Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pietersen A Cheat?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Pietersen A Cheat?

    There has been some debate about Pietersen playing left handed. As he is declared as a right-handed batsman, is switching his grip and spinning around cheating?

    For me personally, if the guy can change stance, change grip and hit the ball for 6 all inside 1 second, I think it's just pure class.

    There has been a similar debate about Ronnie O'Sullivan playing left handed. Is this unsportsmanlike behaviour, or is it miserable old gits trying to stifle change and innovation.

    If the ICC ban switch hitting (as the yanks call it) it will be a sad day indeed. There are very few players who can do these skills, wether it is cricket, snooker, baseball or any other sport.

    To deliberately ban what separates these few players from the rest, would be like banning Ronaldinho from doing his flip-flap.

    ie A Tragedy

    #2
    Pietersen A Cheat?

    While the skill in that is admirable, it is still cheating because the opposing captain is setting his field on the assumption that Pietersen is going to bat, as declared, right-handed. If Pietersen fancies slogging left-handed, he should notify the captain accordingly.

    Comment


      #3
      Pietersen A Cheat?

      It may well be my American background, but that seems ridiculous to me. Isn't any purported advantage vis-a-vis the field that has been set offest by the increased likelihood that he will fluff the change and get himself out?

      Switch hitting is actually reasonably common in baseball; there are probably at least 50 switch hitters in the major leagues playing regularly at any one time.

      Comment


        #4
        Pietersen A Cheat?

        I'm with PT. Maybe Law 42.10 needs tinkered?

        Batsman wasting time

        It is unfair for a batsman to waste time. In normal circumstances the striker should always be ready to take strike when the bowler is ready to start his run up.

        (a) Should either batsman waste time by failing to meet this requirement, or in any other way, the following procedure shall be adopted. At the first instance, either before the bowler starts his run up or when the ball is dead, as appropriate, the umpire shall

        (i) warn the batsman and indicate that this is a first and final warning. This warning shall continue to apply throughout the innings. The umpire shall so inform each incoming batsman.

        (ii) inform the other umpire, the other batsman and the captain of the fielding side of what has occurred.

        (iii) inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable.

        (b) if there is any further time wasting by any batsman in that innings, the umpire shall, at the appropriate time while the ball is dead

        (i) award 5 penalty runs to the fielding side. See 17 below.

        (ii) inform the other umpire, the other batsman, the captain of the fielding side and, as soon as practicable, the captain of the batting side of what has occurred.

        (iii) report the occurrence, with the other umpire, as soon as possible to the Executive of the batting side and to any Governing Body responsible for the match, who shall take such action as is considered appropriate against the captain and player or players and, if appropriate, the team concerned.

        Comment


          #5
          Pietersen A Cheat?

          This looks like the furore in the early days of football when some teams had the unsportsman-like audacity to - gasp - switch the wingers during the game. And it looks about as sensible.

          PT makes a potentially important point - but honestly, that just looks like a headache for the opposing captain, and I don't see why anybody else should be concerned about it.

          The Ronnie O'Sullivan thing is different - that's considered unsportsmanlike not because it gives him an unfair advantage, but because it is a way of taunting opponents, tantamount to singing "easy, easy" while he plays. I actually think that's fair enough as well, but it's a different issue.

          Comment


            #6
            Pietersen A Cheat?

            Toro- field setting/ where the players stand on a restart is more important in cricket than other sports. Partly because cricket restarts so often- today's game is potentially 600 set-pieces. But also as existing field restrictions (say, no more than two fielders behind square on the on side) are asymmetric.

            Comment


              #7
              Pietersen A Cheat?

              Sure, I appreciate that. But it simply makes the skill of "switch-hitting" more valuable - I don't see why it makes restricting the player's mode of striking the ball anything other than silly and arbitrary.

              Comment


                #8
                Pietersen A Cheat?

                I don't see the problem with that rule. Actually, I'm not sure I've under stood where you think the problem lies. "Take strike" to me means adopt a batting stance and this doesn't preclude changing this stance round. I like the cat and mouse aspect of it, with the bowler responding to it somehow- it seems reasonable "homework" to consider in advance what to do in this unlikely event.

                There is a problem with fielders though. As I understand it you can't change the field when the bowler is running up- see Shakoor Rana v Gatting. So the fielders can't respond to the new situation. Perhaps they should be able to. In fact, unless it's going to distract the batsman's eye, is there not a case for allowing moving of fielders anyway? Seems a bit gentlemanly to me.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Pietersen A Cheat?

                  I think it's just a high-skill shot, I've been teaching my kids to do it for over a year - as did Paul Nixon.

                  Of course it makes things awkward for the other team, but that is after all what cricket is all about.

                  If the bowlers want parity by being able to bowl left-handed or switching from over to round without announcement, that's o.k. too.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Pietersen A Cheat?

                    Of course it makes things awkward for the other team, but that is after all what cricket is all about.
                    Precisely. There's no law requiring cafeteria bowling, or considering it vulgar to hit fours...

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Pietersen A Cheat?

                      If the bowlers want parity by being able to bowl left-handed or switching from over to round without announcement, that's o.k. too.
                      So when your team needs a four from the last ball, you'd be happy to have the opposition bowler bowl one underarm, like that Australian fuckbag did once?

                      I reckon you need limits to ensure a fair duel between batsman and bowler/fielders.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Pietersen A Cheat?

                        Yeah, I'd be happy with that. I'd be pissed off if we needed a six though.

                        I can't equate what KP is doing with cheating, i reckon that if you're cheating it should make things easier for you, whereas he's increasing the difficulty factor by miles.

                        It's an outrageous piece of skill, when bowling the opposition know that he can do that, so they should set their field accordingly, you don't need to bother to do so when bowling at Alistair Cook, because you know he won't do that.

                        And how do you judge this anyway? Is it because of which way round he holds the bat? If he changed stance, but held the bat the same way, would it be cheating? Cos there's no rule about how you have to hold the bat.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Pietersen A Cheat?

                          I can't see it's any more cheating than a spinner coming up with a "new" delivery, like the first time people saw a doosra or (in the dim past) a Chinaman being bowled. Take the skill and use it.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Pietersen A Cheat?

                            a Chinaman being bowled
                            Also, Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Pietersen A Cheat?

                              The arbitrators of all these things, with regards laws of the game are the umpires and match referee at the time. As they have let Pietersen do this with no quarrell, in their eyes Pietersen is following the rules.

                              Wether this forces a rule change to remove any "grey" areas, remains to be seen.

                              In normal circumstances the striker should always be ready to take strike when the bowler is ready to start his run up.
                              He does line up right handed up to the point where the bowler is about 80% through his runup. Therefore I cannot see it being illegal.

                              As said earlier, it is a very very high risk tactic, and lets face it, he was not doing this every ball. He did it twice or three times in an innings of over 100. As said earlier, opposing captains know he can do it, and therefore can set the field accordingly.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Pietersen A Cheat?

                                He wasn't cheating - or if he was the umpires were unaware of it. Great skill though it would have been funny if he dropped the bat.

                                I was more concerned with Ian Botham saying 50 over cricket needs revamped, we're in the entertainment business etc, etc. Cricket is on tv because people want to see it the way it is, why bother changing it for the benefit of people who aren't interested anyway?

                                They have already revamped it with all this Powerplay marketing speak bollocks. The fact the public want more sixes is neither here or there, otherwise why not make bowlers lob underarm full tosses and have done with it?

                                The public would also like more goals in football so are they going to make the goals 15 feet high? Probably

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Pietersen A Cheat?

                                  I can't see why this is so different to charging down the track at a spinner. That happens before the ball is released, like this does. Upsetting length, upsetting line, what's the difference? A spinner who sees someone coming will do something different. A medium pacer who sees someone switching should be able to think of something too.

                                  There is the complication of the lbw law which is different depending on whether the bastman is hit outside on or off stump. But some solution to this shouldn't be impossible.

                                  Also leg and offside are different for wides. Again, some clarification will be needed, but no more than that.

                                  G-Man mention Chappell's underarm earlier. I regret underarm bowling being banned. It used to be an important art, and there was a chance it could have revived. All that was needed was something to stop daisy cutters. Very heavy handed, and we shouldn't be so now.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Pietersen A Cheat?

                                    "Wether this forces a rule change to remove any "grey" areas, remains to be seen."

                                    There can be no rule change because cricket doesn't have rules, it has laws.

                                    **

                                    "He wasn't cheating - or if he was the umpires were unaware of it."

                                    I'm not aware of any law that says you can't switch stance, so given that cheating implies the breaking of laws or rules - how can he be said to be cheating?

                                    **

                                    People have been reverse sweeping for years without any major kerfuffle, I can see no difference between that and what Pietersen is doing, excepting that Pietersen changes his grip. And that seems to be a twisted piece of logic to say that the change of grip represents cheating.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Pietersen A Cheat?

                                      I finally saw the two shots on the highlights last night. I defy anyone not to want the "switch" to be a regular part of the game. Not least of its attraction is that it's a weapon against medium pacers who plonk it in one spot all the time. At least Scotty Styris took it the right way.

                                      Actually I wonder whether it is any more effective than any other premeditated shot. Why not lean back and loft the ball in the same direction playing through the righthanded offside? Apart from pure theatre value, of course.

                                      One shot I have wondered about but never seen played, is turning round to hit the ball straight at or over the wicket keeper. There's a big gap between fine leg and third man. Is that ungentlemanly or dangerous to fielders or something? Or just difficult?

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Pietersen A Cheat?

                                        I don't think toro should dismiss out of hand the arguments in favour of changing the laws. This trick does make some of the existing laws (on lbw, and on field placing) ambiguous, and that'll need to be resolved somehow. But in the end I agree with him and Tubby et al that some way must be found of accommodating the innovation, and that this urge on the part of the game's conservatives to stamp it out is mostly a bit like Peter May banning Botham from reverse sweeping: a simple fear of the new.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Pietersen A Cheat?

                                          Yeah, the reverse sweep seemed to me the most obvious comparison. And as many bad batsmen have got caught out misjudging it than have thrived executing it.

                                          The lbw thing's the biggest problem - Richard Williams today suggests simply judging whether it would have hit, in those circumstances - ie that the 'pitching outside leg' proscription on lbws no longer applies for a switch-hit.

                                          Bowlers can't really change arms in the same way, though - not without clattering into the non-striking batsman.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Pietersen A Cheat?

                                            MCC have said it's not illegal.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Pietersen A Cheat?

                                              I'm delighted they've left the rule alone. Though I didn't see the LBW law as the problem there, just leave it so the umpire judges on the batsman normal stance, if kp had been hit in line with the ball pitching on the left hand side of the stumps then he would have been out (his normal offside).

                                              Anyway, sanity prevails, banning an incredibly hard bit of skill that is rewarding and entertaining when it comes off seemed ridiculous. To my memory KP has tried it 4 times, hit 3 sixes and got out once, I bet most captains would take those odds against KP.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Pietersen A Cheat?

                                                Loosely speaking, the reverse sweep doesn't involve changing your stance over, so no problem with lbw or wides.

                                                Glad the shot's legal and hope it stays that way. Lots of the "excitement" brought to one day cricket has been achieved by restrictive rules, especially in the powerplay. You get shots which only go to the boundary because you have to have 10 fielders in the ring or whatever. This does nothing for me at all, nor indeed does much of the hitting over the top, seeing that the fielding captain is artificially prevented from responding to it by putting a man back.

                                                This shot though is a genuine addition to the game.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Pietersen A Cheat?

                                                  Should 20/20 indeed become the dominant/only form of the one day game, I wouldn't be surprised if the fielding restrictions are eventually dispensed with, precisely because of their artificiality. Unfortunately, I also wouldn't be surprised if one were to see a campaign to increase the number of runs earned by a six.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X