Pietersen Shot To Be Banned?

[Jake Manthorpe]

The Argument is..

"the fielding team setup their fielders according to a right handed batsmen, for the batsmen to play a left handed shot it's inpredictable and there is no way to field against it"

So if Christiano Ronaldo is one-on-one with the keeper and the keeper expects him to shoot with his right foot, if he shoots with his left should the goal be disallowed?

Get my point?

 

[Wardy]

So if you follow that, where does it leave the reverse sweep?

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

The Argument is..

"the fielding team setup their fielders according to a right handed batsmen...for the batsmen to play a left handed shot is inpredictable and there is no way to field against it..."

So if Christiano Ronaldo is one-on-one with the keeper and the keeper expects him to shoot with his right foot, if he shoots with his left should the goal be disallowed?

Get my point?

I get it, but its a crap analogy

 

[Jake Manthorpe]

I get it, but its a crap analogy

your entitled to your opinion

 

[Gully]

The point about setting the field up is a valid one, if the batsman changes hands after the bowler has begun his run-up then surely he has an unfair advantage...it does seem clever in the first instance, but a little un-gentlemanly when you think about it.

 

[Wardy]

So how about Ronnie the Rocket? When he first started playing shots left handed, they said he was treating the claim with contempt. Now the view is that it is just one more thing in his attack.

 

[The Oldman]

Surely the bowler will now stop his run up as he sees the batsman change his grip.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Only in cricket.

One of the most explosive players in the world comes up with a touch of genius that has his team-mates drooling, the crowd on their feet and even the opposition grinning - and presumably loads of kids trying to copy it this week.

And the old farts in the game immediately want it banned.

 

[Jake Manthorpe]

The point about setting the field up is a valid one, if the batsman changes hands after the bowler has begun his run-up then surely he has an unfair advantage...it does seem clever in the first instance, but a little un-gentlemanly when you think about it.

Yes i can imagain it being a bit off putting.. BUT its entertainment if the man can hit the ball like that we should be admiring the shot not banning it!

he could of quite easily got caught out of bowled out.
if he was we wouldn't be having this argument right now.

 

[sten_super]

So if you follow that, where does it leave the reverse sweep?

But your grip and your stance doesn't change with the reverse sweep, you are just sweeping in the opposite direction.

However, I don't think it should be banned. The batsman is entitled to do whatever he wants in order to score runs. I would include a caveat though that the it has to be AT or AFTER the point of delivery; this wasn't the case with Pietersen, he was doing it during the run up. This would certainly limit the ability of a batsman to do it against anything other than spin.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

OR:- Left handed fielder is placed at 3rd man to a rh batsman; who cuts the ball to backward point so the fielder has to run to his right in order to gather and return to the wk. The batsmen go for a second as they expect the fielder to have to 'run round' the ball to pick up and throw with his left arm. However, the fielder is ambidextrous (as am I); throws in with his right arm and runs out the batsman - out or not out?

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

The thing is, if I'm a bowler I'd want to Bowl at batsmen who is batting with his weaker hand. If KP's shot didnt go for 6 this debate never would have happened. Good shot, Shit bowling. End of.

 

[sten_super]

The thing is, if I'm a bowler I'd want to Bowl at batsmen who is batting with his weaker hand. If KP's shot didnt go for 6 this debate never would have happened. Good shot, Shit bowling. End of.

Absolutely. He's done similar (although not quite as outrageous stuff before). I remember last year against the Windies he went to reverse (slog-) sweep Gayle, missed but Gayle was no-balled. It was obvious that Pietersen was going to go for the same shot again, he did, missed a straight one and was lbw. It's a risky strategy, no doubt. But if it comes off, it is a lot easier to score runs.

 

[Seasider]

This whole fielding argument is rubbish if you ask me. It is sort of saying, well how I read it. We put our fielders here and you don't hit it at them how is that fair?? INGENIUOS shot and makes the opposition think about field placings more thus possibly opening up holes in the field to play more conventional shots. WHY SQUASH GENIUS

 

[Hiney]

Field placings are done in the way they are to a) get the batsman out and b) to stop him scoring runs.

The whole point of cricket is to overcome this with a majestic cover drive or a BLUDGEONING hook for 4. The next time a bowler gets hit back over his head for 6 is the BLEATING going to start on the basis that the field was set up for the batsman to edge it to 3rd slip?

The hysterical reaction to what was an incredible cricket shot from a supremely talented player is completely over the top and utterly STUPID.

 

[Storer68]

Except that the rules penalise by runs the bowling side for placing more than a certain number of fielders on the leg side. So if the field is properly set for a right hander when the bowler starts his run up, and then becomes an illegal field when the bowler bowls because the batsman by turning round at the point of delivery or fractionally before, has turned the offside, for which the field was correctly set, into an illegally set field on the leg side , when the bowler bowls. the umpire would be correct in calling a wide, costonig the fielding side penalty runs (if he considered that the ball was bowled at the leg side , even though the batsman has turned it into the off-side) and a no-ball, (if he considers that the field as set when the ball was delivered contained too many fielders on the leg side, which it did it when he bowled, but not when he set off on his run-up.

In theory, a batsman could keep jumping around in the crease and the bowling side would just concede extras until they lost the game, without a legitimate ball being bowled! The first over would never end and the poor bowler would collapse with exhaustion haveing "bowled" say 125 consecutive illegal deliveries.

You see the problem. - bit like football playing "rush goalie" - who is the goalkeeper and who can or cannot use his hands to prevent a goal.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

The only thing that should be banned is Pieterson himself. With his South African upbringing, how can anyone take him seriously in an England shirt?

As for the shot itself, it would be outrageous to try and restrict a batter's freedom by ruling out such play.

 

[Mr Burns]

Field placings are done in the way they are to a) get the batsman out and b) to stop him scoring runs.

The whole point of cricket is to overcome this with a majestic cover drive or a BLUDGEONING hook for 4. The next time a bowler gets hit back over his head for 6 is the BLEATING going to start on the basis that the field was set up for the batsman to edge it to 3rd slip?

The hysterical reaction to what was an incredible cricket shot from a supremely talented player is completely over the top and utterly STUPID.

Totally agree. Also agree with the commentators that bowlers shopuld be allowed to swap hands if they so wish.

Those who haven't seen it, it's here YouTube - Kevin Pietersen Reverse Slog Sweep For Six (2)

 

[Badger]

I guess it's like the bowler suddenly changing their action from right arm over to left arm round half way through their run-up which in that case would be called as a no ball because they failed to tell the umpire

 

[sten_super]

Except that the rules penalise by runs the bowling side for placing more than a certain number of fielders on the leg side. So idf the field is properly set for a right hander when the bowler starts his run up, and then is illegal when the bowler bowls becaue the batsman has turned the offside, for which the field waqs correctly set, into an illegally set field on the leg side , when the bowler bowls. the umpire would be correct in calling a wide (id he considered tha tteh ball was bowled at the leg side , even though the batsman has turned it into the off-side) and a no-ball, (iof he considers that the field as set when the ball was delivered contained too many fielders on the leg side, which it did it when he bowled, but not when he set off on his run-up.

You see the problem. - bit like football playing "rush goalie" - who is the goalkeeper and who can or cannot use his hands to prevent a goal.

This is why I said earlier that I think you have to stop the batsman moving until the point of delivery; it would clarify what would be considered an illegal field (one which is set at the point of delivery, when the batsman would be in an 'orthodox' position), and also what would be considered a wide (i.e. something aimed at the batsmans new legside would be treated as the offside, and anything outside his new off one can assume would be slogged anyway, but if not would be called a legside wide).