|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Jun 16, 2008 17:02:01 GMT
This was posted on another forum.
"So who's gonna try switch hitting this w/e?
If anyone does and gets smashed on the pads - how are our umpires going to apply the law? Can of worms me thinks."
I did not see the incident, what happened was it a reverse sweep?
What is the interpretation of the lbw law that should apply?
What about a match with regulations that state anything down the leg side is a wide?
|
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Jun 16, 2008 18:55:36 GMT
Well Law 36.3 is the key: The off side of the striker's wicket shall be determined by the striker's stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery.
With regards to wides, same thing applies.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnfgolding on Jun 16, 2008 19:29:38 GMT
Well Law 36.3 is the key: The off side of the striker's wicket shall be determined by the striker's stance at the moment the ball comes into play for that delivery. With regards to wides, same thing applies. Ah so it was a reverse sweep then. |
|
|
|
Post by wisden17 on Jun 16, 2008 20:07:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 16, 2008 20:31:28 GMT
The important detail to consider for the MCC this week is that Pietersen changed his grip (he used his left hand as the lower hand on the bat handle, whereas with an 'orthodox' reverse sweep you keep your right hand on the bottom of the bat handle).
Some think it's unfair to change your grip AND stance after the ball comes into play because it becomes impossible to set a field (slip becomes leg slip, deep midwicket becomes deep cover etc).
I saw the shot; it was amazing. I think if any batsman has he ability to do that, he shouldn't be punished for such a remarkable ability. If the bowler sees the batsman change grip he should have time to adjust, if not then the batsman is taking a huge risk in putting himself off balance and using his weaker hand. So, surely the bowler should be happy about this?
The only thing I can sympathise with on the other side of the argument is that the bowler has to notify the umpire (and the umpire has to notify the batsman) to any change in bowling style, but the batsman doesn't have to do this. Some may say that this makes the contest between bat and ball an unfair one.
I'm still not sure, but right now I would say the shot should remain legal.
As for lbws and wides, that shouldn't be a problem as the umpire can see how the batsman is standing at the moment of delivery (as the batsman changes his stance after the ball comes into play) and knows which side is the off side and which is the leg/on side.
|
|
|
|
Post by swerveman on Jun 16, 2008 20:31:42 GMT
I didn't see it, either, but it does appear they were reverse sweeps, and I don't have a problem with those.
Mind you, I think Daniel Vettori might have a bit of a point:
|
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Jun 17, 2008 16:02:30 GMT
The Manchester Evening News reports that Gary Keedy is developing a "double bouncer" to beat the switch hit.
I do not see any problem with LBW - the legside is determined by his initial stance and if he is fool enough subsequently to put his legs in the way of the ball on the other side then ...
|
|
|
|
Post by johnchartres on Jun 18, 2008 15:01:06 GMT
I found the journalistic fuss silly- I tend to think any broadsheet journalist should complete umpire training so they know some of what they are talking about, much as Benaud gave the impression of having done. KP's shot was a slog sweep, rather like Trescothick's, and if he is good enough to switch position and hand position, why not ? He is still open to LBW for a ball apparently pitching outside his now leg stump if he tries it too close to the sticks. I have not noticed that many such shots being played by others in the county or the recreational games.
|
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jun 18, 2008 18:49:53 GMT
I notice that none of the bowlers have intimated that the wrong 'un should be called a no ball.
Surely anyone bowling an Off break with a Leg break action, or vice versa is effectively doing what K P has done, but with a little more subterfuge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jun 18, 2008 20:36:25 GMT
How about this scenario then?
A normally right handed batsman takes stance at the crease using a left handed stance. As soon as the bowler starts his run up the batsman switches to a "normal" right handed stance.
As defined in the laws the batsman's leg and off stumps are defined imovably by his stance at the time the bowler starts his run up. So then, the batsmans leg stump remains as it was but is now in reality his off stump. So any delivery that pitches (or is intercepted on the full) outside the "off" stump (leg stump as defined by the batsmans original stance) cannot result in an LBW decision in favour of the bowler because under the laws it will be deemed to have pitched outside leg stump.
There's nothing in the laws to prevent this or to legislate against it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jun 18, 2008 21:24:02 GMT
And what about dealing with wides when the batsman switches stance? In my example above the "off" stump will be the leg stump in law and calling wides will apply accordingly... or will it??
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 19, 2008 1:21:50 GMT
Yes, Number 6, I was just thinking about that. If you're right-handed and take your stance left handed, only to change to you normal stance, then it places the wicketkeeper and slips down the leg side too. This should make it harder to get the batsman out.
That practice would be unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Number 6 on Jun 19, 2008 12:24:41 GMT
So what is everyone's opinion of what should be done if this situation were to occur in one of our games. There's no breach of any part of Law 42 and the only specific mention of a batsmans stance is in 36.3.
Would anyone here consider a batsmans switching hands after the ball comes into play to be unfair and worthy of intervention under 42.2? I personally think it is unfair but the MCC's recent statement over KP's usage seems to say that it isn't unfair.
What would you do?
|
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Jun 19, 2008 14:27:19 GMT
I feel very few club cricketers will have the skill to make such a rapid change and still be well balanced enough to hit the ball properly.
I do not think it will occur more than once in a match - if it does the fielding side will be ready on the second occasion. The bowler does have the option to stop before he delivers the ball.
A ball is only wide if it is wide of the striker in BOTH his initial position and his final position - hence his switch significantly reduces the chances of it being wide on both sides!
As regards LBW, if the ball is pitched down his original offside, then he is more likely to get his legs in the way and has no legal protection.
If it is pitched on his original legside and breaks in, then he can get away with padding it although I cannot see much point - there is always the risk that the umpire misinterprets the Law and gives him out LBW!
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 19, 2008 16:46:22 GMT
'The umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play'.
If I saw a stalemate (i.e. the bowler refused to bowl the ball if the batsman changed stance before the delivery stride) then I think I'd tell the batsman not to play the switch hit on the grounds of unfair play and to keep the game running.
I hope I never get such a situation though. I also hope the MCC clarify this law further.
|
|
