Pietersen Shot To Be Banned?

[Storer68]

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

You try doing that!!!!!!

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

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

it would also be the shittest ball in the history of bowling!

 

[withdeanwombat]

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?

Obviously ALL Christiano Ronaldo goals should be disallowed as he will have cheated to get into that position.

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

It's an utterly SHITHOUSE idea. Although it does make the leg-side wide rule a bit iffy, it has to be said. If a batsman changes from RH to LH in the middle of the delivery, and then plays no shot at a ball which passes his leg-side (but the off-stump, if you see what I mean) then what is an ump to do?

 

[Tooting Gull]

It's an utterly SHITHOUSE idea. Although it does make the leg-side wide rule a bit iffy, it has to be said. If a batsman changes from RH to LH in the middle of the delivery, and then plays no shot at a ball which passes his leg-side (but the off-stump, if you see what I mean) then what is an ump to do?

That is exactly the point that Daniel Vettori made - he didn't ask for it to be banned, just for some extra latitude for the bowler in this situation to compensate and even things up. ie no wide to be called if the ball went down the 'leg' side (which had previously been the 'off' side).

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

It's an utterly SHITHOUSE idea. Although it does make the leg-side wide rule a bit iffy, it has to be said. If a batsman changes from RH to LH in the middle of the delivery, and then plays no shot at a ball which passes his leg-side (but the off-stump, if you see what I mean) then what is an ump to do?

surely the fact that he's taken his stance as a right hander means that it can only be a wide if its going down the leg side for a right hander?

 

[Happy Seagull]

How about if a fast bowler decides he wants to take the pace of a ball, is it unfair on the batsmen if he's expecting a faster delivery?

 

[sams dad]

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

Spot on, old chap

 

[itszamora]

It shouldn't be banned. All that should happen is that the wide and LBW rules for both left-handed and right-handed batsmen should be in force if he changes hands, because he's one playing as the other. Therefore the bowler cannot bowl a leg-side wide as both sides are effectively the off-side one way, and also he can be out LBW to a ball pitching anywhere - because leg stump is also off-stump if you see what I mean.

Besides, when the bowler sees him trying it can't he just bowl a short ball or try and get a yorker in?