Re: MCC meets to discuss improvisation by KP

by taipan Tue 17 Jun 2008, 11:13

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

IMO you cannot ban the reverse grip without the reverse sweep going th same way.

by skully Tue 17 Jun 2008, 11:15

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

IMO you cannot ban the reverse grip without the reverse sweep going th same way.

Eek. You are hard to please, old chap. I'm trying not to get into a blue with you. Are you suggesting that nothing be done (which I can live with as well)?

by taipan Tue 17 Jun 2008, 11:17

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

IMO you cannot ban the reverse grip without the reverse sweep going th same way.
Eek. You are hard to please, old chap. I'm trying not to get into a blue with you. Are you suggesting that nothing be done (which I can live with as well)?

No, just saying you cannot be a bit pregnant, can't ban one without the other.

Wouls have to be a major rule change.

by holcs Tue 17 Jun 2008, 11:19

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

IMO you cannot ban the reverse grip without the reverse sweep going th same way.

Completely different shots taips.

Played with the original grip, and played with the original stance essentially. Yes some do bring the back foot forward but the grip itself remains the same as does the stance at the release!

Kp is the first one to actually completely switch hit I presume hence the questioning of it!

by taipan Tue 17 Jun 2008, 11:27

holcs wrote:
taipan wrote:
skully wrote:Then keep it simple taips, and ban the reverse sweep - is that better?

IMO you cannot ban the reverse grip without the reverse sweep going th same way.

Completely different shots taips.

Played with the original grip, and played with the original stance essentially. Yes some do bring the back foot forward but the grip itself remains the same as does the stance at the release!

Kp is the first one to actually completely switch hit I presume hence the questioning of it!

Chas I understand the difference in shots, but now you are asking the umpire also to decide in a split second, when the batsman has changed stance, whether he has also changed grip.

My view is

1. Ban all reverse stance shots or
2. Change the LBW and wide rules.

by holcs Tue 17 Jun 2008, 11:32

taipan wrote:
holcs wrote:
taipan wrote:
skully wrote:Then keep it simple taips, and ban the reverse sweep - is that better?

IMO you cannot ban the reverse grip without the reverse sweep going th same way.

Completely different shots taips.

Played with the original grip, and played with the original stance essentially. Yes some do bring the back foot forward but the grip itself remains the same as does the stance at the release!

Kp is the first one to actually completely switch hit I presume hence the questioning of it!

Chas I understand the difference in shots, but now you are asking the umpire also to decide in a split second, when the batsman has changed stance, whether he has also changed grip.

My view is

1. Ban all reverse stance shots or
2. Change the LBW and wide rules.

I think it is all determined by the grip on the bat. If the grip is the same as normal then its a reverse, if the grip has changed to the other way round it is a switch.

I understand the point of the decision making time, but the umpire only needs to go through the normal decision making process and just take into account the grip, its pretty obvious how a reverse sweep grip looks as opposed to a standard lefties grip say in KP's case.

The switch hit is so obvious IMO that it wouldn't make a difference.

I'm massively against changing the LBW rules.

by taipan Tue 17 Jun 2008, 11:37

Not so sure, normally the leading leg is changed around.

by Brass Monkey Tue 17 Jun 2008, 11:37

So am I to many extents Chas, I just think it's decidedly unfair on the bowlers, who are theoretically good enough to change the line of the ball when almost through their action. Why wouldn't you want to fire it down his original leg side? Why should you not be allowed?

by holcs Tue 17 Jun 2008, 11:42

Brass Monkey wrote:So am I to many extents Chas, I just think it's decidedly unfair on the bowlers, who are theoretically good enough to change the line of the ball when almost through their action. Why wouldn't you want to fire it down his original leg side? Why should you not be allowed?

I don't mind changing the LBW and Wides for a switch hit, where stance and grip are changed! Fair do's most definately there, and rightly so.

I just think that completely outlawing the reverse because one or two players have the ability to swop mid delivery to the opposite hand is a tad over the top.

I also think umpires will be able to decide if its a reverse or switch pretty readily.

by taipan Tue 17 Jun 2008, 11:47

holcs wrote:
Brass Monkey wrote:So am I to many extents Chas, I just think it's decidedly unfair on the bowlers, who are theoretically good enough to change the line of the ball when almost through their action. Why wouldn't you want to fire it down his original leg side? Why should you not be allowed?

I don't mind changing the LBW and Wides for a switch hit, where stance and grip are changed! Fair do's most definately there, and rightly so.

I just think that completely outlawing the reverse because one or two players have the ability to swop mid delivery to the opposite hand is a tad over the top.

I also think umpires will be able to decide if its a reverse or switch pretty readily.

Which goes back to my original point about pressure on the ump.

by holcs Tue 17 Jun 2008, 12:01

taipan wrote:
holcs wrote:
Brass Monkey wrote:So am I to many extents Chas, I just think it's decidedly unfair on the bowlers, who are theoretically good enough to change the line of the ball when almost through their action. Why wouldn't you want to fire it down his original leg side? Why should you not be allowed?

I don't mind changing the LBW and Wides for a switch hit, where stance and grip are changed! Fair do's most definately there, and rightly so.

I just think that completely outlawing the reverse because one or two players have the ability to swop mid delivery to the opposite hand is a tad over the top.

I also think umpires will be able to decide if its a reverse or switch pretty readily.

Which goes back to my original point about pressure on the ump.

True, but no moreso than normal I would suggest. It won't happen in Tests I doubt, and there can only be a couple of players who can do it well enough to try it.

by Rachel Tue 17 Jun 2008, 12:41

Well, a statement will go out across the wires very shortly, much in line with what I expected.

by taipan Tue 17 Jun 2008, 12:45

Rachel wrote:Well, a statement will go out across the wires very shortly, much in line with what I expected.

And whaqt did you expect, pray tell.

by Rachel Tue 17 Jun 2008, 13:15

It's not unfair or illegal but the wider implications for various Laws, such as those concerning Wides and LWB, will need further consideration and there won't be a knee-jerk reaction on those issues. It's nothing new either - the Laws already cater for a change of stance after the bowler has started to run in.

by skully Tue 17 Jun 2008, 13:17

I'm bored with this thread. Can't we just wait for the MCC boffins to NOT make a decision and blame them for a lack of direction over this controversial and game-changing development.

FFS.

by taipan Tue 17 Jun 2008, 13:18

skully wrote:I'm bored with this thread. Can't we just wait for the MCC boffins to NOT make a decision and blame them for a lack of direction over this controversial and game-changing development.

FFS.

If it was against India the BCCI would have pressurised the MCC by now.

by holcs Tue 17 Jun 2008, 13:20

taipan wrote:
skully wrote:I'm bored with this thread. Can't we just wait for the MCC boffins to NOT make a decision and blame them for a lack of direction over this controversial and game-changing development.

FFS.

If it was against India the BCCI would have pressurised the MCC by now.

To be fair to the duffers at the MCC, not sure they would be to fussed about the BCCI kicking up a stink! They'd just have a longer lunch and a few more ports.

by Rachel Tue 17 Jun 2008, 13:46

Contrary to popular belief, port is not served at these meetings. It's becoming increasingly rare to get lunch!

by holcs Tue 17 Jun 2008, 13:51

Rachel wrote:Contrary to popular belief, port is not served at these meetings. It's becoming increasingly rare to get lunch!

Rachel, don't ruin the facade! Wink

by taipan Tue 17 Jun 2008, 13:52

Rachel wrote:Contrary to popular belief, port is not served at these meetings. It's becoming increasingly rare to get lunch!

I blame Merlin

by Merlin Tue 17 Jun 2008, 15:52

Email just received from MCC :

M.C.C. believes that the 'switch-hit' stroke is exciting for the game of cricket. Indeed, the stroke conforms to the Laws of Cricket and will not be legislated against.

While noting the superb execution of the stroke by Kevin Pietersen for England during the recent One-Day International against New Zealand, M.C.C. had already acknowledged its existence in the 2000 Laws of Cricket - Law 36.3 - relating to the stance of a batsman. This Law defines the off side of the striker's wicket as being determined by the striker's stance at the moment the bowler starts his run-up.

M.C.C. 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.

The Club believes that the 'switch-hit' stroke is a difficult shot to execute and that it incurs a great deal of risk for the batsman. It also offers bowlers a good chance of taking a wicket and therefore M.C.C. believes that the shot is fair to both batsman and bowlers.

Furthermore, M.C.C. acknowledges that while bowlers must inform umpires and batsmen of their mode of delivery, they do not provide a warning of the type of delivery that they will bowl (for example, an off-cutter or a slower ball). It therefore concludes that the batsman should have the opportunity - should they wish - of executing the 'switch-hit' stroke.

So looks like "as you were" ... as was expected.

PS - I never pass the port. I drink it.

by Merlin Tue 17 Jun 2008, 15:56

Rachel wrote:Contrary to popular belief, port is not served at these meetings. It's becoming increasingly rare to get lunch!

I never find it a problem ... gimme a ring when you're next at HQ.
Wink

by Rachel Tue 17 Jun 2008, 16:12

Merlin,

Um, you're not on any MCC committees so how would you know?

by Merlin Tue 17 Jun 2008, 16:14

We do lunches on sub committees too Rachel.
Are you on committe?

PS - Hadn't seen the "committee" reference when I made the comment ... but hey, lunch at HQ doesn't have a reason
or badge tagged to it, does it??

by Rachel Tue 17 Jun 2008, 16:22

Merlin,

But you're not on any MCC sub-committees either, to my knowledge, so, again, how would you know?

by Sponsored content