Wide off a switch hit

[missingleg]

I have discussed this at length and seems to split colleagues down the middle:

(This has particular relevance to strict wides in league cricket)

In the (rare) event of a batsman switch hitting (effectively turning himself into a left-hander as/before the ball is being delivered) or even reverse-sweeping, would you call a wide for a ball that is delivered to what would have originally been the legside for which you would have called wide in normal circumstances?

In my opinion, this action effectively gives the batsman 2 off-sides (not regarding lbw though!) as the batsman has brought the ball within reach as per the laws.

However, many of my colleagues, some very experienced, say a legside delivery in league cricket with tight wides is still a wide irrespective of the batsman's new stance.

Any opinions or verdicts?

[gooders]

I have to agree that if it was wide originally, then it is still wide if the batsman changes from right to left handed stance (or vice versa).
If you don't call it as such, you will get some glares from batsmen mate.
Hope to see you during the season.

[jaybee]

I agree with gooders and you have to call it as wide.

If you took the other view and there had been a slip gulley and third man (for example) the consequence of your decision not to make it a wide means that it 'should' have been called as a no-ball. However that decision is in the hands of your colleague at the striker's end and - even if he agreed with you on how to interpret the switch - the batting side could argue that they should have one or the other.

I don't think it's right that, when the field was set properly and fairly, the batsman could force a no-ball call just because of the way he decides to play the ball. A wide gives the fielding side at least one option that isn't there with a no-ball - the ability to stump the batsman - and I wouldn't want to take that away.

[missingleg]

This is very interesting I enjoyed debating this with colleagues who agreed and disagreed.

I have seen it on TV where byes were given to a switch hit missed down the 'new' off side.

My biggest issue is that umpires should and do refrain from giving a wide to ball that would have been a wide but the batsman brought it within reach by stepping well across his stumps; or by stepping back to the legside and a ball missing leg stump is fired near the batsman's feet.

So if we agree that, as per the laws, by bringing a ball within reach, a wide can become a dot ball instead, why can that not apply to bringing the ball within reach by changing your stance and grip to reverse swish at a ball down the leg-side that you have significantly brought within reach...

That was awkwardly typed I hope I haven't made that too unclear!

[richump]

This was discussed for limited over matches at all levels by the MCC back in 2009 and their guidance was published in the ACO Newsletter 5 of May 2010. The crux lies in the definition of Wide in law 25. A wide is defined by the striker's reach - crudely, whether he is or is not near enough to hit the ball 'comfortably' - BOTH WHERE HE IS AND WHERE HE WOULD BE IN A NORMAL STANCE. A batsman's reach from whatever stance he is in is much greater on his offside than on his leg-side. In the switch hit manoeuvre he has physically, though not technically, changed what was his leg-side into his off-side. He has therefore increased his reach on that side.

This means that fewer balls will qualify as Wide.

The point raised by jaybee is - forgive me jaybee - a red herring. The leg-side remains the leg-side regardless of the movement.

Whether these movements are fair is debateable but legislating to cover all circumstances is probably impossible.

[sillypoint]

In my part of the world we have been given a clear instruction for limited overs cricket (where the definition of a Wide takes no account of the batter's actions) that, solely for the purpose of judging a wide, we apply the off side limit to both sides of the wicket if a batter switches.
This is logical because, under the Laws you would effectively do this when taking account of the batter's position when playing at the ball.

[gully]

I need to get this clear in my mind

If the batter switches position after the bowler has released the ball (or at exact the point of delivery) then normal wide (or LBW)conditions apply,simply because the bowler cannot affected by the batters actions

however if the batter changes position before the exact point of delivery, whilst the ball is live, (during the bowlers run up) then surely that is against the spirit of the game and I would call dead ball and if the batsman contnued to do it I would have a word about time wasting and continue down that line if necessary

[jaybee]

Apr 12, 2013 22:32:03 GMT richump said:

...
The point raised by jaybee is - forgive me jaybee - a red herring. The leg-side remains the leg-side regardless of the movement....

richump You are forgiven - I fully agree.
In my earlier post I put 'should' in apostrophes to indicate that I was trying to illustrate (rather poorly I'm afraid) that the purely logical consequence of deciding that off- and leg-sides had swapped over could produce a nonsensical situation by penalising the fielding side.

[missingleg]

The Laws rightly state that a batsman's stance (RH or LH) is determined by his stance when the bowler begins his run up. From that point for the purpose of lbw or fielding restrictions you are considered RH if you started out as a RH (the bowler may well abort his run up if it's before the delivery but that's a different matter).

However, for the wide ball law, a wide is to be judged by a batsman both where he would have been in a normal guard position and where he actually is.

Even if you are playing very strict wides this law still applies, which is why you get two off sides solely for the purposes of a wide.

[srinivasan]

As per the ICC's directive (article 2.1c) dated 12th May 2012, both sides would become "off" side and hence there would be no wide. I reproduce the article below.

c) Wide interpretation for the reverse sweep or switch hit

The interpretation to be followed for calling a wide when a switch hit or reverse sweep is played or the batsman gets in a position to play the shot and then aborts it, is as follows.

• By the batsman playing the switch hit or the reverse sweep or getting in a position to play the shot, he is deemed to bring the ball sufficiently within his reach, on the leg side as well.
• Consequently, in these circumstances, the wider 75cm wide guidelines (ODIs and T20Is) shall apply on both sides of the stumps.
• Simply, when the batsman plays or aborts playing a reverse sweep or a switch hit, these shots negate the leg stump wide interpretation