blonde poker forum

ICC and MCC to look into whether Pietersen's switch hitting is legal. crazy really, people have been reverse sweeping for years with no issues

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

To be fair to the umpires, they do need clarification on what the rules are, only from a point of Wides, and if how a player can be out LBW..

IMO rules should stay as they are and the batsman be classed as their original stance as the bowler is running in.. A bowler changing his run in, bowling arm etc is pretty difficult, and the only thing a bowler can change is going around the wicket instead of over, but that is dangerous, due to needing a white/black background..

I agree, all we need to know is which stump is to be considered as leg. no need for a rule change, just apply things exactly the same as they have for reverse sweeping, after all what pietersen is doing is essentially the same only much harder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU354DdX6Eg

Don't see how this is compared with Reverse Sweep, he is not just swapping his hands over, he is walking across the crease to change his stance, Bowlers action is declared why not Batsmans? Agree with Jizz how do you bowl a wide, LBW etc?

Having said all that I think its brilliant, let it stay.

Yes excellent for sure, all that is needed is to know which one is Leg stump, then everything moves on from there..

Class. 

If they outlaw this then cricket is worse off in my opinion. 

They usually find a way to punish genius and ingenuity...

Cricket is moving fast, this shot is moving with the times...

 great to watch...but you need to sort out the rules on it.

 you need to swap over moments before the bowler bowls (unlike the reverse sweep)... so  in future the bowler will just stop in his run up and reset the field...hence stalemate.

Easy solution is to treat both sides as off stump I think, gives the bowler a little edge there (less wides, more lbw).

Now how easy is that.... Simple rules.. Loving that Rule, might make the shot a lot more risky for the batsman..  :)up

pretty sure you won't get bowlers doing that as they'd fail to reach their required over rate, get fined their match fee, not be able to pay the mortgage and end up with their families starving in the street.

I like Bongo's solution, simple

Had an argument about this in the pub at lunch there (yes - in a Glasgow pub).


One thing you've not yet considered is the fielders in a limited overs game - they are not allowed to change position once the bowler starts his run up AFAIK - they are only allowed to close in towards the batsman. If they've set up for a right handed batsman, and he goes southpaw, they're all out of position and resticted to the wrong positions.

[gratuitous anti cricket as it's an english game comment] Mind you the game's that boring that you need something like this to liven up to a funeral.  [/gratuitous anti cricket as it's an english game comment]

Surely the simpler option is to elect which way you will be batting (like the bowler tells you which side he will be bowling from) and the leg stump is then decided from that. If the batsmen switches then its up to him but a bowler can't be given a wide for bowling behind a batsmen that has changed stance.

MCC has said the shot is ok and will  not be banned.

Good stuff imo, it was a quality move

Bongos' solution would create a situation where the bowler could just bowl from the legside towards leg stump. Very defensive and difficult to score off, not very exciting to watch.

you've lost me there. a bowler can do that under the current rules. what do you mean that would be different?

You can do it under the current rules, but if the ball pitches outside leg stump the batsman cannot be given out lbw.

If the ball pitches outside off stump the batsman can only be given out if he is not playing a shot.

So under the current rule a batsman can just kick a ball away if it pitches outside leg making legside bowling much less attractive to the bowler.

True, but at the moment, bowling legside towards leg stump means no LBW's and more than likely more wides.

Quite happy for the MCC to make this decision. There can't be any changes to LBW or wides, keeping it the same is the only way forward.

Has anyone tried to actually do the switch hitting?? Its bloody hard to do, so credit to Pietersen.

but if they bowl from legside towards leg there'll be no lbw as long as the batsman plays a shot (or pretends to) as he won't be hit in line

Hmmm, I'm not so sure anymore. They changed the law to discourage legside bowling, but the game has moved on since then....

Not true. The ball can pitch outside the off stump,but it must strike the pad in line with the stumps if he's playing a shot.

I've not expressed myself terribly well.

I'm just trying to examine the real world effects of creating two 'off stumps'.

Would it encourage exciting, innovative cricket?

Or would it lead to the bowlers employing negative tactics?

I certainly don't think the off stump should become the leg stump.So the batsman should still be able to be given out if the ball pitches outside his new 'leg' stump.

Personally if i was a bowler i would love the batsmen to play this shot,i'm sure more will be out to it than hit it for six.

I meant remove the distinct between leg and off side for lbw and wide if, and only if, the batsman decides to change stance mid ball.

Mal Loye clearly showed tonoght its not as easy as Pietersen makes it look...

Who else can seriously manage this?  Not many I'd wager. 

It's not as though the batsman can try it too often either. 

Mal Loye did it tonight in the 20/20 game on tv. Hit it for 6 as well!!

But some attempts he his bat got wrapped around his legs somewhere...

But they're only just trying it. It's not the first time Pietersen has done it.

Paul Nixon also did it in last years world cup.

Apparently Kallis did it in the 90's but didn't swap his hands round.

I think KP did it a couple of years ago against Sri Lanka.

Not just a reverse sweep?

Can't be sure. it was on SSN this morning described as a "switch slog".
He hit two 6's for Middlesex. It's in the Daily Mail today.

The one KP did against Sri Lanka was definitely a reverse sweep, not a switch hit - I remember the shot.

Forget switch hitting, jus smash it leg side every ball like Graham Napier...   152 from 58 balls, 10 4's, 16 6's....

Quality hitting. Foster looked good too.

Cow corner rules...