why then do we have to stop short of a full out attack and restrict the number of fielders that have to stand behind the popping crease on the on side, for tradition?

There are already laws, notably 42.6, which protect batsmen from dangerous short pitched bowling. Bowlers are penalized with No Balls, warned a couple of times and if they persist in banned from bowling further in the match. The skill of the player facing the deliveries is taken into consideration. Similarly, negative tactics are also put in check. So while the law is woven into the rich fabric that is cricket history, I believe it honestly has no place in Test cricket today, or even limited overs cricket for that matter. It takes away attacking fielding positions for both spinners and fast bowlers and therefore also specific lines of attack, which could only add variety and intrigue. If nothing else, at the very least it gives the appearance that the game is not batsman-centric, something we might well forget with all the new restrictions and laws in the shorter formats of the game.

I agree completely, there shouldn't be any restriction on field placings in test matches. I remember Dhoni being criticised for an 8-2 field against Australia (in Dehli?) when it practically assured Aus couldn't win. Dhoni was criticised for being negative and boring, when all that matters is that his team did not lose which should be the first priority. The players should not be responsible for the short attention span of the viewer, I found the building of pressure interesting. With all the protection/field restrictions/boundary ropes/bouncer rules these days batsmen have it too easy. Go back to as many bouncers an over as you want, the good batsmen will hook/pull for runs or avoid them with no chance of getting out and the bowler will quickly stop bouncing. Sure the bad batsmen may get hurt a little but their batting will improve for next time :)

Not arguing the main point but a clarification. It was not introduced to handle bodyline. After 1933, the umpires were instructed to deal more strictly with bouncers and that was it.

The fielding restrictions came into being in the 1960s as an answer to the negative cricket of the post-war years.

When lbw was extended in the mid-30s to allow balls pitched outside the off, batsmen took to padding outside the off-stump. The bowlers then moved their standard line from outside off to in line with the stumps. When inswing bowlers and off-spinners took to doing this, the short-legs, backward short-legs and leg slips became more important. Slowing down the scoring by bowling incoming deliveries and strong leg side fields became standard practice in county cricket and much dullness ensued. The law was brought in to tackle this to some extent.

Mind you, this was not a post-war invention. There were people like Fred Root who used it regularly. But it became an epidemic in the 50s and 60s.