Switch hitting

[Streetwise]

Last night the umpire chatted Warner for changing his stance from left ot right handed while the bowler came in to bowl. The commies remarked that the bowler has to announce if he is bowling over or around the wicket so the batsman should not be able to change his stance.

The bowler informs the umpire which side he is going to bowl so the umpire knows what side he will be coming from so he can monitor no balls and the non striker knows where to stand so as not to interfere with the bowlers run up.

I dont see what the problem is here, the bowler can change his pace, length and grip to try and outsmart the batsman, some bowlers even hide the ball from the batsman to try and suprise him so I dont see what all the fuss is about when a batsman also trys to outsmart the bowler.

 

[Polo23]

What exactly is the umpire supposed to do about wides if the batsman changes his stance from left/right right/left as the bowler is running in? Fair call from the ump. 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.

 

[stephen]

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.

 

[Burgey]

What if the fielding captain has 2 slips and a gully, then all of a suddent he douchebag batsman changes stance so now there are three fielders behins square leg, and therefore the ball is a no-ball?

Honestly, I don't think it should be allowed without the fielding side having an opportunity to change the field. Fair enough reverse sweeps or whatever, but not a fan of this tbh.

 

[Streetwise]

What exactly is the umpire supposed to do about wides if the batsman changes his stance from left/right right/left as the bowler is running in?

There is already provisions in the laws for this, (i.e.) if a batman charges the bowler the height rule is judged from their original stance.

Fair call from the ump. 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.

Why, a bowler can bowl 5 balls at 90kph then suddenly bowl one at 135kph in an attempt to suprise the batsman. A bowler can bowl spin one minute then fast the next without informing the batsman.

 

[stephen]

What if the fielding captain has 2 slips and a gully, then all of a suddent he douchebag batsman changes stance so now there are three fielders behins square leg, and therefore the ball is a no-ball?

Honestly, I don't think it should be allowed without the fielding side having an opportunity to change the field. Fair enough reverse sweeps or whatever, but not a fan of this tbh.

The off stump stays the off stump, but changing stances takes the slips out of play unfairly IMO.

 

[stephen]

Why, a bowler can bowl 5 balls at 90kph then suddenly bowl one at 135kph in an attempt to suprise the batsman. A bowler can bowl spin one minute then fast the next without informing the batsman.

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?

 

[Goughy]

What if the fielding captain has 2 slips and a gully, then all of a suddent he douchebag batsman changes stance so now there are three fielders behins square leg, and therefore the ball is a no-ball?

36.3 comes into play

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.

The ball comes into play (23.4) at the start of the runup so everything is set (offside, legside) once the bowler starts to come in.

 

[Streetwise]

36.3 comes into play

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.

The ball comes into play (23.4) at the start of the runup so everything is set (offside, legside) once the bowler starts to come in.

didnt read it properly.

 

[Streetwise]

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

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.

 

[Julian87]

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

 

[Goughy]

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

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.

 

[gwo]

Warner was very much "ready to take strike" when Deonarine was bowling. I don't see how he wasn't / why it would be illegal?

 

[Streetwise]

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

No its the umpire that must be informed and its not because of the batsman its so the umpire knows which side the bowler will approach from and so the non striker will not stand in his way.

 

[Streetwise]

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.

Dosent apply, Warner was ready when the bowler started his run-up.

Interesting also was the WI bowler was sometimes bowling from a meter or two from behind the popping crease. Watson spoke to the umpire about this.

 

[Goughy]

Dosent apply, Warner was ready when the bowler started his run-up.

Interesting also was the WI bowler was sometimes bowling from a meter or two from behind the popping crease. Watson spoke to the umpire about this.

If he changed stance during the runup then he was not ready. Simple as. If he was ready and set then his stance would be set.

 

[Streetwise]

If he changed stance during the runup then he was not ready. Simple as. If he was ready and set then his stance would be set.

Not so. Batsmen charge the bowler before he releases the ball.

 

[Goughy]

Not so. Batsmen charge the bowler before he releases the ball.

Not related to the point in hand.

 

[Streetwise]

Not related to the point in hand.

I think it is, the batsman is under no obligation to hold his stance at any point during delivery of the ball.

 

[Goughy]

I think it is, the batsman is under no obligation to hold his stance at any point during delivery of the ball.

Great that you think that. However, my understanding is that he has to be set to receive the ball at the beginning of the runup. Changing the stance in the midle of the runup and resetting is against that. Moving down the wicket once set isnt.