|
Post by gooders on Jun 19, 2008 18:17:29 GMT
It really is quite clear as it stands. The shot is perfectly legal, and any bowler who refuses to bowl if a batsman changes his stance after the bowler has started his run up, is placing his side in jeopardy by refusing to play, and the umpire, instead of ASKING the batsman not to play the shot should really be thinking about having a word with the fielding captain, informing him that if his team refuses to continue, the match could well be awarded to the side batting. I would imagine that this action may spur the bowler into thinking about how to bowl at the batsman. (The ball down what now appears to be his leg side, making it almost impossible for him to score should not be called wide, as it is still classed as the off side and such a delivery may well be within the confines of what would constitute a fair delivery bearing in mind the batsman's original stance)
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 19, 2008 18:35:28 GMT
But don't you think the bowler is within his rights to abort his delivery if the batsman changes his stance before he even gets into his delivery stride?
I know, as a bowler, it would put me off my run up completely if I saw that.
|
|
|
Post by gooders on Jun 19, 2008 19:48:33 GMT
I suppose you could also say, what right has a leg spin bowler to bowl one which turns the other way, after all the batsman isn't expecting that either. I used to be a bowler, and it didn't matter what the batsman tried, I had to come up with some way of countering his actions, and quite a lot of the time, I managed it.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 19, 2008 20:32:01 GMT
Well, I suppose. I see your point.
However, the mode of delivery doesn't change. That is to say, a bowler must inform the batsman as to whether he'll bowl right/left handed, but a batsman doesn't have to inform the bowler whether he'll bat right or left handed - which some may argue isn't fair.
I'd say that not informing the batsman as to the turn of the ball is something which is tactical and fair - just as the type of stroke the batsman decides to play - the bowler can't be informed of that! I'm waffling a bit, but my point is (however badly put across!) that some may question as to whether it's a fair contest between bat and ball. After all, isn't that what cricket's about?
...I don't know where the line should be drawn.
As a compromise, I'd like to see a law whereby the batsman must remain at his stance until the bowler has reached his delivery stride.
|
|
|
Post by Acumen on Jun 20, 2008 7:17:14 GMT
That would prevent the striker from charging - which most people regard as completely fair.
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Jun 20, 2008 10:58:53 GMT
Sorry I was unclear - 'charging' is fair in my opinion as you stay right/left handed in doing so.
|
|