The MCC apparently want to discuss the legality of Pietersen's left
handed shots

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvnz/content/current/story/355007.html

I for one hope that they don't outlaw it as it seems fair enough to
me, but there are relevant issues, such as how to define a wide, or
which stump is the leg stump for the purposes of LBW, but nothing that
can't be worked out.  Styris should have bowled the ball as wide down
the (original) off-side as he thought he could get away with for
Pietersens initial stance and see if he could hit that.

On 16 Jun, 17:37, Gavin Cawley  wrote:
> The MCC apparently want to discuss the legality of Pietersen's left
> handed shots
>
> http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvnz/content/current/story/355007.html
>
> I for one hope that they don't outlaw it as it seems fair enough to
> me, but there are relevant issues, such as how to define a wide, or
> which stump is the leg stump for the purposes of LBW, but nothing that
> can't be worked out.  Styris should have bowled the ball as wide down
> the (original) off-side as he thought he could get away with for
> Pietersens initial stance and see if he could hit that.

I thik that the fact that he changed his stance before the ball was
bowled is a bit dodgy...

On 16 Jun, 18:20, Fred  wrote:
> On 16 Jun, 17:37, Gavin Cawley  wrote:
>
> > The MCC apparently want to discuss the legality of Pietersen's left
> > handed shots
>
> >http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvnz/content/current/story/355007.html
>
> > I for one hope that they don't outlaw it as it seems fair enough to
> > me, but there are relevant issues, such as how to define a wide, or
> > which stump is the leg stump for the purposes of LBW, but nothing that
> > can't be worked out.  Styris should have bowled the ball as wide down
> > the (original) off-side as he thought he could get away with for
> > Pietersens initial stance and see if he could hit that.
>
> I thik that the fact that he changed his stance before the ball was
> bowled is a bit dodgy...

Seems fair enough to me, batsmen frequently charge a spinner before he
has let go of the ball, causing just as much a need for a change of
line and length, and there is nothing wrong with that (indeed I got my
only league wicket last season in just such a circumstance).  It is in
the bowlers advantage that he moved before the ball was delivered, it
was Styris' mistake not to put the ball where Pietersen couldn't hit
it left handed.

For the law issues, I would be in favour of the leg stump remaining
the leg stump even if the bowler changes hand.  In hindsight I think
the modern wide rule is fine as it is.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
 wrote:

>On 16 Jun, 18:20, Fred  wrote:
>> On 16 Jun, 17:37, Gavin Cawley  wrote:
>>
>> > The MCC apparently want to discuss the legality of Pietersen's left
>> > handed shots
>>
>> >http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvnz/content/current/story/355007.html
>>
>> > I for one hope that they don't outlaw it as it seems fair enough to
>> > me, but there are relevant issues, such as how to define a wide, or
>> > which stump is the leg stump for the purposes of LBW, but nothing that
>> > can't be worked out.  Styris should have bowled the ball as wide down
>> > the (original) off-side as he thought he could get away with for
>> > Pietersens initial stance and see if he could hit that.
>>
>> I thik that the fact that he changed his stance before the ball was
>> bowled is a bit dodgy...
>
>Seems fair enough to me, batsmen frequently charge a spinner before he
>has let go of the ball, causing just as much a need for a change of
>line and length, and there is nothing wrong with that (indeed I got my
>only league wicket last season in just such a circumstance).  It is in
>the bowlers advantage that he moved before the ball was delivered, it
>was Styris' mistake not to put the ball where Pietersen couldn't hit
>it left handed.
>
>For the law issues, I would be in favour of the leg stump remaining
>the leg stump even if the bowler changes hand.  In hindsight I think
>the modern wide rule is fine as it is.

You can treat this as a high risk novelty shot (not a normal cricket
stroke) and apply the wide law as to a right handed stance. The
batsman has taken his right handed guard at the wicket and the ball
has become live. I don't think that this shot causes a problem with
the laws. 

Or outlaw the shot - dead ball and five penalty runs as soon as the
hands switch.

The best shot I have ever seen.
Our club chairman came out for a bat one evening. He guarded up right
handed and blocked a few straight ones. Then there was a wide one down
the leg side. He turned his back and swung the bat with his right
hand, and slapped the ball back past the bowler..........fluke?
He was a South African as well.

max.it

On 16 Jun, 22:00, (max.it) wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT), Gavin Cawley
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On 16 Jun, 18:20, Fred  wrote:
> >> On 16 Jun, 17:37, Gavin Cawley  wrote:
>
> >> > The MCC apparently want to discuss the legality of Pietersen's left
> >> > handed shots
>
> >> >http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/engvnz/content/current/story/355007.html
>
> >> > I for one hope that they don't outlaw it as it seems fair enough to
> >> > me, but there are relevant issues, such as how to define a wide, or
> >> > which stump is the leg stump for the purposes of LBW, but nothing that
> >> > can't be worked out.  Styris should have bowled the ball as wide down
> >> > the (original) off-side as he thought he could get away with for
> >> > Pietersens initial stance and see if he could hit that.
>
> >> I thik that the fact that he changed his stance before the ball was
> >> bowled is a bit dodgy...
>
> >Seems fair enough to me, batsmen frequently charge a spinner before he
> >has let go of the ball, causing just as much a need for a change of
> >line and length, and there is nothing wrong with that (indeed I got my
> >only league wicket last season in just such a circumstance).  It is in
> >the bowlers advantage that he moved before the ball was delivered, it
> >was Styris' mistake not to put the ball where Pietersen couldn't hit
> >it left handed.
>
> >For the law issues, I would be in favour of the leg stump remaining
> >the leg stump even if the bowler changes hand.  In hindsight I think
> >the modern wide rule is fine as it is.
>
> You can treat this as a high risk novelty shot (not a normal cricket
> stroke) and apply the wide law as to a right handed stance. The
> batsman has taken his right handed guard at the wicket and the ball
> has become live. I don't think that this shot causes a problem with
> the laws.

Yes, I agree, it makes the range of a non-wide delivery rather larger
than normal as the off-side limit is decided by the reach of the
striker in his normal stance, but the leg-side limit is extended as
his reach is increased when he adopts the left-hand stance, so the
bowler would have quite a lot of lattitude in trying to put the ball
where the striker can't easily hit it in a controlled manner.

> Or outlaw the shot - dead ball and five penalty runs as soon as the
> hands switch.

Nah, that would be boring!

> The best shot I have ever seen.
> Our club chairman came out for a bat one evening. He guarded up right
> handed and blocked a few straight ones. Then there was a wide one down
> the leg side. He turned his back and swung the bat with his right
> hand, and slapped the ball back past the bowler..........fluke?
> He was a South African as well.

I often (in midweek cricket) try and play very wide deliveries on the
leg side one handed (mainly becuase the umpire may be a bowler and not
give the wide), but facing forward and using my left (top) hand, it a
fluke if I hit it and that is much easier!

Fred   wrote:
>I thik that the fact that he changed his stance before the ball was
>bowled is a bit dodgy...

I wondered why Styris didn't simply pull out of the delivery on
seeing KP changing his stance, especially the second time, when
listening to the radio commentary. Then, on seeing the highlights:
(a) the initial movement was down the pitch (to give himself room
to turn round) and looks not unlike a regular charge and (b) he
didn't start until Styris was committed to his delivery stride.
It's not a stroke that's going to work against a delivery with
any semblence of pace on it, and I think it's going to take a
very talented batsman to get away with it even when there isn't.
The laws need to clear up what counts as "leg-side", but I can't
see any justification for outlawing the shot.

-- 
\S -- siona@chiark.greenend.org.uk -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/
   "Frankly I have no feelings towards penguins one way or the other"
        -- Arthur C. Clarke
   her nu becomeþ se bera eadward ofdun hlæddre heafdes bæce bump bump bump

"Sion Arrowsmith"  wrote in message 
news:eCp*wtEfs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Fred   wrote:
>>I thik that the fact that he changed his stance before the ball was
>>bowled is a bit dodgy...
>
> I wondered why Styris didn't simply pull out of the delivery on
> seeing KP changing his stance, especially the second time, when
> listening to the radio commentary. Then, on seeing the highlights:
> (a) the initial movement was down the pitch (to give himself room
> to turn round) and looks not unlike a regular charge and (b) he
> didn't start until Styris was committed to his delivery stride.
> It's not a stroke that's going to work against a delivery with
> any semblence of pace on it, and I think it's going to take a
> very talented batsman to get away with it even when there isn't.
> The laws need to clear up what counts as "leg-side", but I can't
> see any justification for outlawing the shot.

You're absolutely right about the timing: the movement for the second six 
was so late that no bowler could possibly have detected it was coming. 
Pietersen went a bit earlier the first time, but of course had the element 
of surprise on his side.

Playing such a shot requires fantastic skill and carries a huge element of 
risk.  Let batsmen try it at their peril.

Andrew