That was some very loose cricket from England regarding not usuing the appeal. If you've got one left near the end then use it. Most of the blame should be on Patel, not only should he have told Anderson to use it as it was clearly going to miss but also he should have told KP that he was plumb and not to waste a review. KP spoke to Patel before appealing, what is Patel watching out there??
I should have said it wouldn't make sense if you included the full stop.
Yes it would.
"Mark Bright said on the radio last night that 8 or 9 gay footballers had spoken to Clarke Carlise about "coming out" and one in particular was very close to. Graham LeSaux, why was he there?"
A great innings by Pietersen but don't underestimate the foundation that the first three built. However, you could see the panic that ran through the Sri Lankan team when they quickly realised that Pietersen was set to do some damage. It was a quality innings regardless of the opposition. The exaggerated celebration when he got to 100 was partly, I think, due to exchanges in his 90s when he changed the grip on his bat so that he could reverse hit. Twice the bowler pulled up as he changed; eventually, he was warned. I am not sure that it was an official though, as he could have been docked 5 runs if he had infringed again after an official warning.
On one of the balls giving rise to the warning, KP hadn't actually changed his grip before Dilshan stopped. Dom Cork made a fair point when he said that the umpire wouldn't have time to resolve whether the bowler was in delivery stride when the change was made, as well as checking the front foot and then whether the ball (assuming it hits the pad) pitched in line.
Either outlaw changing hands at all or leave it as an innovative shot. To say that it is illegitimate if the change is made fractionally before the delivery stride but legitimate a moment later, when there is so much else to consider is daft IMO.
I'm not a great fan of KP because he is inconsistent but you can't deny he provides wonderful entertainment when he puts it together. Trott may be the safer player but I don't see the bar emptying when he comes out to bat. Anyway, who else is there who looks like taking that no4 spot?
Let him or anyone else change from right hand to left whenever they like as long as the bowler can do the same and also bowl from what ever side of the wicket he wants.....
Let him or anyone else change from right hand to left whenever they like as long as the bowler can do the same and also bowl from what ever side of the wicket he wants.....
The MCC sorted this out a season or two back.
The ruling/interpretation was that the stance of the batsman counts from the moment the bowler starts his run-up not when he delivers the ball. The batsman can therefore switch his grip or stance without penalty.
Therefore KP is not breaking the law.
Saying that I'd rather he doesn't make a habit of it just to make a point. It's a foolish shot and a stupid way to get out.
That's interesting BFR but unfortunately your quote doesn't accurately quote the rule!! It is as follows: '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.'
The ball doesn't 'come into play' at the commencement of the run up but (according to Nick Knight today) when the bowler is in his delivery stride. That is defined in Appendix D as follows: 'Delivery stride is the stride during which the delivery swing is made, whether the ball is released or not. It starts when the bowler’s back foot lands for that stride and ends when the front foot lands in the same stride.'
All this means that we are now in the same position as the offside rule whereby 'interfering with play/second phase/daylight/scoring part of the body' is open to endless debate.
That's interesting BFR but unfortunately your quote doesn't accurately quote the rule!! It is as follows: '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.'
Ok stealing this from cricinfo:
An ICC statement in May 2010 said: "The ICC Cricket Committee adopted the updated directive introduced earlier in the year which prevents the batsman from altering his grip or stance before the bowler enters his delivery stride. Should the bowler see a batsman change his grip or stance prior to the delivery stride the bowler can decide not to bowl the ball."
Preserving the balance between bat and ball is key here, when KP is batting like he did today I'd welcome him switch hitting as it's the only way he looks like getting out.
BFR Your observation was in quotes hence my comment but i'm not criticising you as matters have (as I understand) altered from the time that the piece you quoted was written. I am quoting both the rule and appendix as they currently appear. Nick's comments were both during the game (after discussing it with the match umpire) and at the conclusion. Apparently there was a change to the 2008 ruling as a result of something which occurred in a T20 game involving.
As for the run out scenario you describe, as the bowler would take off the bails in his delivery stride, the ball would be in play and the batter (or batsman as I prefer) would be out. Sometimes the bowler doesn't make 'the delivery swing' and if in that instance he was to remove the bails the backing up player wouldn't be out.
Roll on tomorrow and a few wickets in the morning session.
That's interesting BFR but unfortunately your quote doesn't accurately quote the rule!! It is as follows: '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.'
Ok stealing this from cricinfo:
An ICC statement in May 2010 said: "The ICC Cricket Committee adopted the updated directive introduced earlier in the year which prevents the batsman from altering his grip or stance before the bowler enters his delivery stride. Should the bowler see a batsman change his grip or stance prior to the delivery stride the bowler can decide not to bowl the ball."
That's interesting BFR but unfortunately your quote doesn't accurately quote the rule!! It is as follows: '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.'
Ok stealing this from cricinfo:
An ICC statement in May 2010 said: "The ICC Cricket Committee adopted the updated directive introduced earlier in the year which prevents the batsman from altering his grip or stance before the bowler enters his delivery stride. Should the bowler see a batsman change his grip or stance prior to the delivery stride the bowler can decide not to bowl the ball."
So, basically, you were wrong!
As indeed you were Chirpy because the MCC did tell the ICC, which is why Rauf warned KP.
Jayasuriya seems to have trouble understanding the review system, asking why Cook was not out when Dishan was sent on his way. Atherton has tried to explain that Cook was given not out by the on-field umpire so the review simply upheld that decision as there was not conclusive evidence to the contrary (as was the case with Dilshan.) I could then hear Atherton muttering off-microphone, maybe a little frustrated with Jayasuriya.
they should have hot spot out there. dilshan from what i could see was not out. but as you say cant overturn a umpires decision when its not conclusive.
Comments
SL to face one over.
You're both equally deluded though.
"Mark Bright said on the radio last night that 8 or 9 gay footballers had spoken to Clarke Carlise about "coming out" and one in particular was very close to. Graham LeSaux, why was he there?"
See! Maybe we are, but at least I admit it.
But I agree with your point about KP.
Either outlaw changing hands at all or leave it as an innovative shot. To say that it is illegitimate if the change is made fractionally before the delivery stride but legitimate a moment later, when there is so much else to consider is daft IMO.
I'm not a great fan of KP because he is inconsistent but you can't deny he provides wonderful entertainment when he puts it together. Trott may be the safer player but I don't see the bar emptying when he comes out to bat. Anyway, who else is there who looks like taking that no4 spot?
The ruling/interpretation was that the stance of the batsman counts from the moment the bowler starts his run-up not when he delivers the ball. The batsman can therefore switch his grip or stance without penalty.
Therefore KP is not breaking the law.
Saying that I'd rather he doesn't make a habit of it just to make a point. It's a foolish shot and a stupid way to get out.
http://www.lords.org/latest-news/news-archive/mcc-give-switch-hit-all-clear,1077,NS.html
"Law 36.3 defines the off side of the striker’s wicket as being determined by the striker’s stance at the moment the bowler starts his run-up."
The ball doesn't 'come into play' at the commencement of the run up but (according to Nick Knight today) when the bowler is in his delivery stride. That is defined in Appendix D as follows: 'Delivery stride is the stride during which the delivery swing is made, whether the ball is released or not. It starts when the bowler’s back foot lands for that stride and ends when the front foot lands in the same stride.'
All this means that we are now in the same position as the offside rule whereby 'interfering with play/second phase/daylight/scoring part of the body' is open to endless debate.
Ok stealing this from cricinfo:
An ICC statement in May 2010 said: "The ICC Cricket Committee adopted the updated directive introduced earlier in the year which prevents the batsman from altering his grip or stance before the bowler enters his delivery stride. Should the bowler see a batsman change his grip or stance prior to the delivery stride the bowler can decide not to bowl the ball."
Preserving the balance between bat and ball is key here, when KP is batting like he did today I'd welcome him switch hitting as it's the only way he looks like getting out.
Your observation was in quotes hence my comment but i'm not criticising you as matters have (as I understand) altered from the time that the piece you quoted was written. I am quoting both the rule and appendix as they currently appear. Nick's comments were both during the game (after discussing it with the match umpire) and at the conclusion. Apparently there was a change to the 2008 ruling as a result of something which occurred in a T20 game involving.
As for the run out scenario you describe, as the bowler would take off the bails in his delivery stride, the ball would be in play and the batter (or batsman as I prefer) would be out. Sometimes the bowler doesn't make 'the delivery swing' and if in that instance he was to remove the bails the backing up player wouldn't be out.
Roll on tomorrow and a few wickets in the morning session.
1:22AM
BlackForestReds said:
That's interesting BFR but unfortunately your quote doesn't accurately quote the rule!! It is as follows: '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.'
Ok stealing this from cricinfo:
An ICC statement in May 2010 said: "The ICC Cricket Committee adopted the updated directive introduced earlier in the year which prevents the batsman from altering his grip or stance before the bowler enters his delivery stride. Should the bowler see a batsman change his grip or stance prior to the delivery stride the bowler can decide not to bowl the ball."
So, basically, you were wrong!
As indeed you were Chirpy because the MCC did tell the ICC, which is why Rauf warned KP.