Pietersen's Left Handed Batting Illegal?

[LA ICE-E]

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.

wouldn't you be going against "spirit of cricket" there then? plus the could get you lbw from the leg side.

 

[Prince EWS]

wouldn't you be going against "spirit of cricket".

Oh indeed, hence my comment:

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

I wouldn't do it, especially at the level I currently play at, but there's nothing in the rules stopping me. Well, I thought there might not be until I got shut down by Neil in the middle of our discussion.

plus the could get you lbw from the leg side.

Unless he was bowling leg breaks, he'd have to go around the wicket to do so. And if he wanted to go around the wicket, he'd have to inform the umpire who would then in turn inform me. At which point, I could just take my stance right handed.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Well I'm not too sure I'd be comfortable making the change so late every ball, especially if it was a fast bowler, so the rule is probably how it should be. I'd consider what Pietersen did to be a right handed shot, and an impressive one at that, but I'd consider my theoretical changing around as the bowler was running in, starting with a left-handed stance, as a right handed shot as well.

 

[GIMH]

What?!

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

DWTA, we should encourage as many people as possible to come here and then help them learn about the game, IMO

So anyone seen that MCC will be looking at the legality of the shots Pietersen played?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So anyone seen that MCC will be looking at the legality of the shots Pietersen played?

Nothing to do with the reverse sweep though, they're looking at his change to a lefthanded stance when hitting in front of square.

 

[GIMH]

It says they will discuss reverse sweeps ang grips, amongst other things, on cricinfo

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvnz/content/current/story/355007.html

 

[silentstriker]

What are people's opinions on these questions?

Not everyone at Chester-le-Street was convinced of the merits of the stroke however. The Guardian cricket correspondent, Mike Selvey - himself a former fast bowler - wrote: "Astounding and audacious strokes these may have been but there is something not quite right about their provenance. It poses a number of questions. Should the batsman be obliged to declare if he is playing right- or left-handed? The bowler has to. Vettori and the bowler would have wanted to change his field setting had he known of the reversal. Had Styris fired the ball away to the right of the stumps, would that have constituted a leg-side wide?

"And where does the umpire stand with the lbw law in all this?" asked Selvey. "Which is leg stump and which is off? Would a slip, a gully and backward point, say, constitute three men behind on the leg side and so render the delivery a no-ball? Given the early stage at which Pietersen revised his stance, Styris could have stopped his run-up and started again."

I know people have answered some of them, but IMO this is really the thrust of the issue. I think the bowlers shouldn't have to declare, if the batsmen don't.

 

[calypso ck]

i think it's fine. the batsman can charge down the pitch before the ball's released as well whereas the bowler's gotta stay behind the line. cricket's a batsman's game!

 

[Langeveldt]

So we might be losing test cricket altogether to some mad baseball style game, but all the ICC are worried about is a loon playing the odd funky shot? Fair play to Pietersen to be honest, heck of a shot.. Just hope when he tries it against South Africa he loses either his middle stump or a tooth..

 

[cowboysfan]

So we might be losing test cricket altogether to some mad baseball style game, but all the ICC are worried about is a loon playing the odd funky shot? Fair play to Pietersen to be honest, heck of a shot.. Just hope when he tries it against South Africa he loses either his middle stump or a tooth..

they just want to know all the ramifications of that kind of a shot.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I believe that the ball comes into play as soon as the bowler commences his run-up. Hence, as soon as it commences, he's able to mankad the non-striker, as long as it is before the delivery stride. I'm not sure where I stand on this at the moment; maybe that you shouldn't be allowed to change hands over, and if you do it becomes a dead ball.

 

[Raghav]

i think it's fine. the batsman can charge down the pitch before the ball's released as well whereas the bowler's gotta stay behind the line. cricket's a batsman's game!

that does not mean everything needs be given batsman favour..

 

[howardj]

MCC To Debate Pietersen's Batting

The legitimacy of KP's left handed batting is to be debated by the MCC. Critics such as Athers believe it gives the batsmen an unfair advantage over bowlers, who must tell batsmen both which hand and which side of the wicket they are delivering the ball from.

I suppose, when you couch it like that, a pall is cast over KP reversing his stance.

Thoughts.

 

[Prince EWS]

MCC To Debate Pietersen's Batting

The legitimacy of KP's left handed batting is to be debated by the MCC. Critics such as Athers believe it gives the batsmen an unfair advantage over bowlers, who must tell batsmen both which hand and which side of the wicket they are delivering the ball from.

I suppose, when you couch it like that, a pall is cast over KP reversing his stance.

Thoughts.

Yeah, it's being discussed in the "reverse sweep" thread.

As I said there:

I could theoretically take my guard as a left hander before every singly ball, then 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.

Evidently I'd have to change my stance after the bowler began his delivery stride, but it's still a problem that could technically be exploited. As impressive a stroke as it was from Pietersen, it opens up a whole new can of worms.

 

[Prince EWS]

As for the poll, there's no doubt over its current legality. What they're discussing is whether they should change the rules.

 

[cowboysfan]

Its legal right now but they have to clarify the rules for everybody concerned,I dont think everybody can do it but it does give them an adavantage..

 

[LA ICE-E]

it should be legal but so should bowlers changing sides/hands

 

[Top_Cat]

MCC To Debate Pietersen's Batting

The legitimacy of KP's left handed batting is to be debated by the MCC. Critics such as Athers believe it gives the batsmen an unfair advantage over bowlers, who must tell batsmen both which hand and which side of the wicket they are delivering the ball from.

I suppose, when you couch it like that, a pall is cast over KP reversing his stance.

Thoughts.

So tell the non-striker to move over and let the bowlers bowl from whatever side they want. Problem solved!

As far as I'm concerned, the ICC has bigger fish to fry than spending time sanctioning one bloody shot very few people in the world even attempt let alone get right.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, it's being discussed in the "reverse sweep" thread.

As I said there:



Evidently I'd have to change my stance after the bowler began his delivery stride, but it's still a problem that could technically be exploited. As impressive a stroke as it was from Pietersen, it opens up a whole new can of worms.

Yes and no. If I saw you were doing that, as the fielding captain I just keep the field for the right-hander because you'd have to swap sooner or later.

The only issue (legally) I can see if a field is set for a right-hander and the batsman swaps to leftie before the ball is bowled, suddenly what were slip fielders are now behind square leg, which is illegal if you have more than two of course. I guess this could be rectified in adjusting the laws to say that once the bowler starts his run-up, the orientation of the batsman at that time (left or right-handed) dictates which side is square leg so that even if the batter swaps, that two-fielder rule isn't broken. That said, I just can't see it as being a huge problem; if some bloke is doing that to put the opponent off, they're not concentrating on their batting as much as they should either and would more than likely end up getting out fairly soon. It's not what one would term a high-% tactic and I would reckon it's why we'd not seen it used before. Just because it could be legislated against, doesn't mean it should. Waste of time.

 

[Prince EWS]

The only issue (legally) I can see if a field is set for a right-hander and the batsman swaps to leftie before the ball is bowled, suddenly what were slip fielders are now behind square leg, which is illegal if you have more than two of course.

Yeah, that was my point. I'd limit you to two slips at most, with no backward point, gully, third man etc. It'd also mean I couldn't be out lbw if the ball pitched outside off. This is of course assuming I could manage to make the change after the ball was deemed "in play". If was left handed at the time the bowler entered his delivery stride, the entire shot would be considered left handed for the purposes of field restrictions and lbw, even if I changed my stance just after that.