Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Pietersen "switch hitting"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/7456149.stm

Is it just me that can't see thew problem?

So spin bowlers are allowed to bowl a ball that could pitch left, right, or straight, yet the batsmen possibly can't change from left to right, or vice versa? How's that fair?
«1

Comments

  • edited June 2008
    i think the thing that needs to be looked at is the lbw law.
    by a batsman switching his stance from r/hand to left or vice versa, he effectively changes which stump is the leg stump. seeing as you can't be out lbw from a ball pitching outside leg stump, there lies the grey area imo.
    this could also affect leg side wides, which in odi's is anything down the leg side.

    what would be interesting is if in the next odi, new zealand continuously bowl down the leg side to peitersen, then when given a wide, question that the ball was within reach from his stance as he proved to be the case at chester-le-street.
    cue worms+can
  • I think what they are saying is that a bowler must inform the umpires if he is changing his delivery from over to around the wicket and also if he wishes to switch bowling arms so they are saying that a batsman should also inform the umpires if he wishes to switch batting stance.

    It's all total bollox if you ask me it was a piece of sheer genius play.
  • It takes a lot of skill and nerve to do what Pietersen did. A batsman changing stance/grip does not give him more control or power and it opens himself up to misjudging the flight, line and length of the delivery and giving his wicket away, if I was bowling I'd be happy for him to try this, knowing that the chances of getting him out from a misjudgement would be considerably greater. You could equally stop a batsman from advancing down the wicket. The bowler (in this case) Styris could have stopped his run-up and started again had he chosen.

    In my opinion it's up to the batsman to decide what shot he should play and the umpire should follow the rule for LBWs, wides etc which is at the point of delivery when the batsman is in his normal stance which in Pietersen's case is an orthodox right-handed stance.
  • edited June 2008
    The reverse sweep has been part of the one day game in particular for some time without this issue being raised. Pietersen's shot was a rather more spectacular example of that from what I saw.

    I agree with BFR that the lbw law in operation depends on the stance at the time the ball is bowled and the shot is irrelevant to that aspect.

    Where's Chirpy when you need him?

    (Did I really say I agree with BFR?:-) )
  • thats why i hate cricket

    i thought it looked good it worked yet there are rules about "he effectively changes which stump is the leg stump. seeing as you can't be out lbw from a ball pitching outside leg stump, there lies the grey area imo". Good spot PBS but i aint got a clue what you are on about so my ignorance means i hate cricket
  • Re the LBW ... a right hand bowler looking to get an LBW would have to pitch the ball differently for a right or left hand batsman.

    A bowler cant run up and decide which arm to use to bowl. The game has been taken away from the bowler over the last 20 years ...
  • Not sure if its legal - but I really enjoyed it!
  • I really don't see what the problem is myself. The game is all about scoring runs and getting people out - and the chances of either greatly increase with this kind of play.

    However, if it doesn't conform with "tradition" then the stuffed shirts at Lords don't like it. You get the feeling they'd rather see some dour Yorkshireman dead bat for 5 hours as he amasses a solid score of 24, whilst they sit there sipping their pink gins, have a damn fine lunch and then adjourn to their club for the evening.

    It's shite like that means that cricket will always live in the shadows, until they break out of that mindset. Shame really, but fug em! I mean, would anyone moan if a footballer took a penalty with his weaker left foot over his stronger right? Would the goalkeeper moan that he didn't know which way to dive?
  • It's easy, convention goes out the window regarding LBW if you choose to switch hit. Ball can pitch wherever, if it hits your leg, and the umpire thinks it would have hit the stumps, you are out. Simple rule change, everyone is a winner.

    As a non-cricketing mate of mine said yesterday, whats the pitching outside leg stump rule all about anyway? If the ball is going to hit the stumps, and your leg is in the way, what difference does it make where it pitched? I had no answer to that, anyone got any idea?
  • edited June 2008
    [cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]It's easy, convention goes out the window regarding LBW if you choose to switch hit. Ball can pitch wherever, if it hits your leg, and the umpire thinks it would have hit the stumps, you are out. Simple rule change, everyone is a winner.

    As a non-cricketing mate of mine said yesterday, whats the pitching outside leg stump rule all about anyway? If the ball is going to hit the stumps, and your leg is in the way, what difference does it make where it pitched? I had no answer to that, anyone got any idea?

    Well its the law of the game. The ball has to hit in line with the stump. You cant just change the laws of the game on a whim ... what do you think this is football ....
  • Sponsored links:


  • I personally thought it was an act of genius that should be applauded but can see where the problem lies.
  • All this goes to show, the discussion is about much more than just outlawing switch-hitting. It might see several laws being changed, it might even end up with a radical change in the LBW law to get rid of the ludicrous 'outside leg stump' thing.

    Whatever the outcome it mustn't stifle the likes of talented players like Pietersen. Such acts of sheer genius and quality shouldn't just be outlawed.
  • [cite]Posted By: Riscardo[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]It's easy, convention goes out the window regarding LBW if you choose to switch hit. Ball can pitch wherever, if it hits your leg, and the umpire thinks it would have hit the stumps, you are out. Simple rule change, everyone is a winner.

    As a non-cricketing mate of mine said yesterday, whats the pitching outside leg stump rule all about anyway? If the ball is going to hit the stumps, and your leg is in the way, what difference does it make where it pitched? I had no answer to that, anyone got any idea?

    Well its the law of the game. The ball has to hit in line with the stump. You cant just change the laws of the game on a whim ... what do you think this is football ....

    So you have no idea either then Rick? I am sure there must have been a practical reason why it was introduced, but can't for the life of me think what it could be. Any ideas Ketters?
  • it may have been brought in to try and stop bodyline bowling.
  • edited June 2008
    It just apears to be one of those laws ...

    read about it here .

    LBW
  • it's innovative, it's another part of making the game more "today"

    all you have to do is make the onus on the batsman, his choice to play it, his choice to take the risk, the bowler should benefit from more leniancy as regards wides and the lbw should stay as his original stance
  • Not Out outside leg stump is an old rule that has never been changed...

    LBW Rules before 1935 did not allow for a dismissal if the ball was pitched either outside off stump or leg stump.

    In 1932 the game was hit by the famous bodyline controversy. Harold Larwood the exponent of this alarming bodyline technique claimed justification of his method due to the frustration caused by the then LBW law. He suggested that the only practical move to neutralize his leg theory was to alter the LBW law to allow "Out" decision if the ball would have hit the wicket even if pitched off the wicket on the off side.

    Post Bodyline, in 1935 the Advisory County Cricket Committee voted to give trial to a change in the law so that a batsman could be given out to a ball pitching outside the off stump. The change was aimed at obliterating the excessive pad play that had crept into the game. Wisden, however, felt that the new rule did not go far enough, because it gave an apparent advantage to the off spinners and the in-swing bowlers while the leg spinners were ignored.
  • Anything that makes the game more exciting (Which this must fall under) has surely got to be embraced. After all the introduction of 20/20 is the best thing to happen to cricket in the last 100 years, makes it just about watchable.
  • [cite]Posted By: T[/cite]Not Out outside leg stump is an old rule that has never been changed...

    LBW Rules before 1935 did not allow for a dismissal if the ball was pitched either outside off stump or leg stump.

    In 1932 the game was hit by the famous bodyline controversy. Harold Larwood the exponent of this alarming bodyline technique claimed justification of his method due to the frustration caused by the then LBW law. He suggested that the only practical move to neutralize his leg theory was to alter the LBW law to allow "Out" decision if the ball would have hit the wicket even if pitched off the wicket on the off side.

    Post Bodyline, in 1935 the Advisory County Cricket Committee voted to give trial to a change in the law so that a batsman could be given out to a ball pitching outside the off stump. The change was aimed at obliterating the excessive pad play that had crept into the game. Wisden, however, felt that the new rule did not go far enough, because it gave an apparent advantage to the off spinners and the in-swing bowlers while the leg spinners were ignored.

    As you know, the leg side lbw rule requires the ball to pitch in line with the stumps and then go on to hit the wicket, whereas the offside law is more complicated in that it can pitch on the stumps or outside the line of the stumps but for lbw to be given, in the opinion of the umpire the ball must hit the stumps and if the batsman plays a shot, it must hit him in line with the stumps. As has been previously said, the law was changed to stop batsman padding away any ball on the offside not pitched on the stumps.

    I think the lbw rule is just about right, and the balance between bat an ball is a reasonable one. As regards KP's swithcg hitting, I think that the lbw rule should just apply to which ever stance he has taken up as he plays the ball.
  • [cite]Posted By: T[/cite]Post Bodyline, in 1935 the Advisory County Cricket Committee voted to give trial to a change in the law so that a batsman could be given out to a ball pitching outside the off stump. The change was aimed at obliterating the excessive pad play that had crept into the game. Wisden, however, felt that the new rule did not go far enough, because it gave an apparent advantage to the off spinners and the in-swing bowlers while the leg spinners were ignored.
    I make Wisden absolutely right. Curious though how a good leg-spin bowler is deemed far more dangerous to the batsman than an off-spinner, when his chances of LBW are far lower with the standard delivery.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited June 2008
    This from the Beeb:
    MCC gives switch-hit green light
    "The MCC believes that the switch-hit stroke is exciting for the game of cricket," said a statement. "It conforms to the Laws of Cricket and will not be legislated against."
  • Good on the MCC, there are very few players as good as Pietersen who could try it, let along hit as huge a six as KP did twice on Sunday.
  • As a bowler in my day I could not see the reason for the LBW law regarding pitching outside the leg stump. But as I bowled Right Arm Over it was never going to affect me.
    The reason is simple, if you allowed it, every right arm bowler would bowl round the wicket to a RHB and it would all be very negitive.
  • [cite]Posted By: Ketman[/cite]Anything that makes the game more exciting (Which this must fall under) has surely got to be embraced. After all the introduction of 20/20 is the best thing to happen to cricket in the last 100 years, makes it just about watchable.

    I agree with you but the people that run cricket, make the F.A look like teenagers, and since when have they give a feck what the paying public think? they`re more likely to ban Pieterson for six weeks and fine him 20k for bring in the game into disrepute. ;-)
  • [cite]Posted By: C_f_W[/cite]This from the Beeb:
    MCC gives switch-hit green light
    "The MCC believes that the switch-hit stroke is exciting for the game of cricket," said a statement. "It conforms to the Laws of Cricket and will not be legislated against."

    i heard on the radio that they are going to look at what they could do regarding lbw leg-side appeals, wides down the 'leg' side, and the '3 men behind square' no ball rule.
  • [cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]It's easy, convention goes out the window regarding LBW if you choose to switch hit. Ball can pitch wherever, if it hits your leg, and the umpire thinks it would have hit the stumps, you are out. Simple rule change, everyone is a winner.

    As a non-cricketing mate of mine said yesterday, whats the pitching outside leg stump rule all about anyway? If the ball is going to hit the stumps, and your leg is in the way, what difference does it make where it pitched? I had no answer to that, anyone got any idea?


    There are two reasons for the leg stump LBW rule - the batsman has to put his legs somewhere and secondly it's an established tactic to bowl at a batsman's legs to cramp him for movement, if you can offer an incentive of getting a batsman out LBW when the ball pitches outside leg and you'd get more or less continuous right arm around/left arm bowling. Run scoring would slow and instead of seeing 270-300 runs a day scoring (in Test cricket at least) would likely drop by around 20% a day and there'd be more wickets. The likely consequence is that as batting and stroke making would die out so would the numbers of spectaters. Most rules in cricket are there as a result of cause and effect, including this one.
  • [cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite]It's easy, convention goes out the window regarding LBW if you choose to switch hit. Ball can pitch wherever, if it hits your leg, and the umpire thinks it would have hit the stumps, you are out. Simple rule change, everyone is a winner.

    As a non-cricketing mate of mine said yesterday, whats the pitching outside leg stump rule all about anyway? If the ball is going to hit the stumps, and your leg is in the way, what difference does it make where it pitched? I had no answer to that, anyone got any idea?


    There are two reasons for the leg stump LBW rule - the batsman has to put his legs somewhere and secondly it's an established tactic to bowl at a batsman's legs to cramp him for movement, if you can offer an incentive of getting a batsman out LBW when the ball pitches outside leg and you'd get more or less continuous right arm around/left arm bowling. Run scoring would slow and instead of seeing 270-300 runs a day scoring (in Test cricket at least) would likely drop by around 20% a day and there'd be more wickets. The likely consequence is that as batting and stroke making would die out so would the numbers of spectaters. Most rules in cricket are there as a result of cause and effect, including this one.

    I agree with that. Very negative and favours the bowler. The current laws are fine and don't need adjustment.
  • I think I already said that.........
  • [cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]As a bowler in my day I could not see the reason for the LBW law regarding pitching outside the leg stump. But as I bowled Right Arm Over it was never going to affect me.
    The reason is simple, if you allowed it, every right arm bowler would bowl round the wicket to a RHB and it would all be very negitive.

    Thats the answer. Thanks Chirps (and BFR), it now makes sense.
  • And the MCC have outlawed black bats ...
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!