Pietersen's Left Handed Batting Illegal?

[Prince EWS]

Na that seems about right for mine.

So the bowler is two steps into his runup, I change to a right handed stance after never having any intention of batting left handed, and hence he can't have more than two slips and I can pad up to balls outside off.. and that's okay with you.

Wow.

 

[cowboysfan]

So the bowler is two steps into his runup, I change to a right handed stance after never having any intention of batting left handed, and hence he can't have more than two slips and I can pad up to balls outside off.. and that's okay with you.

Wow.

lol-I think the fielding captain and the umpire know if you are a right hander or a left hander-so they will set a field for that regardless of whether you bat left or right right handed stance-the only problem is the LBW law which will heavily favour the batsman if he decides to do what you mentioned-but the MCC will probably clarify or introduce a new sub-law for that.

 

[Richard]

This is either going to have to be one of those "common-sense applies" things which cricket has always resisted (with good reason) or a rule-change is going to have to happen. Else this just opens-up the opportunity for batsmen to take guard however they want and all the crying of "unfair play" won't change the fact it's not illegal.

One thing I'll say though - if it was Adam Gilchrist or Ryan Campbell who'd played this shot and not Pietersen, I'm wondering whether there'd have been the reaction there has been. Maybe there would, but I'm not sure.

 

[Prince EWS]

lol-I think the fielding captain and the umpire know if you are a right hander or a left hander-so they will set a field for that regardless of whether you bat left or right right handed stance

Yes yes yes I know that, but they can't have more than two fielders behind square on the leg side. If I make my off side my leg side by starting my stance left handed, then they can't have more than two fielders behind square on what is, in reality, the off side. It'd be illegal for them to set the field how they liked for my impending right-hand switch.

 

[Prince EWS]

This is either going to have to be one of those "common-sense applies" things which cricket has always resisted (with good reason) or a rule-change is going to have to happen. Else this just opens-up the opportunity for batsmen to take guard however they want and all the crying of "unfair play" won't change the fact it's not illegal.

One thing I'll say though - if it was Adam Gilchrist or Ryan Campbell who'd played this shot and not Pietersen, I'm wondering whether there'd have been the reaction there has been. Maybe there would, but I'm not sure.

I'd certainly be sprouting my rule flaw theories regardless, FWIW.

 

[Richard]

lol-I think the fielding captain and the umpire know if you are a right hander or a left hander-so they will set a field for that regardless of whether you bat left or right right handed stance-the only problem is the LBW law which will heavily favour the batsman if he decides to do what you mentioned-but the MCC will probably clarify or introduce a new sub-law for that.

Not sure if you understand. The law states that no more than 2 fielders are allowed behind square on the leg-side. Hence, if someone takes guard as a left-hander then two slips to a right-hander is the maximum they can have. No third-man, no backward-point, no nothing in the arc that is actually going to be cover to wicketkeeper.

As I say - the law is going to have to be changed. It's fairly unavoidable.

 

[cowboysfan]

Yes yes yes I know that, but they can't have more than two fielders behind square on the leg side. If I make my off side my leg side by starting my stance left handed, then they can't have more than two fielders behind square on what is, in reality, the off side. It'd be illegal for them to set the field how they liked for my impending right-hand switch.

right.So the MCC needs to look at 3 things regarding this shot.

1)field placement

2)LBW

3)wides

I wonder what the umpires and captains will do before the MCC comes up with something.

 

[Richard]

I'd certainly be sprouting my rule flaw theories regardless, FWIW.

I'm actually beginning to wonder how many people are aware of the anti-leg-theory rules. Which would explain some of the "ah, who cares" stuff on here.

 

[Jono]

I guess we are talking about the following shot :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU354DdX6Eg

What's all the fuss ? If he can do it effectively then why not ?

For all the reasons mentioned in the thread regarding bowlers changing hands/sides, fielding issues, LBW ruling etc.

It was also innovative for Dennis Lillee to come out with an aluminium bat btw.

 

[Richard]

Exactly - if he was good enough to lift it, who are the lawmakers to stop him using it(!)









(Just to remind everyone - Lillee's use of said bat in 1979/80 was exclusively a publicity-stunt)

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yes yes yes I know that, but they can't have more than two fielders behind square on the leg side. If I make my off side my leg side by starting my stance left handed, then they can't have more than two fielders behind square on what is, in reality, the off side. It'd be illegal for them to set the field how they liked for my impending right-hand switch.

Can't the bowler abort his runup as soon as he sees you do that though?

 

[Richard]

Of course he can - but if there's nothing illegal about it you can just keep doing it, no-one has any regulations to stop you from doing so - and in the end the bowler has to bowl, as it's he and his side who'll cop it for the poor over-rate (or lack of over-rate, which will be interpreted as the fielding side refusing to play).

 

[Prince EWS]

Can't the bowler abort his runup as soon as he sees you do that though?

Yeah, he can, but he'll have to bowl the ball eventually. Prior knowledge of the fact that I'm going to switch won't help the fact that my off side will technically be my leg side.

 

[GIMH]

Two separate polls though

 

[Jono]

Can you merge the recent posts/discussion though, cos I'm frickin confused at which thread is which with regards to where I and others posted.

 

[Prince EWS]

Can you merge the recent posts/discussion though, cos I'm frickin confused at which thread is which with regards to where I and others posted.

Haha yeah, I've repeated myself several times in each thread. GIMH's post on onwards should really be in the other thread. I should probably be actually doing it instead of suggesting it though.

 

[Sanz]

For all the reasons mentioned in the thread regarding bowlers changing hands/sides, fielding issues, LBW ruling etc.

It was also innovative for Dennis Lillee to come out with an aluminium bat btw.

Comparing this incident to Lillee batting with Aluminum bat is unfair. That was just pure mockery of the game, for not only it(aluminum bat) was illegal but it could damage the ball as well.

In this case KP changed the grip on the fly and adjusted it, played the shot, it worked for him. Had he been out, people would have called him silly. LBW ruling is definitely a very valid point. Fielding IMO isn't. He is not taking a left hand stance, he is just switching after the ball is delivered or about to be delivered.

I consider this situation very similar to batsmen stepping out of the crease to play a shot.

 

[GGG]

Legal but I think that a leg side wide should be the same as the off side and it doesn't matter if pitched outside leg for LBW's.

 

[Prince EWS]

Fielding IMO isn't. He is not taking a left hand stance, he is just switching after the ball is delivered or about to be delivered.

It's not just about the shot he played though. If he took his stance left handed originally and then swapped to right handed as the bowler was running in without any intention of actually batting left handed, the fielding restrictions would still be that of a left handed batsman according to the ICC. So even if the bowler knew he was going to bat right handed, he couldn't set him any more than two slips for example.

I don't have a problem with Pietersen's shot in itself - the can of worms it opens up for other shots is a different matter.

 

[GIMH]

All this talk of fielding is silly IMO as KP hit the ball so well that you could have had 50 fielders on the off and 50 on the leg, it was still going in the stands