MCC meets to discuss improvisation by KP

I thought it was already illegal to change your stance without notifying the umpire. No? Changing your grip basically means that you've changed from batting right-handed to left-handed, which would automatically make it a no-ball if there are two slips or more. And what about LBW and wides? And changing the field while the bowler is in his run-up? All questions that need to be clarified. If you ask me, the reverse sweep should still be legal, but changing your grip and your stance should not.

KP is not actually playing the reverse sweep in those shots though. Thats the problem with it.

Reverse weeps are played with a right handers grip onto the off side, KP basically just decided to turn arond and play left-handed.

There is no question of the reverse being outlawed, however i can see how this switch hitting can be maintained within the game. Too many issues and contradictions within the rules - all of which have been muted on this thread. Would become farcicle.

Yes its all about people having the talent etc.. to do it, but these guys hit a little round ball at 90mph, how long do you think it'll take of hard practice for others to start it?

Would people have still discussed its legality if he'd have punted it straight up in the air rather than over the ropes?

JKLever wrote:Would people have still discussed its legality if he'd have punted it straight up in the air rather than over the ropes?

Well according to Holding, it was already a topic of discussion at his beloved ICC recommendation board, or whatever it is he's a member of.

Hmm, I can see the pros and cons of both arguments but I'd have to say it seems a bit weak to outlaw such excellently executed (is that even English??) innovation by KP. Perhaps simply vary the wide and lbw laws as a leveller, but don't ban the shot.

JKLever wrote:Would people have still discussed its legality if he'd have punted it straight up in the air rather than over the ropes?

I already posted along those lines

skully wrote:Hmm, I can see the pros and cons of both arguments but I'd have to say it seems a bit weak to outlaw such excellently executed (is that even English??) innovation by KP. Perhaps simply vary the wide and lbw laws as a leveller, but don't ban the shot.

Aye, great shots.. Take some serious genius to execute them as well no doubt.

I think the questions arising are to do with the fact of if he had missed them. Had Styris bunged one down the leg side, or would that have been the off side??? would it have been a wide etc...

holcs wrote:

skully wrote:Hmm, I can see the pros and cons of both arguments but I'd have to say it seems a bit weak to outlaw such excellently executed (is that even English??) innovation by KP. Perhaps simply vary the wide and lbw laws as a leveller, but don't ban the shot.

Aye, great shots.. Take some serious genius to execute them as well no doubt.

I think the questions arising are to do with the fact of if he had missed them. Had Styris bunged one down the leg side, or would that have been the off side??? would it have been a wide etc...

And the same will apply to reverse sweeps, not so?

holcs wrote:I think the questions arising are to do with the fact of if he had missed them. Had Styris bunged one down the leg side, or would that have been the off side??? would it have been a wide etc...

Exactly holcs. My argument would be that Styris should have then been allowed to spear it down KP's leg side which under a revised law (i.e. if the batsman employs the reverse sweep, pull, drive or whatever) would become the offside and thus no wide. I guess the key there would be the bowler having enough time to pick up the fact that the batsman is "going the reverse". I have seen the one that KP smashed over cover off Styris (when the Snoozer pulled the "what the fark am I meant to do about that?" face) a number of times and KP certainly telegraphed what he was gonna do.

skully wrote:

holcs wrote:I think the questions arising are to do with the fact of if he had missed them. Had Styris bunged one down the leg side, or would that have been the off side??? would it have been a wide etc...

Exactly holcs. My argument would be that Styris should have then been allowed to spear it down KP's leg side which under a revised law (i.e. if the batsman employs the reverse sweep, pull, drive or whatever) would become the offside and thus no wide. I guess the key there would be the bowler having enough time to pick up the fact that the batsman is "going the reverse". I have seen the one that KP smashed over cover off Styris (when the Snoozer pulled the "what the fark am I meant to do about that?" face) a number of times and KP certainly telegraphed what he was gonna do.

And how will the poor old Ump officiate on this?

Taips:

Nope. The reverse is played with the same grip, and stance, even if the back foot on occasion ends up in front of the front foot.

What KP did was just switch hit, and become a leftie for a couple of balls.



skully:

Aye, think that'll be the way they have to go. No pitching outside any stump not outs for LBW's and no leg side wides, both sides are judged as if they were the off side!

Simple. If a batsman attempts to play the reverse shot and the ball goes down leg side within the lefties offside wide line, then it's not a wide.

holcs wrote:skully:

Aye, think that'll be the way they have to go. No pitching outside any stump not outs for LBW's and no leg side wides, both sides are judged as if they were the off side!

Aye holcs. We should be on the MCC!! We'd sort the farkers out quick smart.

skully wrote:

holcs wrote:skully:

Aye, think that'll be the way they have to go. No pitching outside any stump not outs for LBW's and no leg side wides, both sides are judged as if they were the off side!

Aye holcs. We should be on the MCC!! We'd sort the farkers out quick smart.

Definately. A quick chat.. All sorted... To the Long Room for lunch and a few pints.

Sounds like how I normally run a meeting.

skully wrote:Simple. If a batsman attempts to play the reverse shot and the ball goes down leg side within the lefties offside wide line, then it's not a wide.

Not so easy Skulls.

Already he has his head down watching the side crease and the front crease for the no ball. As the bowler lets go he raises his eyes, but being a good ump he knows whether the batsman is a leftie or a righty so immediately knows the lines for wide. lbw etc.

Now he raises his eyes and .............

Basically, to actually switch hands and legs is so immensely difficult, it's unbelievable. A batsman who can do this should in no way be penalised. Saying this, there's no way a bowler should either - neither side, within the parameters, should be called a wide. The LBW law should apply to both sides of the wicket as well, IMO.

Brass Monkey wrote:Basically, to actually switch hands and legs is so immensely difficult, it's unbelievable. A batsman who can do this should in no way be penalised. Saying this, there's no way a bowler should either - neither side, within the parameters, should be called a wide. The LBW law should apply to both sides of the wicket as well, IMO.

Yep, have thought for a long time that leg side padding up should be outlawed.

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:Simple. If a batsman attempts to play the reverse shot and the ball goes down leg side within the lefties offside wide line, then it's not a wide.

Not so easy Skulls.

Already he has his head down watching the side crease and the front crease for the no ball. As the bowler lets go he raises his eyes, but being a good ump he knows whether the batsman is a leftie or a righty so immediately knows the lines for wide. lbw etc.

Now he raises his eyes and .............

With due respect taips, what a farkin load of bulltwang. I umpired for years, and always under the front-foot no ball rule. I never had any trouble looking up in time to see what was going on at the other end.

Are you seriously suggesting that an umpire won't have time to see whether a batsman has attempted a "reverse shot"?? If he tries to flick it, whack it, nurdle it, glance it, the "wrong way" then leg side becomes far game and no wide shall be called. And there are two little white lines, one close to leg stump and one quite a bit wider. No dramas.

skully wrote:

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:Simple. If a batsman attempts to play the reverse shot and the ball goes down leg side within the lefties offside wide line, then it's not a wide.

Not so easy Skulls.

Already he has his head down watching the side crease and the front crease for the no ball. As the bowler lets go he raises his eyes, but being a good ump he knows whether the batsman is a leftie or a righty so immediately knows the lines for wide. lbw etc.

Now he raises his eyes and .............

With due respect taips, what a farkin load of bulltwang. I umpired for years, and always under the front-foot no ball rule. I never had any trouble looking up in time to see what was going on at the other end.

Are you seriously suggesting that an umpire won't have time to see whether a batsman has attempted a "reverse shot"?? If he tries to flick it, whack it, nurdle it, glance it, the "wrong way" then leg side becomes far game and no wide shall be called. And there are two little white lines, one close to leg stump and one quite a bit wider. No dramas.

Yes, I do.

FFS they are getting enough flak now without changing the LBW rules etc.
Yep, you umpired a lot of bowlers letting it go at 155kph

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:

taipan wrote:

skully wrote:Simple. If a batsman attempts to play the reverse shot and the ball goes down leg side within the lefties offside wide line, then it's not a wide.

Not so easy Skulls.

Already he has his head down watching the side crease and the front crease for the no ball. As the bowler lets go he raises his eyes, but being a good ump he knows whether the batsman is a leftie or a righty so immediately knows the lines for wide. lbw etc.

Now he raises his eyes and .............

With due respect taips, what a farkin load of bulltwang. I umpired for years, and always under the front-foot no ball rule. I never had any trouble looking up in time to see what was going on at the other end.

Are you seriously suggesting that an umpire won't have time to see whether a batsman has attempted a "reverse shot"?? If he tries to flick it, whack it, nurdle it, glance it, the "wrong way" then leg side becomes far game and no wide shall be called. And there are two little white lines, one close to leg stump and one quite a bit wider. No dramas.

Yes, I do.

FFS they are getting enough flak now without changing the LBW rules etc.
Yep, you umpired a lot of bowlers letting it go at 155kph

Taips, I think the point is, The shots KP played were pretty damn cool. However there is a grey area on the laws which we will all agree.

No it will in fact IMO be easier to umpire in a situation where the wides are wides as in out of the reach of the batsman, and LBW's are actually easier to judge than a normal delievry because it makes no difference where it pitches etc...

Also, if a bloke is trying to switch hit Lee or Steyn, then the need their head examining. It'll more likely be a trundler or spinner I would expect!

Then keep it simple taips, and ban the reverse sweep - is that better?

Invader Zim wrote:Just ban India and the game will be immeasurably better.

India is here to stay. So, please sook off on your merry way. There's a good chap.

Go easy, it's his birthday soon.

India are here to stay, most probably, but hopefully not. They're sooking big-shots who think they're better than the game.