whats the big deal? who cares if he switches hands during a shot, why would that be illegal?
KPs new shot controversy
- Thread starter vanthaman
- Start date
Haven't seen it, what's he done now?
It's the reverse sweep - that's been in cricket for years. The only problem people have with Pietersen is that he can hit it further than anyone else, and that he is South African of course.
I think the controversy is because he's completly changing his entire stance to that of a left handed batsman as the bowler is making his delivery. If a field has been set to a right hander, it means the batsman has a lot more space to play the ball into
Personally I don't see the problem, it shows great inginuity. You have to be as good as Pieterson is to be able to perform such a feat. I probably couldn't hit a cricket ball further than the bowlers crease with my left arm, he can thump it for six! Seems the powers that be are muttering though, he might be bound by conventional stance in the future...
It may be Pedantic FlawlessThaw but it aint really the same as the reverse sweep because he changes grip as well as his hand and body position, which many see as an unfair advantage to the bowler.
Not that i have a problem with it though, there is nothing wrong with KP being innovative.
However, in what position is the ball now called as wide? That seems to be the main point of contention.
Not that i have a problem with it though, there is nothing wrong with KP being innovative.
However, in what position is the ball now called as wide? That seems to be the main point of contention.
also if the ball pitches outside a right handers off stump (left's leg stump) and catches him square on the pads in front of the wicket, would it be an LBW ????
Thing is, he won't be able to do it against the better bowlers. Imagine him trying that against Akhtar or any other speed merchant. So, it's up to the crap bowlers, not to be crap. As for LWBs and wides, I think it has to be classed as right handed, because that's the stance he's taken before the ball was pitched.
Then again, they'll probably find a good reason to ban it.
It isn't a reverse sweep, it is an entirely different shot. The difference is that with a reverse sweep, you don't change your grip and play the shot as a right hander (albeit backwards). With the switch hit, you are left handed. I believe this could cause trouble were there to be an LBW shout, as if a right hander bowls to a left hander (as KP is when he plays that shot) they can't be out if it pitches outside leg stump, a right hander can.
That's right. The reverse sweep is still played with a right handed stance.
They'll probably ban it. I can see it causing a few problems.
holding explains it ..
great shot tho
Holding makes a great point. He actually changes his stance before the ball's released from the bowler's hand.
Can't see it catching on. If it does they'll have to make a ruling but right now it doesn't matter.
It's a very legitimate shot.
Should not be a problem for the better bowlers to counter.
Should not be a problem for the better bowlers to counter.
I can see why bowlers would have a problem with it, they have to declare which hand they bowl with and which side of the wicket they're coming from beforehand. It isn't just a reverse sweep, he is literally suddenly batting left handed. That said, if he wasn't "English" I'd probably be a little more up in arms about it.
Not really relevent but Nadal does something similar. He's right handed but can play left so his backhand is more powerful.
Not really relevent but Nadal does something similar. He's right handed but can play left so his backhand is more powerful.
Not legitimate if he changes his stance before the ball is released.
It's not the stance, it's the hand positioning that is the main problem.
If that's a written rule, then it's definitely wrong.
I have never been aware of such rules being in existence.
Not just you GG.
Most likely the press, and almost all bodies connected to Cricket.
I thought its only the bowlers who were effected by such a rule. Great shot like.
Its just not cricket though
Whether it gets banned or not it doesn't really matter. The bowlers will easily adapt to that one. (with a nice ball aimed at his head)
Its just not cricket though
Whether it gets banned or not it doesn't really matter. The bowlers will easily adapt to that one. (with a nice ball aimed at his head)
I say, there aren't many batsmen good enough to get away with it against the better (or subsequently better prepared) bowlers so let them have a crack. All sports must evolve. They were bowling underarm once upon a time*.
*Until women cricketers invented overarm bowling...but that's neither here nor there
I say, there aren't many batsmen good enough to get away with it against the better (or subsequently better prepared) bowlers so let them have a crack. All sports must evolve. They were bowling underarm once upon a time*.
*Until women cricketers invented overarm bowling...but that's neither here nor there
I'd say it should be allowed with the shorter form of Cricket now taking precedent, should add to the excitement.
When are we likely to see women taking up 20/20?
Keep an eye on the Windies against the Aussies. They might just do it.
Damn, i jinxed them.
Might give him an unfair advantage? WHAT THE feck?
The bowlers can do whatever they want with the ball pretty much, spin, googly, that whacko dude who throws it round his side basically :|
All this is, is a normal shot, just changes his stance. So basically, in cricket, you can only hit the ball one way?
Always knew it was a bit of a shit sport.
The bowlers can do whatever they want with the ball pretty much, spin, googly, that whacko dude who throws it round his side basically :|
All this is, is a normal shot, just changes his stance. So basically, in cricket, you can only hit the ball one way?
Always knew it was a bit of a shit sport.
Er. . . I'm speechless.
Bowlers can't switch hands before the point of delivery, nor can they switch sides without notifying the umpire and batsman. . . according to Holding it is akin to changing your stance before delivery. You can;t really argue with him.
He's hitting a bloody ball with a piece of tree. I can't see why they want to make a big deal of it personally.
I thought they wanted the sport more entertaining?
I thought they wanted the sport more entertaining?
its like saying Ronaldo is not allowed to take a penalty with his left foot, its retarded
Personally I don't have a problem with it, justs hows the class and skill of the man, I'm sure the authorities will soon step in though.
I can both sides of the argument. If a bowler has to inform the umpire if he's switching sides or hands it's a little unfair that a batsman doesn't. On the other hand though if a bowler can change line and length why can't a batsmen adjust his stance? Cricket is a spectator sport at the end of the day and people pay to come and watch Pietersen do things like that. I'd be very surprised if anything came of this.
to be honest, i don't think the bowler should have to tell the umpire what hand or what side he's coming from.
i know that rule will never change, but they should keep KP's batting legal and allow bowlers the same latitude to improvise on the fly. would add to the game to be honest.
i can see the law getting tweaked alot to counter the advantage in playing the shot over the coming weeks. i cannot see it getting banned altogether though, innovative shots like that and talents like kp can only be good for the game. i feel it does give him an unfair advantage over the bowler at present though in the present laws of the game. what is lbw when he changes grip and stance? most balls that were good to a right hander will be a wide or cant be lbw as it will most likely pitch outside leg, can see the law being tweaked to treat him as a left hander the moment he does it at the very least.
He's still a right handed batsman, and even though he's playing the shot as a left hander, he still has to be judged by those terms. If the ball pitches leg (for a righty) side, and hits pad before wicket, he isn't out. If it pitches off, whereas for a normal batsmen playing left handed he wouldn't be out (as it would be hitting him leg side) Pieterson could be given out
Top bowlers notice a player starting to come down the pitch and adjust their bowl accordingly. The time it takes for a man to switch his stance, you have plenty of time to readjust where you pitch the ball. If my rule interpretation is correct, and it surely has to be under current regulations, it shouldn't be that difficult to bowl it faster, fuller and on off stump. He simply won't have time to react to that, the best he'll do is dig it out of trouble, and there's a great chance he'll be out LBW. For me it's simply a case of the batsman raising his game, the bowler now has to respond. That's how games develop
MCC has said its not taking any action, nothing wrong with the shot, they can use it if they want because its hard to do and is a risky shot so it can benefit the bowler as well as the batsman
The MCC has said the controversial switch-hit tactic used by England's Kevin Pietersen against New Zealand is legal within the laws of the game.
Pietersen hit two sixes after changing his stance to left-handed but some commentators had asked whether it was in keeping with the spirit of the game.
"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."
The MCC said the stroke had already been recognised by and dealt with by Law 36.3, and as it was a risky shot for a batsman to try and play, "it also offers bowlers a good chance of taking a wicket and therefore MCC believes that the shot is fair to both batsman and bowlers."
Pietersen said the decision was the right one for the future of the sport.
"It's important that we as players are innovative and if this shot helps make cricket more exciting and entertaining for spectators then that has to be good for the sport," he said.
"I am glad the MCC has recognized that cricket is always evolving and that this particular shot brings something special to the game.
"I have spent many hours in the nets working on it and I am pleased that all the hard work is not going to go to waste."
World governing body the International Cricket Council (ICC) had already raised concerns about the legality of the stroke before Pietersen's incredible hitting off all-rounder Scott Styris at Chester-le-Street.
The ICC's cricket committee made recommendations at its annual meeting in Dubai in May for the MCC, the custodian of cricket's laws, to review the switch hit.
And the MCC has also had reports of some club cricketers adopting a similar tactic.
Unlike bowlers, a batsman does not have to notify the umpires and opposing team if they opt to reverse their batting style.
However, the shot raises a number of questions for umpires, including the lbw and leg-side no-ball laws.
Despite the controversy, Pietersen believed he broke new ground with his stroke.
The first six flew over deep square leg boundary (for a left-hander) at Chester-le-Street, while the second bore more of a resemblance to a Marcus Trescothick slog sweep over the ropes at long-on.
"Reverse sweeps have been part of the game for however long, I am just fortunate that I can hit it a bit further," said Pietersen.
"Everybody wants brand new ideas, new inventions and that's a new shot. We were in a position where I needed to push the accelerator and it worked.
"On other occasions it might not work but the most important thing is a convincing England victory.
"I play to win, I would do anything to win and the most important thing is we are 1-0 up.
"The key to it is to try to raise the bar on Wednesday again, hit our straps on Saturday and if we have a good week we will have won a series."
Styris, who was on the receiving end of the shots, said he had no problem with it.
"Sometimes you've just got to take your hat off and say "well played"," he said.
"We all admire good cricket and that's what it was. I don't view it in any other light, I don't believe it's against the spirit of the game or anything, I just take my hat off and say "nice shot"."
When asked if he had been tempted to try playing the stroke himself, he said: "It crossed my mind when I was out there but I thought if I'm out, it's a double blow for me."
BBC Sport.
Pietersen hit two sixes after changing his stance to left-handed but some commentators had asked whether it was in keeping with the spirit of the game.
"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."
The MCC said the stroke had already been recognised by and dealt with by Law 36.3, and as it was a risky shot for a batsman to try and play, "it also offers bowlers a good chance of taking a wicket and therefore MCC believes that the shot is fair to both batsman and bowlers."
Pietersen said the decision was the right one for the future of the sport.
"It's important that we as players are innovative and if this shot helps make cricket more exciting and entertaining for spectators then that has to be good for the sport," he said.
"I am glad the MCC has recognized that cricket is always evolving and that this particular shot brings something special to the game.
"I have spent many hours in the nets working on it and I am pleased that all the hard work is not going to go to waste."
World governing body the International Cricket Council (ICC) had already raised concerns about the legality of the stroke before Pietersen's incredible hitting off all-rounder Scott Styris at Chester-le-Street.
The ICC's cricket committee made recommendations at its annual meeting in Dubai in May for the MCC, the custodian of cricket's laws, to review the switch hit.
And the MCC has also had reports of some club cricketers adopting a similar tactic.
Unlike bowlers, a batsman does not have to notify the umpires and opposing team if they opt to reverse their batting style.
However, the shot raises a number of questions for umpires, including the lbw and leg-side no-ball laws.
Despite the controversy, Pietersen believed he broke new ground with his stroke.
The first six flew over deep square leg boundary (for a left-hander) at Chester-le-Street, while the second bore more of a resemblance to a Marcus Trescothick slog sweep over the ropes at long-on.
"Reverse sweeps have been part of the game for however long, I am just fortunate that I can hit it a bit further," said Pietersen.
"Everybody wants brand new ideas, new inventions and that's a new shot. We were in a position where I needed to push the accelerator and it worked.
"On other occasions it might not work but the most important thing is a convincing England victory.
"I play to win, I would do anything to win and the most important thing is we are 1-0 up.
"The key to it is to try to raise the bar on Wednesday again, hit our straps on Saturday and if we have a good week we will have won a series."
Styris, who was on the receiving end of the shots, said he had no problem with it.
"Sometimes you've just got to take your hat off and say "well played"," he said.
"We all admire good cricket and that's what it was. I don't view it in any other light, I don't believe it's against the spirit of the game or anything, I just take my hat off and say "nice shot"."
When asked if he had been tempted to try playing the stroke himself, he said: "It crossed my mind when I was out there but I thought if I'm out, it's a double blow for me."
BBC Sport.
I believe the MMC are spot on.
"However, the success of Pietersen's strokes could lead to two significant alterations to the laws. As things currently stand, under the provisions of Law 36.1.b, a batsman cannot be given out lbw if the ball pitches outside leg stump, an issue which will clearly require some review if leg and off stumps are to be swapped in this manner mid-delivery. And Law 25, which relates to wides, will also require some scrutiny, particularly in one-day cricket when anything that drifts past leg stump is liable to be called. "
I don't think they require any revision, just some common sense umpiring.
And consistency between the decisions.
My opinion is that if the batsman changes his stance after the ball has been bowled it should be legitimate. Shows ingenuity on Pietersen's part and is so difficult to do that only a handful of batsmen would even attempt it, let alone pull it off.
Certainly adds more unnecessary confusion though. The Umpire's job is already difficult as it is.
Certainly adds more unnecessary confusion though. The Umpire's job is already difficult as it is.