Pietersen's Left Handed Batting Illegal?

[Neil Pickup]

As far as I am concerned, all that needs doing is a clarification of when the ball is live - as discussed in the reverse thread, afaic it is from delivery stride - and good luck changing around from there.

 

[silentstriker]

KP is doing it as the ball is bowled.

He is set and then makes the change as the ball is delivered and he begins the process of playing the shot.

Its close to all one action and quite fluid. Nothing like changing stance once (or more) during the bowlers run up.

KP is set and then plays a shot. Just so happens its a pretty complicated shot that involves him moving his feet. His stance is clearly defined at the time of delivery.

He is already turning around when the ball is leaving the hand of the bowler. His grip changes, and really so does his stance. You're right that its one fluid movement, and while I don't see too many people being able to do so right now, if its allowed, I bet many people will start switching stances.

 

[silentstriker]

As far as I am concerned, all that needs doing is a clarification of when the ball is live - as discussed in the reverse thread, afaic it is from delivery stride - and good luck changing around from there.

Fair enough.

 

[Goughy]

He is already turning around when the ball is leaving the hand of the bowler. His grip changes, and really so does his stance. You're right that its one fluid movement, and while I don't see too many people being able to do so right now, if its allowed, I bet many people will start switching stances.

I bet they will not. If they do it will make for a lot of happy bowlers.

Its an ego shot, nothing more. He didnt get any more runs than he did for the countless other 6s he has hit in his career. However, this style of shot that has resulted a far fewer number of 6s has resulted in a frenzy. This being due to its high level of difficulty and it being a rare shot.

I cant see how playing this shot makes life any easier for the batsman. It just strokes the ego and makes people feel special.

As a bowler Id say, "Let them play it". If they change grips, stance and be unbalanced all whilst I bowl the ball then that is advantage to me.

 

[silentstriker]

Almost two different players. But fair enough regarding your points. I suppose we should wait and see if anyone can master the quick changing of stance (from left to right) before jumping to conclusions.

 

[fredfertang]

What if:

I am a right handed batsman, but I take guard left handed to force two or less slips, and then simply switch over to the right hand as the bowler is running in?

There's a phrase for that one - "It's not cricket"

 

[Richard]

i have not yet heard of any shot being "illegal"...

It's not a question of a shot, but a stance.

Interesting question asked here BTW - is it legal now, rather than should it be defined as legal or illegal.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I couldnt agree more.

What is the point getting all hot under the collar over a shot that his high risk, few can play and even those that do only play it infrequently?

A non-issue for me.

Does the fact that there are more important issues than this mean this should not be addressed at all?

 

[Athlai]

It's been officially okayed TBH.

 

[fredfertang]

Its a storm in a tea cup really - I mean what is Vettori going to do if KP starts playing the shot in a test match?

I would venture to suggest he'd be delighted and want to encourage it safe in the knowledge that the likelihood of a stumping or the rattle of the timbers had just increased markedly.

 

[cowboysfan]

The MCC have cleared up rule 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.

according to them the ball comes into play the moment the bowler starts his run up.

MCC accepts that the use of a 'switch-hit' may have implications for other Laws of the game, principally Law 25 (Wide ball) and Law 36 (LBW), and will continue to research and discuss these implications.,"

 

[cowboysfan]

The MCC have cleared up rule 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.

according to them the ball comes into play the moment the bowler starts his run up.

MCC accepts that the use of a 'switch-hit' may have implications for other Laws of the game, principally Law 25 (Wide ball) and Law 36 (LBW), and will continue to research and discuss these implications.,"

 

[Jono]

Heh, research.

Yep, let's get on Lexis Nexis.

 

[sledger]

If somebody can hit a shot like that than good for them but the "outside the leg side"rule should not apply for a LBW decision-only criteria being the ball should be hitting the stumps.

Yeah, agree with this.

 

[Prince EWS]

The MCC have cleared up rule 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.

according to them the ball comes into play the moment the bowler starts his run up.

!!!

This means that if I start my stance left handed (with no intention of batting in such a manner), then change to right handed as the bowler is coming in, I'm left handed for the purpose of the delivery. Hence, the bowlers wouldn't be able to have more than two fielders behind square on the off (which would technically be leg) and I couldn't be dismissed lbw if the ball pitched outside off (again technically leg).

That's dire, basically.

 

[Prince EWS]

KP is doing it as the ball is bowled.

He is set and then makes the change as the ball is delivered and he begins the process of playing the shot.

Its close to all one action and quite fluid. Nothing like changing stance once (or more) during the bowlers run up.

KP is set and then plays a shot. Just so happens its a pretty complicated shot that involves him moving his feet. His stance is clearly defined at the time of delivery.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with KP's shot at all. The problem I have is with the possible implications of its legality as such.

This post expresses my concern, really, which has been exemplified by the fact that the ball is in play when the bowler starts his runup.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Merge threads methinks.

 

[Sanz]

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 ? I enjoyed watching him play the shot and it got him runs. Its not like he is tampering with anything. It should be perfectly legal and I would be dissappointed if anyone is stopped from playing this shot.

This is innovative, unconventional stuff, we should applaud KP for it.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Indeed, it annoys me when people try and crap all over people being innovavtive and different. It's needed to keep the game moving forwards and improving.

 

[James90]

!!!

This means that if I start my stance left handed (with no intention of batting in such a manner), then change to right handed as the bowler is coming in, I'm left handed for the purpose of the delivery. Hence, the bowlers wouldn't be able to have more than two fielders behind square on the off (which would technically be leg) and I couldn't be dismissed lbw if the ball pitched outside off (again technically leg).

That's dire, basically.

Na that seems about right for mine. Umpires would need to be much more generous to bowlers in terms of wides though.