|
|
Post by missingleg on Aug 10, 2009 11:18:06 GMT
What's to stop a right-handed batsman from taking guard left-handed, forcing the fielding captain to set a field to a left-hander (maybe with 3 slips and a gully) and then during the bowler's run up the batsman switches to his natural right handed stance, therefore negating the threat of the slips and gully?
It's only a matter of time until a batsman realises the flaw in this law and does it.
...or have I missed something?
|
|
|
|
Post by swerveman on Aug 10, 2009 11:50:22 GMT
I suppose he might get away with it once.
|
|
|
|
Post by missingleg on Aug 10, 2009 16:26:41 GMT
I suppose afterwards the bowler would just refuse to bowl and keep pulling out, resulting in a stalemate.
That would put an umpire in a terrible position!
|
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Aug 11, 2009 21:18:51 GMT
If he changes stance during the run-up - as opposed to hurriedly changing as the bowler enters his delivery stride or later - then surely we're getting into the realm of fair and unfair play.
It's not that far removed from the situation where a fielder moves significantly during the run-up or not telling the batsman about the mode of delivery (and possibly an attempt to steal a run).
Elsewhere I've seen arguments about this and the consequential problems (such as the number of leg-side fielders behind square), but they were all founded on the unwritten assumption that the switch was made at a time whem the delivery had been made or in fact was impossible to stop.
You could possibly infer that it was a deliberate act by looking at whether he was wearing pads and gloves consistent with the guard he took.
If the taking of guard and switch was blatant you'd surely be justified in calling dead ball and intervening.
|
|
