Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[honestbharani]

I agree with you, but the bolded should only apply if the batsman changes his stance after the bowler starts running in (I suspect this may have been what you meant, but it's unclear?)

I have no problem with switch hits but I certainly think batsmen should lose all offside/legside umpiring privilege if they do it.

Always been a proponent of this. Also, should not allow the bowler the stop and see what the batsman is doing in his action either. Both are unfair to the other party.

 

[cnerd123]

If you're going to start having a new set of laws that only apply for a batsman playing a switch hit, you're going to have to define what a switch hit is

 

[honestbharani]

If you're going to start having a new set of laws that only apply for a batsman playing a switch hit, you're going to have to define what a switch hit is

I thought it is already defined. You switch your grip, it is a switch hit. You hold the bat the same way, it is a reverse shot, which is fine.

 

[Prince EWS]

If you're going to start having a new set of laws that only apply for a batsman playing a switch hit, you're going to have to define what a switch hit is

"Right hander" and "left hander" and presumably already defined given the need to differentiate off step from leg stump.

If a batsman changes his stance from one to the other after the bowler begins his run-up, then *apply these different rules*.

 

[cnerd123]

I thought it is already defined. You switch your grip, it is a switch hit. You hold the bat the same way, it is a reverse shot, which is fine.

Many batters switch their grips on a reverse sweep

 

[honestbharani]

Many batters switch their grips on a reverse sweep

Then it is a switch hit sweep, not a "reverse" sweep. The reverse implies you don't change your grip, or at least that is how they defined it whenever they brought up the switch of grips in the laws.

 

[cnerd123]

"Right hander" and "left hander" and presumably already defined given the need to differentiate off step from leg stump.

If a batsman changes his stance from one to the other after the bowler begins his run-up, then *apply these different rules*.

Right hander and left hander are not actually defined.
Neither is offside or legside as far as I can tell

 

[cnerd123]

Then it is a switch hit sweep, not a "reverse" sweep. The reverse implies you don't change your grip, or at least that is how they defined it whenever they brought up the switch of grips in the laws.

Switch of grips in the laws?

 

[Prince EWS]

Many batters switch their grips on a reverse sweep

Right and in those circumstances they shouldn't be afforded the privileges afforded by "pitched outside leg" and leg side wides.

Facing up as a right- or left-hander are already defined concepts. If you go from to the other as the bowler runs in then you should lose all benefit of the doubt as to which is off- or leg-stump.

I think these are great shots that should (and would, even under my proposals) remain in the game. But the wide and lbw implications of the rule put in place way before these shot were invented need to be changed.

 

[Prince EWS]

Right hander and left hander are not actually defined.
Neither is offside or legside as far as I can tell

They have to be as the rule implications of what is leg and what is off stump are obvious.

If they aren't and it's just umpires using common sense, then they should use common sense to do what I said as well.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

What happens if I face up straight on

 

[Line and Length]

What happens if I face up straight on

Then you're playing French cricket. ?

 

[cnerd123]

If they aren't and it's just umpires using common sense, then they should use common sense to do what I said as well.

If people trusted umpires to make decisions we wouldn't have DRS

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I have noticed that Michael Bevan has been commenting on majority of ICC’s on Instagram lately garnering responses primarily from Indians there...a good ploy to increase his followers lol

 

[aussie tragic]

Surprised at the number of 'Son' surnames in Australian cricket, we almost have an XI

1. Maddinson
2. Watson
3. Williamson (on loan from NZ)
4. Patterson
5. Ferguson
6. Pierson +
7. Pattinson
8. Johnson (un-retired)
9. J Richardson
10. K Richardson
11. Swepson

Coach: Bob Simpson

 

[Victor Ian]

Surprised at the number of 'Son' surnames in Australian cricket, we almost have an XI

1. Maddinson
2. Watson
3. Williamson (on loan from NZ)
4. Patterson
5. Ferguson
6. Pierson +
7. Pattinson
8. Johnson (un-retired)
9. J Richardson
10. K Richardson
11. Swepson

Coach: Bob Simpson

First test to be played in the sunshine state.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Ian Chappell has been complaining about the switch-hit for years; can remember him creating headlines about it when KP was doing it at international level. I guess his pet topic of the back,-foot no-ball got tired after 30 years, have to have another topic to go to.

As an aside, was surprised to learn Chappell was commentating on ABC as he'd been on Macquarie Sports coverage for the last few years and learnt their cricket coverage is no more. A shame as that was my goto for radio coverage in the last few years, even with commercials.

 

[aussie tragic]

The recent T20 concussion sub of a genuine bowler being brought in for an allrounder when only the bowling effort is left brings the whole system down imo.

It would be no different to Maxwell finish his batting and then have Lyon sub him for the bowling effort. Or Henriques finish batting and Hazlewood sub in for bowling.

My solution would be that a 'like for like' sub should be nominated for each player prior to the start of the game. So in the examples above Maxwell might have Labuschagne nominated and Henriques may have Green or M Marsh.

Also, what if someone like Hazlewood needed a sub in a Test? The next bowlers to choose from are Pattinson, Neser and Abbott, all fantastic #8s compared to Haze at #11. Should they be able to bat for him?

 

[Starfighter]

I don't see why it exists in the first place. I don't need a lecture on the importance and characteristics of it as an injury, but being absent injured exists for a reason and I don't see why it should be treated differently.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The recent T20 concussion sub of a genuine bowler being brought in for an allrounder when only the bowling effort is left brings the whole system down imo.

It would be no different to Maxwell finish his batting and then have Lyon sub him for the bowling effort. Or Henriques finish batting and Hazlewood sub in for bowling.

My solution would be that a 'like for like' sub should be nominated for each player prior to the start of the game. So in the examples above Maxwell might have Labuschagne nominated and Henriques may have Green or M Marsh.

Also, what if someone like Hazlewood needed a sub in a Test? The next bowlers to choose from are Pattinson, Neser and Abbott, all fantastic #8s compared to Haze at #11. Should they be able to bat for him?

Then do you have squads of 22 for each match?