Freakish Talents

[cnerd123]

The bowler doesn't have carte blanche. Just what is available to him under he existing lbw and wide laws being applied to a batter reverse sweeping.

I don't see the problem with that?

Like I said, the batsman isn't gaining anything either. Why change the laws?

 

[the big bambino]

I don't see the problem with that?

Like I said, the batsman isn't gaining anything either. Why change the laws?

The argument is the batsman gains an advantage being allowed to change a stance not available to a bowler. Let him have it. Just balance it up and allow a bowler extra margin for bowling a wide and extra incentive to get a wicket.

 

[cnerd123]

The argument is the batsman gains an advantage being allowed to change a stance not available to a bowler. Let him have it. Just balance it up and allow a bowler extra margin for bowling a wide and extra incentive to get a wicket.

That's such a bad argument. Do you know how ridiculously hard it is to switch your stand midway? Not to mention that if you switch your stance, the bowler can still bowl a ball a foot away from your pads that you won't be able to reach, and it won't be a wide. What is this 'advantage' that batsmen are gaining? They gain no advantage. What they gain in being able to exploit new gaps/throw off a bowlers plan/hit a legstump ball into the offside is offset by the sheer difficulty of the stroke and the risk of missing the ball completely.

In reality, the batsman gains nothing from switch-hitting/reverse-sweeping. It's a high risk stroke that's ridiculously hard to execute. I don't understand wanting to enforce a new set of laws for this stroke based of some idealistic principled argument that has no basis in reality.

 

[the big bambino]

The bowler sets his plans and lines on a batsman's stance. The batsman has an advantage upsetting those plans by switching stances. Yet a batsman can always be assured of what to expect from a bowler's run up. The bowler, especially in one dayers, faces so many restrictions and disadvantages in lines, lengths, field settings, boundary placements and pitch conditions, deserves obtaining a little more leverage by extending what is already available in wide and lbw laws, applied to the occasional instance of reverse sweeping.

 

[Burgey]

Too bad for the batsman. If you want to switch hit and you miss,the ball shouldn't be called wide if it passes reasonably close outside what was the batsman's leg stump at set up. And if you switch hit and the ball pitches outside what was your original leg stump is and hits you in line, you should be able to be out. Risk/ reward. Would be a great rule change and level things up a bit.

 

[cnerd123]

The bowler sets his plans and lines on a batsman's stance. The batsman has an advantage upsetting those plans by switching stances. Yet a batsman can always be assured of what to expect from a bowler's run up. The bowler, especially in one dayers, faces so many restrictions and disadvantages in lines, lengths, field settings, boundary placements and pitch conditions, deserves obtaining a little more leverage by extending what is already available in wide and lbw laws, applied to the occasional instance of reverse sweeping.

The bowler sets his plans and lines on a batsman's stance. The batsman has an advantage upsetting those plans by switching stances coming down the wicket/backing away from the stumps/walking across the stumps/scooping the ball over his head and behind the keeper.

Surely you see how ridiculous this argument is?

 

[cnerd123]

Too bad for the batsman. If you want to switch hit and you miss,the ball shouldn't be called wide if it passes reasonably close outside what was the batsman's leg stump at set up.

FTR it's not a wide if it passes leg stump; it's a wide if it passes where the batsmen's legs are when he takes guard when the bowler stars running in. So if he did switch hit, and it did pass 'reasonably close outside what was the batsmen's leg stump at set up', it would already be a fair ball under the current MCC laws. ICC ODI playing conditions may be stricter.

 

[Burgey]

That's such a bad argument. Do you know how ridiculously hard it is to switch your stand midway? Not to mention that if you switch your stance, the bowler can still bowl a ball a foot away from your pads that you won't be able to reach, and it won't be a wide. What is this 'advantage' that batsmen are gaining? They gain no advantage. What they gain in being able to exploit new gaps/throw off a bowlers plan/hit a legstump ball into the offside is offset by the sheer difficulty of the stroke and the risk of missing the ball completely.

In reality, the batsman gains nothing from switch-hitting/reverse-sweeping. It's a high risk stroke that's ridiculously hard to execute. I don't understand wanting to enforce a new set of laws for this stroke based of some idealistic principled argument that has no basis in reality.

It has a huge basis in reality. Blokes reverse/ switch hit a ton these days. That's fine. But if the batsman reverses his stance, he shouldn't be able to miss the ball going past what he's made his off stump and get the benefit of a wide call for it. **** that ****.

They should also bring in a rule that if you switch hit or reverse sweep, the bowler should be allowed to beam you without penalty, until he succeeds in hitting you. It's a blight on a game which is already too much in favour of batsmen. Piss it off, and while you're at it, ban the two handed backhand in tennis too. Acknowledge it for what it really is, an assisted forehand.

 

[cnerd123]

It has a huge basis in reality. Blokes reverse/ switch hit a ton these days. That's fine. But if the batsman reverses his stance, he shouldn't be able to miss the ball going past what he's made his off stump and get the benefit of a wide call for it. **** that ****.

Nah that's a dumb argument. As bambino said:

The bowler sets his plans and lines on a batsman's stance.

If the batsman reverses his stance, just stick to your original plans and pick up the easy dot from a ball passing a foot wide of his new leg stump.

Do appreciate teh angry troll rant in the second half of the post tho.

 

[the big bambino]

The bowler sets his plans and lines on a batsman's stance. The batsman has an advantage upsetting those plans by switching stances coming down the wicket/backing away from the stumps/walking across the stumps/scooping the ball over his head and behind the keeper.

Surely you see how ridiculous this argument is?

No. Just how ridiculous your false analogies are. Everything you mentioned starts from a set stance and can be compared to a bowler changing length, line and speed.

 

[cnerd123]

No. Just how ridiculous your false analogies are. Everything you mentioned starts from a set stance and can be compared to a bowler changing length, line and speed.

So do the reverse sweep and the switch hit. I don't see why you need different laws for a batsman moving around his crease in one way vs. moving around his crease in another way. Let the batsman do whatever he likes. Your LBW and wide laws are set on the stance he has when the bowler begins running in. The rest is irrelevant.

 

[Shri]

Maybe a batsman's right to a free hit should be taken away if he attempts a switch hit when it happens to be a no ball. Or fielders should be free to change positions when the batsman changes stance without it being a no ball. Maybe a guy at point could move around to the vacant cover region/now mid wicket if he is quick enough.

 

[cnerd123]

FTR it's not a wide if it passes leg stump; it's a wide if it passes where the batsmen's legs are when he takes guard when the bowler stars running in. So if he did switch hit, and it did pass 'reasonably close outside what was the batsmen's leg stump at set up', it would already be a fair ball under the current MCC laws. ICC ODI playing conditions may be stricter.

I actually need to clarify this more. The actual wide ball rule is:

1. Judging a Wide

(a) If the bowler bowls a ball, not being a No ball, the umpire shall adjudge it a Wide if, according to the definition in (b) below, in his opinion the ball passes wide of the striker where he is and which also would have passed wide of him standing in a normal guard position.

(b) The ball will be considered as passing wide of the striker unless it is sufficiently within his reach for him to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke.

2. Delivery not a Wide

The umpire shall not adjudge a delivery as being a Wide,

(a) if the striker, by moving,

either (i) causes the ball to pass wide of him, as defined in 1(b) above

or (ii) brings the ball sufficiently within his reach to be able to hit it by means of a normal cricket stroke.

(b) if the ball touches the striker’s bat or person.

The 'all balls down legside are wides' is an ICC playing condition. Not a law.

Under the laws, if a batsman by switch hitting brings a ball within his reach, that ball is no longer a wide. Just as it would be if he walked a foot and a half across his stumps and missed a ball that went right past his toes.

So really the whole 'omg what about the wide balls!' argument against swtich hitting is nonsense.

 

[Burgey]

Nah that's a dumb argument. As bambino said:



If the batsman reverses his stance, just stick to your original plans and pick up the easy dot from a ball passing a foot wide of his new leg stump.

Do appreciate teh angry troll rant in the second half of the post tho.

But what you're proposing is the batsman being able to change his set up/ plan but the bowler having to stick to his plan before the batsman changes. That's crazy. What's more, who bowls a length ball outside off stump in an ODI as their plan, apart from England in WC games which are important? No one. If the batsman wants to go from being right handed to left handed, good on him but let the bowler be able to dismiss him by pitching outside the lefties off stump and hitting the poles.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm 100% with ***** here

It has a huge basis in reality. Blokes reverse/ switch hit a ton these days. That's fine. But if the batsman reverses his stance, he shouldn't be able to miss the ball going past what he's made his off stump and get the benefit of a wide call for it. **** that ****.

This is fair, if the bowler is adjusting his line as a result of the batsman reversing. But from what I've seen this is practically already in place, most umpires don't seem to call wides when batsmen reverse or switch hit regardless.

But what you're proposing is the batsman being able to change his set up/ plan but the bowler having to stick to his plan before the batsman changes. That's crazy. What's more, who bowls a length ball outside off stump in an ODI as their plan, apart from England in WC games which are important? No one. If the batsman wants to go from being right handed to left handed, good on him but let the bowler be able to dismiss him by pitching outside the lefties off stump and hitting the poles.

How often does this actually happen though? the vast majority of the time batsmen reverse sweep it's not a ball coming from their leg side. And as I said earlier should we really reward a bowler for bowling a negative leg-side line, where the batsman is likely using the reverse-sweep to combat this negative bowling tactic?

 

[cnerd123]

But what you're proposing is the batsman being able to change his set up/ plan but the bowler having to stick to his plan before the batsman changes. That's crazy. What's more, who bowls a length ball outside off stump in an ODI as their plan, apart from England in WC games which are important? No one. If the batsman wants to go from being right handed to left handed, good on him but let the bowler be able to dismiss him by pitching outside the lefties off stump and hitting the poles.

Wait you're still not making sense.

The bowler can change his plan as the batsmen change his stance. The batsman changes to lefty, the bowler changes to length ball outside (the original) off. The batsman stays normal, the bowler can stick to his legstump yorker.

No bowler has his plan as bowling a length ball outside legstump. When you say the bowler should be allowed to bowl a length ball outside legstump to a swtich hitting batsman and get away with it, what you are saying is that he should be allowed to change his plan and do that. If he his changing his plan anyways, why not just bowl a length ball outside offstump?

Also, why aren't you in uproar about a batsman upsetting a bowler's plans by walking down the wicket, moving around his crease, or falling to his knees and dilscooping? Why is one particular movement by the batsman unfair but the rest are legit? This really makes no sense.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Maybe a batsman's right to a free hit should be taken away if he attempts a switch hit when it happens to be a no ball. Or fielders should be free to change positions when the batsman changes stance without it being a no ball. Maybe a guy at point could move around to the vacant cover region/now mid wicket if he is quick enough.

They already can, this rule was implemented a couple of years ago

 

[the big bambino]

So do the reverse sweep and the switch hit. .

So would a bowler if he was allowed to change hands or side of the wicket he was bowling. But he can't. So therefore an advantage he doesn't enjoy that a batsman can.

 

[honestbharani]

Wait you're still not making sense.

The bowler can change his plan as the batsmen change his stance. The batsman changes to lefty, the bowler changes to length ball outside (the original) off. The batsman stays normal, the bowler can stick to his legstump yorker.

No bowler has his plan as bowling a length ball outside legstump. When you say the bowler should be allowed to bowl a length ball outside legstump to a swtich hitting batsman and get away with it, what you are saying is that he should be allowed to change his plan and do that. If he his changing his plan anyways, why not just bowl a length ball outside offstump?

Also, why aren't you in uproar about a batsman upsetting a bowler's plans by walking down the wicket, moving around his crease, or falling to his knees and dilscooping? Why is one particular movement by the batsman unfair but the rest are legit? This really makes no sense.

So what you are basically saying is that once the batsman switches hands and can still go for a shot on either side of the wicket, the bowler still has only place to bowl and that is wide of the original off stump??? Surely you can see why it is a mistake. If you remove the leg stump rules (and they are rules FFS, even balls going inches wide of leg stump are called wides in LO cricket), the bowler has the option of firing the ball either side depending on how he sees the batsman winding up once he has switched hands and grip.

It is different to giving yourself room or coming down the wicket because even though it can mess up the length and line, it does not mess up what is off stump and what is leg stump for the batsman.

 

[the big bambino]

?

Also, why aren't you in uproar about a batsman upsetting a bowler's plans by walking down the wicket, moving around his crease, or falling to his knees and dilscooping? Why is one particular movement by the batsman unfair but the rest are legit? This really makes no sense.

A bowler has an advantage in setting the ball in play. A batsman is always reacting. But that is just an advantage the game has to allow.

Really dilscooping and the rest are analogous to a bowler varying his deliveries and part of the game's evolution and counter evolution. The comparison of changing stance is analogous to bowlers changing sides or delivery hand. Which they can't do.

However reverse sweeping is an innovation that should not be banned but is still an advantage the bowler doesn't have. So the suggestion to extend the wide and lbw laws compensates for the disadvantage.