MCC meets to discuss improvisation by KP

Rachel wrote:Merlin,

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

"To your knowledge" ???
Nice one!!

And you would know - errrr, how??
You asked Keith Bradshaw did you??

PM me if you want to take this further - but yes you are absolutely correct,
"Merlin" is not on any MCC committees.

How does one get onto committees. I take it you have to be a member but don't you have to be important in the world of cricket? Isn't it a full-time job? What does it involve?

Can one of you tell us more.

Why do people think the wide and LBW laws need changing for switch hitting?

The guidelines for "One Day wides" take into account a batsman changing his position when determining what should and shoudn't be a wide

The Laws state that the offside shall be determined by the batsman's position when the bowler starts his run up ...

It would be interesting to see what the decision would be if KP faced up left handed and switched to a right handed stance after the bowler commenced his run up

You have to be an MCC member and no, not anyone important in cricket.
Depending on the Committee, yes it can be a full time job.
There are Committees, sub Committees and Working Parties associated thereto covering all aspects of the game, it's infrastructure, the Ground, the MCC matches at home and overseas and other such issues all of which are less demanding on your time.
It depends on how much you want to put into it frankly.... or, more to the poiint, for some, what you want (or get) out of it!

Hope that explains.

PS Got to run - am up there for dinner tonight ironically with a few Committee friends!

Rachel - take note!

embee wrote:
It would be interesting to see what the decision would be if KP faced up left handed and switched to a right handed stance after the bowler commenced his run up

Yeah! Imagine if in a test match he was faced with really bad rough outside the off stump he could just start as a left hander, switch and then anything pitch outside off stump he couldn't be lbw and pad it away...

Although of course if the spinner bowled it down legside he could be lbw even with it pitching outside his leg stump....

Bottom line I think, is that this shot is very high risk.

merlin, be careful, Rachel can easily call your bluff.

embee wrote:Why do people think the wide and LBW laws need changing for switch hitting?

The guidelines for "One Day wides" take into account a batsman changing his position when determining what should and shoudn't be a wide

The Laws state that the offside shall be determined by the batsman's position when the bowler starts his run up ...

It would be interesting to see what the decision would be if KP faced up left handed and switched to a right handed stance after the bowler commenced his run up

A few people such as Dello and myself (separately!) already expressed views around this topic last night.

http://flamingbails.com/the-flaming-bails-cricket-forum-f1/michael-holding-t3007-15.htm

In short, I think one-day wide adjudications SHOULD actively be affected by the batsman switching round - without any need for new Law changes as you say. One of the costs (besides dismissal, ridicule etc.) that the "reversing" batsman should reasonably have to accept is to lose the support of (obviously, reasonably close) legside-wide adjudications in his and his team's favour.

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 .............

But a good ump can see that line when the batsman switches. Not so easily if the bowler were to switch.

LLL,

You usually have to be an MCC member to be on a committee or sub-committee, but in the case of specialist cricket groups, exceptions can be (and are) made. Rahul Dravid and Shaun Pollock are members of MCC's world cricket committee but neither of them are MCC members (although many top players are given honorary life membership upon their retirement from playing).

Angela,

You tried.

PeterCS 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 .............

But a good ump can see that line when the batsman switches. Not so easily if the bowler were to switch.

The umpire should already have the off stump and leg stump lines in his head ...and it makes no difference what shot a batsman has played as to the LBW decision ...

Are we disagreeing?

Thanks Rachel. So you can influence the laws of the game? Cool. Introduce a law banning cringeworthy nicknames like "pup" from the cricket field.

What about "L'Eggs"?

What about Mick?

Where will it all end??









Here.

I was arguing against Taipan's view ...which you quoted

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' so to speak

Gotcha.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Thanks Rachel. So you can influence the laws of the game? Cool. Introduce a law banning cringeworthy nicknames like "topbottom" from the cricket field.

FIXED

So Rachel is a grand poobah of some sort at the MCC?

Assuming it's a she, she isn't Rachael Hayhoe - Flint is she?

She's damn sight younger than Rachael Hayhoe-Flint!

And Rachel, yes, I did try. One can but hope that one day some people will listen and learn.

LLL/furriner,

I don't have a great deal of influence!

Ang,

I don't think Merlin ever will - it's not in his nature. I do now know one or two additional things about him that I hadn't bothered to discover before though.

Rachel, It's not that his real name really is Ian is it? On a serious note, I have feeling the things you found out weren't too much of a surprise.

Ang,

Ha! No, Ian is not his real name. I think I know why he chose 'Merlin' though.

Oh, and incidentally, if you have a long memory, you may be interested to know that I think 'Michael Shrimpton' was real.

Is he an old wizard of some form?

I do remember "Michael Shrimpton" he gave me hours of fun with his Mark Butcher's car accident conspriacy theory, then he went off into the realms of true fantasy. I know we found an MMC member of the same name back then. Was it someone who knew him using his name? How fascinating!

Ooh, interesting

Is it because he wears a pointy hat?

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

And that's only because we are better than the game.

embee wrote:I was arguing against Taipan's view ...which you quoted

'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' so to speak

Actually it sounded like you were agreeing.