Pietersen allowed to switch hit

[The Coon Dog]

Pietersen allowed to switch hit (http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,23882199-23212,00.html)

KEVIN Pietersen has been cleared to carry on playing his extraordinary "reverse slog-sweep" by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), after cricket's rule-makers announced they would not outlaw the "switch-hit".

Pietersen used the shot twice to strike extraordinary sixes off New Zealand medium-pacer Scott Styris during an innings of 110 not out in England's 114-run first one-day international victory at the Riverside on Sunday.

The shots led to criticisms that batsmen had an unfair advantage over bowlers, who are obliged to tell the umpire with which hand they are bowling, and from which side of the wicket, or risk being penalised.

Following a meeting at it's Lord's headquarters in London on Tuesday, the MCC gave Pietersen, and anyone else, the go-ahead to carry on changing from being a right-handed to a left-handed batsman.

"MCC believes that the 'switch-hit' stroke is exciting for the game of cricket," the body said in a statement.

"Indeed, the stroke conforms to the Laws of Cricket and will not be legislated against."

The MCC statement highlighted Law 36.3, which defines the off-side of the striker's wicket as being determined by his stance at the moment the bowler starts his run-up.

However, the MCC accepted that implications remained for both the interpretation of the leg before and wide rules by a batsman attempting a 'switch-hit'.

"MCC accepts that the use of a 'switch-hit' may have implications for other Laws of the game, principally Law 25 (Wide ball) and Law 36 (LBW), and will continue to research and discuss these implications."

The MCC, often portrayed as a conservative and reactionary cricket body, said that otherwise it had no problems with the 'switch-hit'.

"MCC believes the 'switch-hit' stroke is a difficult shot to execute and that it incurs a great deal of risk for the batsman," the august body said in its statement.

"It also offers bowlers a good chance of taking a wicket and therefore MCC believes that the shot is fair to both batsman and bowlers.

"Furthermore, MCC acknowledges that while bowlers must inform umpires and batsmen of their mode of delivery, they do not provide a warning of the type of delivery that they will bowl (for example, an off-cutter or a slower ball).

"It therefore concludes that the batsman should have the opportunity - should they wish - of executing the 'switch-hit' stroke."

[Chops]

MCC are wankers, if he wants to do it then let him.
I have my doubts its effective against quality bowling.

[Twodogs]

MCC are wankers, if he wants to do it then let him.
I have my doubts its effective against quality bowling.


Mike Gatting pulled it out against Alan Border's bowling in the '87 World Cup. He managed to get out, the match turned and Australia won the cup.


It's not very effective against crap bowling either.

[Twodogs]

The shots led to criticisms that batsmen had an unfair advantage over bowlers, who are obliged to tell the umpire with which hand they are bowling, and from which side of the wicket, or risk being penalised.


What's the penalty if a bowler bowls with a different arm to the one they tell the umpire.


TBH I didnt know it was an official rule that you had to bowl in the manner you nominate before your over. I thought it was more a heads up for the umpire to be looking to the right side and so the non striker knew which side wasnt going to involve you running into him during your delivery stride

[EJ Smith]

What's the penalty if a bowler bowls with a different arm to the one they tell the umpire.


TBH I didnt know it was an official rule that you had to bowl in the manner you nominate before your over. I thought it was more a heads up for the umpire to be looking to the right side and so the non striker knew which side wasnt going to involve you running into him during your delivery stride

No ball

[Twodogs]

No ball


Do you know if there's a precedent?

[Topdog]

Such a non issue. Let him try it against a decent bowler, esp. now as they won't be shocked by it.

[Sockeye Salmon]

So, at the start of the bowlers run-up the batsman is right handed and the swaps over. The ball pitches outside leg (now that he's a left hander) and he can be given out LBW?

[EJ Smith]

Do you know if there's a precedent?

No, its what I call a preventative Law in that it is there to ensure it won't happen.

[EJ Smith]

So, at the start of the bowlers run-up the batsman is right handed and the swaps over. The ball pitches outside leg (now that he's a left hander) and he can be given out LBW?

That's the grey area as pointed out by the MCC -"MCC accepts that the use of a 'switch-hit' may have implications for other Laws of the game, principally Law 25 (Wide ball) and Law 36 (LBW), and will continue to research and discuss these implications."

There are arguments for and against but my view is if he shapes up as a right hander then whatever he does after that is irrelevant. Therefore the batsman can't claim a wide when the ball goes down the leg side now that he has changed to become a left-hander.

Hope that makes sense.

I think it is important that the batsman can't create a wide in this manner just as he can't create a wide by pulling away to leg from a ball pitched outside off stump.

As a bowler I'd be inclined to pitch a bouncer straight at his head. I would reckon it would be difficult to avoid given what else is going through the batsman's mind at the time.

[1eyedog]

IMO it makes it easier for the bowler to get the batsman out. If he's quality enough to pull it off it must be admired.

[Topdog]

I don't see how it is different to someone doing a reverse sweep or taking a step away from the stumps just before the bowl is delivered.

[EJ Smith]

I don't see how it is different to someone doing a reverse sweep or taking a step away from the stumps just before the bowl is delivered.

You raise two issues here.

With the reverse sweep. bascially the player just swings the bat in a different direction. With Pietersen, he actually changes his stance from one side of the wicket to another - which is the leg side then?

Re stepping away from the wicket, the striker is not changing his stance. If he steps away he cannot create a wide.

[Topdog]

as far as I am concerned once you do that you forfeit you're right to wides.

[westdog54]

As far as I'm concerned a batsman switch hitting is no different to a fast bowler using reverse swing or a spinner bowling a wrong-un.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU354DdX6Eg

If you watch the video, the footwork and technique required to execute the shot well is astounding. It doesn't clear the boundary by all that much.

I'm glad the MCC is allowing an extroadinarily skilled player to continue employing a shot that scores him many runs and has people interested. Denis Compton used to score boundary after boundary with his sweep shot, and no cricketer since has come close to replicating it the way he did.

[EJ Smith]

as far as I am concerned once you do that you forfeit you're right to wides.

Absolutely

[EJ Smith]

Michael Holding raised an interesting scenario in light of all this

What if Matt Hayden shapes up to the first ball of a Test Match right-handed. The fielding side places their field accordingly with three slips and two gullies. On the bowler entering his delivery stride, Hayden reverts to his normal left-handed stance. Now he has three leg slips and two leg gullies and no traditional slip.

What does the umpire do now that there are five fieldsman behind square remembering that you are only allowed two.? Does this now constitute a no-ball?

Furthermore, Hayden now is in the position to bat with no slip which would almost guarantee runs down to third man.

Ths has opened up a big can of worms. Firstly, why penalise a batsman who shows this sort of flair? And it must be said who takes this sort of risk.

On the other hand there are numerous Laws which are thrown into chaos as a result of this action and there appears little remedy available to the umpire or the fielding side.

Where does the Law in relation to fair and unfair play sit alongside these actions?

Interesting?

[craigsahibee]

Michael Holding raised an interesting scenario in light of all this

What if Matt Hayden shapes up to the first ball of a Test Match right-handed. The fielding side places their field accordingly with three slips and two gullies. On the bowler entering his delivery stride, Hayden reverts to his normal left-handed stance. Now he has three leg slips and two leg gullies and no traditional slip.

What does the umpire do now that there are five fieldsman behind square remembering that you are only allowed two.? Does this now constitute a no-ball?

Furthermore, Hayden now is in the position to bat with no slip which would almost guarantee runs down to third man.

Ths has opened up a big can of worms. Firstly, why penalise a batsman who shows this sort of flair? And it must be said who takes this sort of risk.

On the other hand there are numerous Laws which are thrown into chaos as a result of this action and there appears little remedy available to the umpire or the fielding side.

Where does the Law in relation to fair and unfair play sit alongside these actions?

Interesting?

This issue may force the ICC to actually make some sort of decision. Then again, they will claim that the MCC are responsible for the laws of the game and will do absolutely nothing until KP uses the same tactic successfully against India, then see what happens.

[Topdog]

You forfeit your right to a wide IMO so as a bowler I would just bowl it way down Hayden's new leg side. Either that or beam him :)

[EJ Smith]

This issue may force the ICC to actually make some sort of decision. Then again, they will claim that the MCC are responsible for the laws of the game and will do absolutely nothing until KP uses the same tactic successfully against India, then see what happens.

Now that's a fair point

[hujsh]

This issue may force the ICC to actually make some sort of decision. Then again, they will claim that the MCC are responsible for the laws of the game and will do absolutely nothing until KP uses the same tactic successfully against India, then see what happens.

Wouldn't that make him racist?

[Pembleton]

I am going to go against the grain and say it should be banned.

"Furthermore, MCC acknowledges that while bowlers must inform umpires and batsmen of their mode of delivery, they do not provide a warning of the type of delivery that they will bowl (for example, an off-cutter or a slower ball).

That is garbage. A bowler having to tell the batsmen what type of ball he will bowl is the equivalent of a batsmen having to give prior notice of what type of shot he will play, not whether he will bat left or right handed. This is very different than a bowler slipping in a different type of delivery.

It's ok to say that its bloody hard to do and actually gives the bowler a decent chance at getting a wicket anyway, so just let it go, but what about in 50 years when generations of kids have been practicing doing it since they picked up a bat? Fielding teams will be in disarray (as raised by EJ Smith via Michael Holding) when batsmen develop the skills to do this a lot more. Good luck setting a field.

EDIT: I just realised how long this thread has been dormant. What can i say, i'm bored. :)

[namdarb]

I was always under the impression that once you took your stance you couldn't change your hand position on the bat.

[ledge]

From what i heard it doesnt matter if he changes during bowler bowling,umpire will call wides as to what he originally faced up as , so in effect if he changes to a left hander after he has faced as a right hander just bowl it outside his leg stump, he cant reach it and cannot be given as a wide.
As far as field placement, thats a tricky one as in normal cricket a fieldsmans only right s to walk towards the batsman as the bowler comes in, he is not allowed to move sideways anyway, this to a certain extent makes it unfair.
This is a great issue to work out and honestly to be fair it probably should be banned ,but i would hate to see it banned.
Another voice for the shot is to say well both sides can do it if they want so let it be.
Is it just teams who havent got players good enough to do it complain?
If i am right i dont believe any side has complained, its only the media who have.
I think most teams are just in awe of it happening and saying to themselves well its great and can be found as a weakness as a way of getting him out because of its risk value.
Another point is... Test cricket, i dont think any captain would be pleased if his player played the shot and dont think it will be played, 2 reasons: too risky and 1day cricket was meant to bring in new and inventive batting and bowling, where as test is more the serious and respected game among players.