Pietersen's Left Handed Batting Illegal?

[Scaly piscine]

Holding's argument was non-existent. It seemed to based purely on that the bowlers have to say which side of the wicket they're going to bowl from and which arm they're going to bowl with. After that I was waiting for his point and there wasn't one. If the sight screen is big enough then as far as I'm concerned the bowler can bowl from wherever they like and how they like without prior announcement (as long as it's legal to bowl in such a way in the first place obviously) as they do to a large extent anyway.

 

[Days of Grace]

But then the umpire wouldn't know which side to look at for the no-ball, right?

 

[Scaly piscine]

But then the umpire wouldn't know which side to look at for the no-ball, right?

I'm sure they could manage, but the third umpire should be doing the no-balls anyway.

 

[Prince EWS]

Holding's argument was non-existent. It seemed to based purely on that the bowlers have to say which side of the wicket they're going to bowl from and which arm they're going to bowl with. After that I was waiting for his point and there wasn't one. If the sight screen is big enough then as far as I'm concerned the bowler can bowl from wherever they like and how they like without prior announcement (as long as it's legal to bowl in such a way in the first place obviously) as they do to a large extent anyway.

Under the laws though, they can't, which was the point. If one is illegal, both should be. I think Holding would be more in favour of the bowler changing from over to around at will than restricting the batsmen to the hand they start with, really - he just wants it to be equal either way.

An important factor, though, is leg side fielding restrictions. Theoretically, if I took guard left handed and changed to right handed as the bowler was running in every ball, I could limit him to two slips.

 

[LA ICE-E]

I think it should be allowed but the bowling rule should change to allow bowlers to change sides or hands.As for all that technical stuff, welll the umpires should judge on the normal stance, so if you're normally a righty and switch hands during the delivery and the ball goes on the right it should still be a fair ball same should go for all the fielding stuff.

 

[cowboysfan]

Lot of questions will be raised by what peitersen did.what about the lbw?

 

[LA ICE-E]

why? if it's infront of the stumps its lbw right?

 

[cowboysfan]

why? if it's infront of the stumps its lbw right?

I meant which side should be considered outside leg stump(where he cant be given out)?the right or the left?.because a prevoius good ball which would be given lbw maybe thought of as being pitched outside leg and given not out.

 

[LA ICE-E]

really i didn't know that, just thought if you were in front of the stumps, well then w/e side is his leg side normally should be used in lbws, there's has to be advantages and disadvantages for taking a risky shot.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I meant which side should be considered outside leg stump(where he cant be given out)?the right or the left?.because a prevoius good ball which would be given lbw maybe thought of as being pitched outside leg and given not out.

It's the side you start in the stance with - i.e. if Pietersen misses his reverse over midwicket it's pitched outside the new "leg" but still out.

 

[Richard]

rally i didn't know that, just thought if you were in front of the stumps

What?!

I seriously suggest you read the lbw law before posting on cricket forums TBH.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's the side you start in the stance with - i.e. if Pietersen misses his reverse over midwicket it's pitched outside the new "leg" but still out.

So again, I could theoretically take my guard as a left hander before every ball, and change to a right handed stance as the bowler ran in despite having no intention of batting left handed at any time. This'd limit the bowler to two slips at most (with no third man and no backward point) and I couldn't be out lbw if the ball pitched outside off (which would technically be leg).

I can't imagine I'd be too popular in Z Grade if I did that, but it's a rule that needs changing.

 

[cowboysfan]

It's the side you start in the stance with - i.e. if Pietersen misses his reverse over midwicket it's pitched outside the new "leg" but still out.

Is that actually spelled out in the rule books?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Law 36.3 - Off side of wicket
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.

 

[Prince EWS]

Law 36.3 - Off side of wicket
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.

At what point does the ball technically come into play? When it comes out of the bowler's hand? I reckon Pietersen was left handed before Styris released it.

 

[ret]

used to play a lot of reverse sweep on a particular turf when playing with my friends

that ground was L-shaped so you had to hit the ball on the off-side .... negative bowling was not encouraged on that L-shaped ground so the ball had to be pitched within the stumps but that did not stop ppl from bowing off-cutters or on the legs so the best ways to counter that was to either step out if possible or reverse sweep

 

[LA ICE-E]

What?!

I seriously suggest you read the lbw law before posting on cricket forums TBH.

i'd rather not.

So again, I could theoretically take my guard as a left hander before every ball, and change to a right handed stance as the bowler ran in despite having no intention of batting left handed at any time. This'd limit the bowler to two slips at most (with no third man and no backward point) and I couldn't be out lbw if the ball pitched outside off (which would technically be leg).

I can't imagine I'd be too popular in Z Grade if I did that, but it's a rule that needs changing.

if you take stance as a lefty then bowler could just bowl on the left side then and it wouldn't be called wide. you wouldn't be called lbw for it being pitched outside off but you would be called for lbw for it being pitched outside leg. so basically the bowler and umpire doesn't need to change the way of bowling and looking at things just because you change your stance, it's your risk.

 

[Neil Pickup]

At what point does the ball technically come into play? When it comes out of the bowler's hand? I reckon Pietersen was left handed before Styris released it.

I've just watched the youtube of it and he swaps literally as Styris completes his delivery stride.

Seeing as the commencement of the delivery stride is the cut-off point for a Mankad, I would definitely interpret this as a right-handed shot for purposes of LBW.

 

[cowboysfan]

Law 36.3 - Off side of wicket
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.

does the ball come into play(as the law put it) the moment it leaves the bowlers hand or the moement the bowler starts his runup?

 

[Prince EWS]

if you take stance as a lefty then bowler could just bowl on the left side then and it wouldn't be called wide.

I'm not particularly worried about that. My role is to see if the new ball and protect the middle order - if they want to bowl outside leg (technically off) for two sessions while I remain on 0*, more power to them.