When the England team in the 1930s, under Douglas Jardine, couldn't get Don Bradman out, they resorted to a technique of aiming for the body, specifically to intimidate the batsmen, forcing them to try simply to deflect the ball rather than play it. It was eventually outlawed, but bowling at the head serves the same purpose - most batsmen will duck rather than try to deflect or play the ball.
Brett Lee did it, and in his case it was more often than not in a fit of temper; he got very angry when he couldn't get a batsman out, and would start hurling the ball towards the head. It was probably even more dangerous because he was always angry when he did it.The late Peter Roebuck gave it as his opinion that Lee himself should be banned, rather than the bowling tactic.
Mitchell Johnson has now built a career on it, and although it works for Australia, I don't get any pleasure from watching him. And probably young Sean Abbott was trying to emulate Johnson's tactics when it went so horribly wrong. It will be with him for the rest of his life.
You can't have helmets that cover the head and neck so comprehensively that the batsmen can't see or move their heads properly, and it seems to me it would be more sensible to ban bowling at the head. Once, warn the bowler, and the second time ban him for the rest of the match. They'll soon learn. It won't make for boring cricket - bowlers like Siddle and Lyon don't do it and manage to get their fair share of wickets, and although he was a unique spinner with a totally different style, Shane Warne also never resorted to intimidatory tactics. Batsmen just knew he would get them eventually, and he usually did. Still made for great cricket.
= new reply since forum marked as read