Switch hitting

[gwo]

How is it different?

 

[andyc]

What I didn't understand was how an umpire can be against something that has been deemed as legal.

Yeah, agreed. Had no idea why the ump last night was having words to Warner about it, they amended the law a year or two ago to legalise exactly what it was he was doing. Even if the umpire isn't a fan of the idea, there's nothing he can do about it,

 

[Streetwise]

Yeah, agreed. Had no idea why the ump last night was having words to Warner about it, they amended the law a year or two ago to legalise exactly what it was he was doing. Even if the umpire isn't a fan of the idea, there's nothing he can do about it,

The umpire also missed the leg side wide on that delivery. I thought warner might have been asking about that but warner said the umpire said it was against the spirit of the game. The umpire was wrong.

 

[thierry henry]

If they do, then the wide and lbw laws need to treat both the leg and off stumps as off stump. Therefore a wide should only be called if the ball would have been a wide when bowled to the batsman's off stump and the "pitching outside the line" rule should be completely dropped.

Exactly

The same should also apply to reverse-sweeping (tbh I always assumed it did as it seems so obviously logical to me)

Amazed it doesn't really

Same with batsmen moving across the crease- always interpret in favour of the bowler

 

[stephen]

Dont agree with this, just because in the 70's and 80's the bowlers had the avantage should not mean that the game should stagnate and stay the same for ever and ever. Investigate the reasons why people are flocking to the 20/20 games and not bothering with tests as much. Spectators want to be entertained and have excitement in the game.

If people are flocking to T20 cricket instead of test matches (which I think is a fallacy - they're flocking to T20 cricket instead of ODI cricket) it is because test matches have become batting wars. The bowlers are unable to exert the pressure and the game becomes one sided.

It is a contest between bat and ball that excites and energises.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

Right, so all of you in favour for a batsman to be able to change stance during the bowlers run-up are fine with a batsmen unable to have a 3rd slip field position set to him due to 41.5, (limiting onside fielders) ?

i.e, a natual righthand stance bat simply has to take a leg side stance before the ball enters play every single time.

also, how is the umpire wrong in stating it's against the spirit of the game? It obviously is against the spirit after considering the havoc the batsmen is playing with the ability for a fielding side to set a field to him.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

If people are flocking to T20 cricket instead of test matches (which I think is a fallacy - they're flocking to T20 cricket instead of ODI cricket) it is because test matches have become batting wars. The bowlers are unable to exert the pressure and the game becomes one sided.

It is a contest between bat and ball that excites and energises.

Surely you must be mistaken here. T20 is far more loaded in favour of the Batsman, the closest contest is still test cricket.

 

[Streetwise]

Right, so all of you in favour for a batsman to be able to change stance during the bowlers run-up are fine with a batsmen unable to have a 3rd slip field position set to him due to 41.5, (limiting onside fielders) ?

i.e, a natual righthand stance bat simply has to take a leg side stance before the ball enters play every single time.

also, how is the umpire wrong in stating it's against the spirit of the game? It obviously is against the spirit after considering the havoc the batsmen is playing with the ability for a fielding side to set a field to him.

Because it is not against the spirit of the game, the aus team did make sure that they were allowed to use the shot before using it. Its the same as Gilly with the half squash ball, anytime someone comes up against anyhting they are not familiar with and dont agree with they just trot out the old "its against the spirit of the game" which is something that happens to be a fluid as water.

 

[Migara]

The real problem is field placement, lbw and wide laws.

The off stump does not change, so the batsman by changing stances reduces the opportunity for the bowler to get them LBW and also increases the probability of a wide. Also by changing stance the batsman can find a gap that cannot be plugged behind square on the leg side.

I do not mind batsmen reverse sweeping, but I don't think it's appropriate to change stances. If they do, then the wide and lbw laws need to treat both the leg and off stumps as off stump. Therefore a wide should only be called if the ball would have been a wide when bowled to the batsman's off stump and the "pitching outside the line" rule should be completely dropped. There isn't much you can do about the field placings though.

Bingo! that reads my mind. It's implemeted in softball cricket in SL, where sweep, reverse sweep, dil-scoop and reverse dil scoop are very common shots (because the ball is soft!)

 

[Streetwise]

What if the batsman stands facing the bowler holding the bat in front of his body without indicating a left or right hand stance. A batsman is under no obligation to take up a stance other than what he himself wants.

 

[DingDong]

And the batsman can play a cut or a drive without informing the bowler.

A bowler cannot change hands or switch to around the wicket without informing the batsman.

Seriously, the batsmen get enough advantages these days, why should they get any more?

batsman should inform whether he's going to bat right handed or left handed before the ball and he should also have to inform what shot he would play. bowler should inform what hand he will bowl out of and what sort of ball it will be (short, quick, yorker etc). will make it a much better game imo

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

What if the batsman stands facing the bowler holding the bat in front of his body without indicating a left or right hand stance. A batsman is under no obligation to take up a stance other than what he himself wants.

First off, everyone will look at him as though he is an idiot, and the umpire will intervene and ask the batsman to get ready.

If the batsman is states he is ready, presumably the umpire will indicate the game is to proceed and the ball to be bowled. If unable to be determined, the umpire would be well within his rights ask the batsman to indicate his onside and offside for the purpose of field placement and LBW laws.

If the batsman refuses to indicate an onside or offside, or does so and plays in an opposite manner, it is the sole right of the umpire to judge the batsman's conduct as unfair and/or against the spirit of the game and intervene at anytime to sanction the batsman.

The umpire is free to consult with the other umpire, and batsman's captain is responsible for his player's conduct in regards to spirit/unfair play and may be called upon. The batsman might face a hearing after the match for his actions depending on the exact nature of the incident.

 

[Streetwise]

First off, everyone will look at him as though he is an idiot, and the umpire will intervene and ask the batsman to get ready.

If the batsman is states he is ready, presumably the umpire will indicate the game is to proceed and the ball to be bowled. If unable to be determined, the umpire would be well within his rights ask the batsman to indicate his onside and offside for the purpose of field placement and LBW laws.

If the batsman refuses to indicate an onside or offside, or does so and plays in an opposite manner, it is the sole right of the umpire to judge the batsman's conduct as unfair and/or against the spirit of the game and intervene at anytime to sanction the batsman.

The umpire is free to consult with the other umpire, and batsman's captain is responsible for his player's conduct in regards to spirit/unfair play and may be called upon. The batsman might face a hearing after the match for his actions depending on the exact nature of the incident.

I would like to see that. A batsman charged with a 'stance too confusing for the umpire'.

Also umpires do not have the sole right to judge anymore, his decision must be able to withstand a court hearing. Just ask umpire Hair if the umpire has the sole right to judge.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

Because it is not against the spirit of the game, the aus team did make sure that they were allowed to use the shot before using it. Its the same as Gilly with the half squash ball, anytime someone comes up against anyhting they are not familiar with and dont agree with they just trot out the old "its against the spirit of the game" which is something that happens to be a fluid as water.

According to the Laws the umpires are the sole judges of fair and unfair play. So it is impossible for the umpire to be wrong about anything in regards to this during the match.

Look, if you're wanting to 'come up with something', surely the logical thing to do is to clear up it's fair/unfair status before the game starts, or basically as soon as you can.

If you're going to spring something off the wall on absolutely everybody including umpires during a match, you deserve to have the book thrown at you for being an idiot if it's anything like the sort of typical aussie cricket smartassness you imply as 'innovative'.

Obviously the lessons of the underarm incident have still not been heeded even today.

edit: Elite umpire competency is forever under review. Court hearing is by-the-by. If his decision is to allow play to proceed without sanction on the batsman, that decision in itself is still extremely likely to be subject to review/court hearing.

 

[zaremba]

I have no problem with batsmen changing the grip on the bat (Pietersen) but changing their stance to completely the opposite as the bowler runs in is a bit much.

FTR KP plays a normal reverse sweep (merely changing hands on the bat) but also plays a full on switch hit where he jumps round in his stance and his right leg becomes his leading leg.

 

[zaremba]

Debatable.

Law 10

In normal circumstances
the striker should always be ready to take strike when the bowler
is ready to start his run up.

A bowler is quite within their rights to stop their delivery, the umpire can warn the batsman for not being ready to take strike and time wasting penalties can be incurred.

I don't agree. Just because the batsman moves when the bowler is running in, it doesn't follow that he wasn't ready when the bowler started his run-up (or for that matter at the point of delivery). And there is as far as I know no Law prohibiting a batsman from moving as the bowler is running in. Think about Derek Randall - if stillness at the crease were a requirement then he would never have been allowed to face a ball. And I think that as others have pointed out it is significant in this context that a batsman is quite entitled to charge the bowler as he runs in.

Surely the answer to all this Warner brouhaha is that the MCC has already considered the matter and decreed that it's perfectly proper for a batsman to switch hit. Personally I think it adds to the fun of the game. Since it's such a risky and difficult shot to play I don't think it gives the batsman any particular unfair advantage. Maybe the position would need to be reviewed in the event that it started tipping the balance grossly in favour of the batsman, but until that happens, I think batsmen should be allowed to get on with it.

 

[zaremba]

Look, if you're wanting to 'come up with something', surely the logical thing to do is to clear up it's fair/unfair status before the game starts, or basically as soon as you can.

If you're going to spring something off the wall on absolutely everybody including umpires during a match, you deserve to have the book thrown at you for being an idiot if it's anything like the sort of typical aussie cricket smartassness you imply as 'innovative'.

Obviously the lessons of the underarm incident have still not been heeded even today.

The fairness of doing this has already been investigated by the MCC and it has been deemed fair.

And, to be fair to Warner and any other "Aussie smartarses", they didn't invent the shot and it's hardly even particularly new. The first person I've seen play it was Kevin Pietersen at Edgbaston in May 2006 when he hit Murali for 6 - and he's played it many times since. Others have also played it. Graeme Swann did it against Paul Harris in the Test series in December.

 

[stephen]

To me the real danger in this is that batsmen being taking opposite stances to their normal stances with their arms crossed and change as the bowler approaches. This opens up a lot of attacking opportunities not normally open to them, particularly behind square on the new off side.

If this becomes commonplace I would expect a law change. At the moment it's just a novelty.

 

[Streetwise]

And, to be fair to Warner and any other "Aussie smartarses", they didn't invent the shot and it's hardly even particularly new. The first person I've seen play it was Kevin Pietersen in 2006 when he hit Murali for 6 - and he's played it many times since. Others have also played it - I think Graeme Swann may have done it in the Ashes.

Have there been Australians who claim that Warner invented the shot?, I dont get the reference to this, if there is one.

 

[zaremba]

Have there been Australians who claim that Warner invented the shot?, I dont get the reference to this, if there is one.

I've no idea whether any Aussies have claimed he invented it. I was quoting and responding to the post by Halfpast Yellow (location: Wellington) who seems to think Warner did invent it, and was having a go at him for being a "smartarse" and playing it. My point is, Warner is well within his rights in playing a shot that is now pretty well established in the game.