Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting


If an adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to 
allow bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either 
deliver from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman



http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/355643.html

The problem with switch-hitting

It is unfair to ask bowlers to say beforehand how they are going to 
operate and then not subject batsmen to the same rule


June 22, 2008

Kevin Pietersen was right when he said following the first ODI against 
New Zealand, "The reverse-sweep has been part of the game for however 
long." Mike Gatting's futile attempt in the 1987 World Cup final springs 
readily to mind, but I recall the innovative Javed Miandad was the first 
to employ the shot.

However, Pietersen was wrong, and for more reasons than just the obvious 
contradiction, when he went on to say: "That is a new shot played today 
and people should be saying it's a new way to go." He's wrong for the 
reason I put forward on total-cricket.com in May 2001.


"While on the subject of legislation there's another case looming where 
the players are well ahead of the administrators. This happened with 
Bodyline and the underarm delivery. Whether or not you agree with 
Douglas Jardine ordering his bowlers to pitch short to a packed on-side 
field, or Greg Chappell who asked his younger brother to imitate Sir 
Francis Drake, no one can accuse them of operating outside the laws. If 
the administrators didn't want Bodyline bowling or underarm deliveries, 
they should've thought of it before the event and legislated 
accordingly, rather than castigate the instigators after the event.

The same will happen with the reverse sweep if the administrators don't 
act swiftly to clarify the situation. It is unfair to ask the bowlers to 
nominate beforehand the way they are going to operate (over or round, 
left or right arm) and then allow batsmen to change their mode of 
striking after the ball is in play.

I have no problem with a batsman who cleverly uses his wrists to upset 
the field placings by reverse sweeping. However, I can't accept that a 
batsman is allowed to change the order of his hands and/or feet after 
the bowler commences his run-up, as this in effect makes him the 
opposite type of player to the one who took strike. By this method a 
right-hander becomes left (or vice versa) after the bowler commences his 
run-up and renders the field placings obsolete. This is taking an unfair 
advantage, while a batsman sticking with the first method is pitting his 
skill (evenly) against that of the bowler.

If that isn't reason enough to change the law, then administrators 
should ponder what would happen in a Test if a batsman decides to change 
mode with his team needing one run to win and only a ball remaining. If 
three slips and a gully are in position, in theory the batsman would be 
turning those fielders into four men behind square leg and would have a 
legitimate claim for a no-ball under the current legislation.

It couldn't happen? Well, I'll bet that's what the administrators were 
thinking before 1932-33 and prior to 1980-81 when first Jardine and then 
Greg Chappell jolted them out of their smugness."

I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is 
unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By 
including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order 
of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a 
shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but 
he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler 
originally intended.

How can it be fair when a captain has placed the field for a specific 
set of circumstances and then the batsman, without warning the fielding 
side, renders them obsolete by completely changing his stance? If an 
adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to allow 
bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either deliver 
from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman.

Maintaining an even balance between bat and ball is crucial in ensuring 
the game of cricket remains a fair contest. The administrators are 
already pushing the envelope by reducing the boundary dimensions at a 
time when bats are constantly improving; if they are not careful, 
cricket will become a game of entertainment rather than an entertaining 
game.

Throughout history bowlers have never been shy about fighting back when 
they feel they are pushed beyond the limit. They have resorted to 
chucking, Bodyline, and bowling underarm to even up the contest, and if 
this anomaly isn't corrected, then I wouldn't blame them for indulging 
in methods like those to make their protest.


--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

On Jun 22, 5:19 pm, Villanova  wrote:
> Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting
>
> If an adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to
> allow bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either
> deliver from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman
>
> http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/355643...
>
> The problem with switch-hitting
>
> It is unfair to ask bowlers to say beforehand how they are going to
> operate and then not subject batsmen to the same rule
>
> June 22, 2008
>
> Kevin Pietersen was right when he said following the first ODI against
> New Zealand, "The reverse-sweep has been part of the game for however
> long." Mike Gatting's futile attempt in the 1987 World Cup final springs
> readily to mind, but I recall the innovative Javed Miandad was the first
> to employ the shot.
>
> However, Pietersen was wrong, and for more reasons than just the obvious
> contradiction, when he went on to say: "That is a new shot played today
> and people should be saying it's a new way to go." He's wrong for the
> reason I put forward on total-cricket.com in May 2001.
>
> "While on the subject of legislation there's another case looming where
> the players are well ahead of the administrators. This happened with
> Bodyline and the underarm delivery. Whether or not you agree with
> Douglas Jardine ordering his bowlers to pitch short to a packed on-side
> field, or Greg Chappell who asked his younger brother to imitate Sir
> Francis Drake, no one can accuse them of operating outside the laws. If
> the administrators didn't want Bodyline bowling or underarm deliveries,
> they should've thought of it before the event and legislated
> accordingly, rather than castigate the instigators after the event.
>
> The same will happen with the reverse sweep if the administrators don't
> act swiftly to clarify the situation. It is unfair to ask the bowlers to
> nominate beforehand the way they are going to operate (over or round,
> left or right arm) and then allow batsmen to change their mode of
> striking after the ball is in play.
>
> I have no problem with a batsman who cleverly uses his wrists to upset
> the field placings by reverse sweeping. However, I can't accept that a
> batsman is allowed to change the order of his hands and/or feet after
> the bowler commences his run-up, as this in effect makes him the
> opposite type of player to the one who took strike. By this method a
> right-hander becomes left (or vice versa) after the bowler commences his
> run-up and renders the field placings obsolete. This is taking an unfair
> advantage, while a batsman sticking with the first method is pitting his
> skill (evenly) against that of the bowler.
>
> If that isn't reason enough to change the law, then administrators
> should ponder what would happen in a Test if a batsman decides to change
> mode with his team needing one run to win and only a ball remaining. If
> three slips and a gully are in position, in theory the batsman would be
> turning those fielders into four men behind square leg and would have a
> legitimate claim for a no-ball under the current legislation.
>
> It couldn't happen? Well, I'll bet that's what the administrators were
> thinking before 1932-33 and prior to 1980-81 when first Jardine and then
> Greg Chappell jolted them out of their smugness."
>
> I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is
> unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By
> including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order
> of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a
> shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but
> he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler
> originally intended.
>
> How can it be fair when a captain has placed the field for a specific
> set of circumstances and then the batsman, without warning the fielding
> side, renders them obsolete by completely changing his stance? If an
> adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to allow
> bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either deliver
> from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman.
>
> Maintaining an even balance between bat and ball is crucial in ensuring
> the game of cricket remains a fair contest. The administrators are
> already pushing the envelope by reducing the boundary dimensions at a
> time when bats are constantly improving; if they are not careful,
> cricket will become a game of entertainment rather than an entertaining
> game.
>
> Throughout history bowlers have never been shy about fighting back when
> they feel they are pushed beyond the limit. They have resorted to
> chucking, Bodyline, and bowling underarm to even up the contest, and if
> this anomaly isn't corrected, then I wouldn't blame them for indulging
> in methods like those to make their protest.
>
> --
> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

Another critic who doesn't know the laws of the game, not surprising
from Chappel!
What he doesn't realize either is that bodyline is legal against a
switch-hitter!

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT), "Phil."
 tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Jun 22, 5:19 pm, Villanova  wrote:
>> Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting

>> I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is
>> unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By
>> including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order
>> of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a
>> shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but
>> he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler
>> originally intended.

>
>Another critic who doesn't know the laws of the game, not surprising
>from Chappel!
>What he doesn't realize either is that bodyline is legal against a
>switch-hitter!

What interests me is his proposed Law change. He proposes a clause
saying a batsman may not switch hands, feet or whatever, but he says
nothing about what happens if the batsman goes ahead and does it
anyway.

Is it a dead ball, in which case a batsman intent on wasting time can
just do it over and over again, or is he advocating that we create a
new method of being out, I wonder?

Cheers,

Mike
--

On Jun 23, 7:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
> Ian Chappell...

stopped reading there, sorry.

Ian Chappell is a blight on the wonderful sport that is cricket

"Mike Holmans"  wrote in message 
news:rdlt54t7br9eo358hr5s69dju95fr9mp35@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT), "Phil."
>  tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>>On Jun 22, 5:19 pm, Villanova  wrote:
>>> Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting
>
>>> I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is
>>> unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By
>>> including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order
>>> of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a
>>> shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but
>>> he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler
>>> originally intended.
>
>>
>>Another critic who doesn't know the laws of the game, not surprising
>>from Chappel!
>>What he doesn't realize either is that bodyline is legal against a
>>switch-hitter!
>
> What interests me is his proposed Law change. He proposes a clause
> saying a batsman may not switch hands, feet or whatever, but he says
> nothing about what happens if the batsman goes ahead and does it
> anyway.
>
> Is it a dead ball, in which case a batsman intent on wasting time can
> just do it over and over again, or is he advocating that we create a
> new method of being out, I wonder?

I'm not advocating this but if they went down the path of banning it they 
could introduce it under Law 42 ( Fair and Unfair play ) and award 5 runs to 
the fielding side as they do for section 10 ( time wasting by the batsman ) 
but do it immediately i.e. no warnings as under section 10. The other 
sanctions under sect 10 of reporting it to Captains, team officials and 
governing bodies etc for possible CoC  breaches could stand

jzfredricks wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
>> Ian Chappell...
> 
> stopped reading there, sorry.


Tell that to Ian Chappell, he may care.



> Ian Chappell is a blight on the wonderful sport that is cricket



Ian Chappell is suggesting batsmen and bowlers should play on a
level playing field.

He is right. As it is cricket has already become a batsman's game.


--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

Phil. wrote:
> On Jun 22, 5:19 pm, Villanova  wrote:
>> Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting
>>
>> If an adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to
>> allow bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either
>> deliver from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman
>>
>> http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/355643...
>>
>> The problem with switch-hitting
>>
>> It is unfair to ask bowlers to say beforehand how they are going to
>> operate and then not subject batsmen to the same rule
>>
>> June 22, 2008
>>
>> Kevin Pietersen was right when he said following the first ODI against
>> New Zealand, "The reverse-sweep has been part of the game for however
>> long." Mike Gatting's futile attempt in the 1987 World Cup final springs
>> readily to mind, but I recall the innovative Javed Miandad was the first
>> to employ the shot.
>>
>> However, Pietersen was wrong, and for more reasons than just the obvious
>> contradiction, when he went on to say: "That is a new shot played today
>> and people should be saying it's a new way to go." He's wrong for the
>> reason I put forward on total-cricket.com in May 2001.
>>
>> "While on the subject of legislation there's another case looming where
>> the players are well ahead of the administrators. This happened with
>> Bodyline and the underarm delivery. Whether or not you agree with
>> Douglas Jardine ordering his bowlers to pitch short to a packed on-side
>> field, or Greg Chappell who asked his younger brother to imitate Sir
>> Francis Drake, no one can accuse them of operating outside the laws. If
>> the administrators didn't want Bodyline bowling or underarm deliveries,
>> they should've thought of it before the event and legislated
>> accordingly, rather than castigate the instigators after the event.
>>
>> The same will happen with the reverse sweep if the administrators don't
>> act swiftly to clarify the situation. It is unfair to ask the bowlers to
>> nominate beforehand the way they are going to operate (over or round,
>> left or right arm) and then allow batsmen to change their mode of
>> striking after the ball is in play.
>>
>> I have no problem with a batsman who cleverly uses his wrists to upset
>> the field placings by reverse sweeping. However, I can't accept that a
>> batsman is allowed to change the order of his hands and/or feet after
>> the bowler commences his run-up, as this in effect makes him the
>> opposite type of player to the one who took strike. By this method a
>> right-hander becomes left (or vice versa) after the bowler commences his
>> run-up and renders the field placings obsolete. This is taking an unfair
>> advantage, while a batsman sticking with the first method is pitting his
>> skill (evenly) against that of the bowler.
>>
>> If that isn't reason enough to change the law, then administrators
>> should ponder what would happen in a Test if a batsman decides to change
>> mode with his team needing one run to win and only a ball remaining. If
>> three slips and a gully are in position, in theory the batsman would be
>> turning those fielders into four men behind square leg and would have a
>> legitimate claim for a no-ball under the current legislation.
>>
>> It couldn't happen? Well, I'll bet that's what the administrators were
>> thinking before 1932-33 and prior to 1980-81 when first Jardine and then
>> Greg Chappell jolted them out of their smugness."
>>
>> I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is
>> unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By
>> including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order
>> of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a
>> shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but
>> he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler
>> originally intended.
>>
>> How can it be fair when a captain has placed the field for a specific
>> set of circumstances and then the batsman, without warning the fielding
>> side, renders them obsolete by completely changing his stance? If an
>> adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to allow
>> bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either deliver
>> from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman.
>>
>> Maintaining an even balance between bat and ball is crucial in ensuring
>> the game of cricket remains a fair contest. The administrators are
>> already pushing the envelope by reducing the boundary dimensions at a
>> time when bats are constantly improving; if they are not careful,
>> cricket will become a game of entertainment rather than an entertaining
>> game.
>>
>> Throughout history bowlers have never been shy about fighting back when
>> they feel they are pushed beyond the limit. They have resorted to
>> chucking, Bodyline, and bowling underarm to even up the contest, and if
>> this anomaly isn't corrected, then I wouldn't blame them for indulging
>> in methods like those to make their protest.
>>
>> --
>> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
> 
> Another critic who doesn't know the laws of the game, not surprising
> from Chappel!



The current laws dont address how the Umpires should rule LBWs when
batsmen switchhit.

If they do, then there would not be any debate and MCC would not have
convened to discuss Kevin Pietersens switch hit.



> What he doesn't realize either is that bodyline is legal against a
> switch-hitter!


That is not the issue being discussed.

--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

On Jun 23, 11:38 am, Villanova  wrote:
> The current laws dont address how the Umpires should rule LBWs when
> batsmen switchhit.

Yes it does.

It's your understanding of the rules that is lacking, not the rules
themselves.

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:48:25 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks wrote:

> On Jun 23, 7:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
>> Ian Chappell...
> 
> stopped reading there, sorry.
> 
> Ian Chappell is a blight on the wonderful sport that is cricket

Why? I'm not even an Aussie and I enjoy his insight. Better to hear an
opinion from a former captain than some twit reporter who's never played
the game.

-ws

jzfredricks wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:38 am, Villanova  wrote:
>> The current laws dont address how the Umpires should rule LBWs when
>> batsmen switchhit.
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> It's your understanding of the rules that is lacking, not the rules
> themselves.


MCC declares Kevin Pietersen's hit "legal"

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvnz/content/story/355144.html

--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

> >> The current laws dont address how the Umpires should rule LBWs when
> >> batsmen switchhit.
>
> > Yes it does.
>
> > It's your understanding of the rules that is lacking, not the rules
> > themselves.
>
> MCC declares Kevin Pietersen's hit "legal"

so... bright spark, what the fuck were you talking about when you said
"The current laws dont address how the Umpires should rule LBWs when
batsmen switchhit"

lol

grow a brain, then come back to us...

the current rules DO cover that. As I said, it's YOUR lack of
understanding that is the issue.

On Jun 22, 9:38 pm, Villanova  wrote:
> Phil. wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 5:19 pm, Villanova  wrote:
> >> Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting
>
> >> If an adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to
> >> allow bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either
> >> deliver from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman
>
> >>http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/355643..> >> The problem with switch-hitting
>
> >> It is unfair to ask bowlers to say beforehand how they are going to
> >> operate and then not subject batsmen to the same rule
>
> >> June 22, 2008
>
> >> Kevin Pietersen was right when he said following the first ODI against
> >> New Zealand, "The reverse-sweep has been part of the game for however
> >> long." Mike Gatting's futile attempt in the 1987 World Cup final springs
> >> readily to mind, but I recall the innovative Javed Miandad was the first
> >> to employ the shot.
>
> >> However, Pietersen was wrong, and for more reasons than just the obvious
> >> contradiction, when he went on to say: "That is a new shot played today
> >> and people should be saying it's a new way to go." He's wrong for the
> >> reason I put forward on total-cricket.com in May 2001.
>
> >> "While on the subject of legislation there's another case looming where
> >> the players are well ahead of the administrators. This happened with
> >> Bodyline and the underarm delivery. Whether or not you agree with
> >> Douglas Jardine ordering his bowlers to pitch short to a packed on-side
> >> field, or Greg Chappell who asked his younger brother to imitate Sir
> >> Francis Drake, no one can accuse them of operating outside the laws. If
> >> the administrators didn't want Bodyline bowling or underarm deliveries> >> they should've thought of it before the event and legislated
> >> accordingly, rather than castigate the instigators after the event.
>
> >> The same will happen with the reverse sweep if the administrators don't
> >> act swiftly to clarify the situation. It is unfair to ask the bowlers to
> >> nominate beforehand the way they are going to operate (over or round,
> >> left or right arm) and then allow batsmen to change their mode of
> >> striking after the ball is in play.
>
> >> I have no problem with a batsman who cleverly uses his wrists to upset
> >> the field placings by reverse sweeping. However, I can't accept that a
> >> batsman is allowed to change the order of his hands and/or feet after
> >> the bowler commences his run-up, as this in effect makes him the
> >> opposite type of player to the one who took strike. By this method a
> >> right-hander becomes left (or vice versa) after the bowler commences his
> >> run-up and renders the field placings obsolete. This is taking an unfair
> >> advantage, while a batsman sticking with the first method is pitting his
> >> skill (evenly) against that of the bowler.
>
> >> If that isn't reason enough to change the law, then administrators
> >> should ponder what would happen in a Test if a batsman decides to change
> >> mode with his team needing one run to win and only a ball remaining. If
> >> three slips and a gully are in position, in theory the batsman would be
> >> turning those fielders into four men behind square leg and would have a
> >> legitimate claim for a no-ball under the current legislation.
>
> >> It couldn't happen? Well, I'll bet that's what the administrators were
> >> thinking before 1932-33 and prior to 1980-81 when first Jardine and then
> >> Greg Chappell jolted them out of their smugness."
>
> >> I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is
> >> unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By
> >> including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order
> >> of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a
> >> shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but
> >> he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler
> >> originally intended.
>
> >> How can it be fair when a captain has placed the field for a specific
> >> set of circumstances and then the batsman, without warning the fielding
> >> side, renders them obsolete by completely changing his stance? If an
> >> adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to allow
> >> bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either deliver
> >> from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman.
>
> >> Maintaining an even balance between bat and ball is crucial in ensuring
> >> the game of cricket remains a fair contest. The administrators are
> >> already pushing the envelope by reducing the boundary dimensions at a
> >> time when bats are constantly improving; if they are not careful,
> >> cricket will become a game of entertainment rather than an entertaining
> >> game.
>
> >> Throughout history bowlers have never been shy about fighting back when
> >> they feel they are pushed beyond the limit. They have resorted to
> >> chucking, Bodyline, and bowling underarm to even up the contest, and if
> >> this anomaly isn't corrected, then I wouldn't blame them for indulging
> >> in methods like those to make their protest.
>
> >> --
> >> posted viawww.usenetfast.com-Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !
>
> > Another critic who doesn't know the laws of the game, not surprising
> > from Chappel!
>
> The current laws dont address how the Umpires should rule LBWs when
> batsmen switchhit.

They most certainly do, ask any umpire they'll explain it to you.

>
> If they do, then there would not be any debate and MCC would not have
> convened to discuss Kevin Pietersens switch hit.

They didn't, the meeting was organized before KP's hit.

>
> > What he doesn't realize either is that bodyline is legal against a
> > switch-hitter!
>
> That is not the issue being discussed.

It most certainly is, it is being suggested that the switch hitting is
such an advantage to the batsman and that the bowlers are unable to
counteract it, and yet the bowlers can bowl bodyline with impunity.
Leg theory like that in the 50s caused the present law regarding
legside fields because of the low scoring.


>
> --
> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

jzfredricks wrote:
>>>> The current laws dont address how the Umpires should rule LBWs when
>>>> batsmen switchhit.
>>> Yes it does.
>>> It's your understanding of the rules that is lacking, not the rules
>>> themselves.
>> MCC declares Kevin Pietersen's hit "legal"
> 
> so... bright spark, what the fuck were you talking about when you said
> "The current laws dont address how the Umpires should rule LBWs when
> batsmen switchhit"
> 
> lol
> 
> grow a brain, then come back to us...



No thanks. I am not interested in your fags and transgenders club.



> the current rules DO cover that. As I said, it's YOUR lack of
> understanding that is the issue.


MCC convened an urgent meeting because they were not sure either.

MCC declares Kevin Pietersen's hit "legal"

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvnz/content/story/355144.html

--
posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

On Jun 23, 9:48 am, jzfredricks  wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:19 am, Villanova  wrote:
>
> > Ian Chappell...
>
> stopped reading there, sorry.
>
> Ian Chappell is a blight on the wonderful sport that is cricket

you obviously don't like the game as it is today, then? he is the main
reason cricket has become a bigger sport since the 60's in australia
(he and kerry)

On Jun 23, 1:44 pm, "R. Spanditt"  wrote:
> you obviously don't like the game as it is today, then? he is the main
> reason cricket has become a bigger sport since the 60's in australia
> (he and kerry)

huge call that

I can't speak about the man that was. All I know is that when ever I
hear him commentate I keep asking myself "what drugs is this man on".

"Mike Holmans"  wrote in message 
news:rdlt54t7br9eo358hr5s69dju95fr9mp35@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT), "Phil."
>  tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>>On Jun 22, 5:19 pm, Villanova  wrote:
>>> Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting
>
>>> I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is
>>> unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By
>>> including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order
>>> of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a
>>> shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but
>>> he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler
>>> originally intended.
>
>>
>>Another critic who doesn't know the laws of the game, not surprising
>>from Chappel!
>>What he doesn't realize either is that bodyline is legal against a
>>switch-hitter!
>
> What interests me is his proposed Law change. He proposes a clause
> saying a batsman may not switch hands, feet or whatever, but he says
> nothing about what happens if the batsman goes ahead and does it
> anyway.
>
> Is it a dead ball, in which case a batsman intent on wasting time can
> just do it over and over again, or is he advocating that we create a
> new method of being out, I wonder?

I vote for the latter.  In the first season we will see scorebook entries 
such as:

AB de Villiers swapped hands 7

But it won't stop there.  The following year one can expect to see:

MJ Clarke took two steps down the pitch before playing shot 26
or
S Chanderpaul adopted two-eyed stance 0
or
MS Dhoni removed bottom hand from bat before cover drive crossed 30-metre 
circle 18

One can imagine Chanderpaul collecting numerous first-ballers until he gets 
his act together.

In year three the style police will take over completely:

AJ Strauss failed to transfer weight to back foot 87

Until finally there is a harness built and placed at the wicket, into which 
the batsman is strapped.  The logistics of running between the wickets are 
left as an exercise for the reader.

Andrew

On Jun 23, 11:31 am, "Andrew Dunford"  wrote:
> "Mike Holmans"  wrote in message
>
> news:rdlt54t7br9eo358hr5s69dju95fr9mp35@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT), "Phil."
> >  tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >>On Jun 22, 5:19 pm, Villanova  wrote:
> >>> Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting
>
> >>> I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is
> >>> unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By
> >>> including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order
> >>> of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a
> >>> shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but
> >>> he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler
> >>> originally intended.
>
> >>Another critic who doesn't know the laws of the game, not surprising
> >>from Chappel!
> >>What he doesn't realize either is that bodyline is legal against a
> >>switch-hitter!
>
> > What interests me is his proposed Law change. He proposes a clause
> > saying a batsman may not switch hands, feet or whatever, but he says
> > nothing about what happens if the batsman goes ahead and does it
> > anyway.
>
> > Is it a dead ball, in which case a batsman intent on wasting time can
> > just do it over and over again, or is he advocating that we create a
> > new method of being out, I wonder?
>
> I vote for the latter.  In the first season we will see scorebook entries
> such as:
>
> AB de Villiers swapped hands 7
>
> But it won't stop there.  The following year one can expect to see:
>
> MJ Clarke took two steps down the pitch before playing shot 26
> or
> S Chanderpaul adopted two-eyed stance 0
> or
> MS Dhoni removed bottom hand from bat before cover drive crossed 30-metre
> circle 18
>
> One can imagine Chanderpaul collecting numerous first-ballers until he gets
> his act together.
>
> In year three the style police will take over completely:
>
> AJ Strauss failed to transfer weight to back foot 87
>
> Until finally there is a harness built and placed at the wicket, into which
> the batsman is strapped.  The logistics of running between the wickets are
> left as an exercise for the reader.

:o)

Sounds good to me, we should also have a new law awarding a run for a
technically sound forward defensive, I might get a double figure score
more often that way ;o)

On Jun 23, 6:31 pm, "Andrew Dunford"  wrote:

>
> I vote for the latter.  In the first season we will see scorebook entries
> such as:
>
> AB de Villiers swapped hands 7
>
> But it won't stop there.  The following year one can expect to see:
>
> MJ Clarke took two steps down the pitch before playing shot 26
> or
> S Chanderpaul adopted two-eyed stance 0
> or
> MS Dhoni removed bottom hand from bat before cover drive crossed 30-metre
> circle 18
>
> One can imagine Chanderpaul collecting numerous first-ballers until he gets
> his act together.
>
> In year three the style police will take over completely:
>
> AJ Strauss failed to transfer weight to back foot 87
>
> Until finally there is a harness built and placed at the wicket, into which
> the batsman is strapped.  The logistics of running between the wickets are
> left as an exercise for the reader.
>
> Andrew


Post of the year!

On Jun 22, 11:36 pm, Villanova  wrote:
> jzfredricks wrote:
> >>>> The current laws dont address how the Umpires should rule LBWs when
> >>>> batsmen switchhit.
> >>> Yes it does.
> >>> It's your understanding of the rules that is lacking, not the rules
> >>> themselves.
> >> MCC declares Kevin Pietersen's hit "legal"
>
> > so... bright spark, what the fuck were you talking about when you said
> > "The current laws dont address how the Umpires should rule LBWs when
> > batsmen switchhit"
>
> > lol
>
> > grow a brain, then come back to us...
>
> No thanks. I am not interested in your fags and transgenders club.
>
> > the current rules DO cover that. As I said, it's YOUR lack of
> > understanding that is the issue.
>
> MCC convened an urgent meeting because they were not sure either.

They didn't, don't you read the articles you attach?



>
> MCC declares Kevin Pietersen's hit "legal"
>
> http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvnz/content/story/355144.html
>
> --
> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

On Jun 23, 3:48 am, Mike Holmans  wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT), "Phil."
>  tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >On Jun 22, 5:19 pm, Villanova  wrote:
> >> Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting
> >> I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is
> >> unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By
> >> including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order
> >> of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a
> >> shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but
> >> he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler
> >> originally intended.
>
> >Another critic who doesn't know the laws of the game, not surprising
> >from Chappel!
> >What he doesn't realize either is that bodyline is legal against a
> >switch-hitter!
>
> What interests me is his proposed Law change. He proposes a clause
> saying a batsman may not switch hands, feet or whatever, but he says
> nothing about what happens if the batsman goes ahead and does it
> anyway.
>
> Is it a dead ball, in which case a batsman intent on wasting time can
> just do it over and over again, or is he advocating that we create a
> new method of being out, I wonder?
>

I would prefer a "some-ball" (opposite of a no-ball). The batting team
can score no runs off the ball with some exceptions (for example, they
would get five runs awarded if Shoaib Akhthar were to attempt to lever
the seam up with a crowbar). There would be one run subtracted from
the batsman's (and hence the team's) score (scoreboards the world over
would need to be modified to add a minus sign).

In ODOs and T20s, this would lead to a free hurl the next ball wherein
the batsman gets out of the way and the bowler gets to bowl at the
unguarded stumps. In the free hurl ball, any wicket taken would count
and the only way the batting team can score runs is through wides and
no-balls (or if Shoaib uses a crowbar). If the original ball were a no-
ball, this would lead to a free hurl hit, in which in the normal
course no runs can be scored nor wickets taken.

Regards,
Jayen

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:16:09 -0700 (PDT), "Phil."
 tapped the keyboard and brought forth:

>On Jun 22, 11:36 pm, Villanova  blethered:
[something]

>
>... don't you read the articles you attach?

There's a world of difference between reading and being able to
understand what you have read. Villanova appears to be literate enough
that he can easily manage the former, but the content of his posts
suggests that the latter is way, way beyond him.

Cheers,

Mike
--

On Jun 23, 1:47 pm, jzfredricks  wrote:
> On Jun 23, 1:44 pm, "R. Spanditt"  wrote:
>
> > you obviously don't like the game as it is today, then? he is the main
> > reason cricket has become a bigger sport since the 60's in australia
> > (he and kerry)
>
> huge call that

not really, it's just the facts. ian chappell negotiated more power
for the players and that changed a lot.

> I can't speak about the man that was. All I know is that when ever I
> hear him commentate I keep asking myself "what drugs is this man on".

extremely strong sedatives if any.. he knows the game as well as any,
a champion.

"Andrew Dunford"  wrote in message 
news:6c9ccgF3f4b5eU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Mike Holmans"  wrote in message 
> news:rdlt54t7br9eo358hr5s69dju95fr9mp35@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:29:16 -0700 (PDT), "Phil."
>>  tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>>
>>>On Jun 22, 5:19 pm, Villanova  wrote:
>>>> Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting
>>
>>>> I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is
>>>> unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By
>>>> including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order
>>>> of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a
>>>> shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman 
>>>> but
>>>> he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler
>>>> originally intended.
>>
>>>
>>>Another critic who doesn't know the laws of the game, not surprising
>>>from Chappel!
>>>What he doesn't realize either is that bodyline is legal against a
>>>switch-hitter!
>>
>> What interests me is his proposed Law change. He proposes a clause
>> saying a batsman may not switch hands, feet or whatever, but he says
>> nothing about what happens if the batsman goes ahead and does it
>> anyway.
>>
>> Is it a dead ball, in which case a batsman intent on wasting time can
>> just do it over and over again, or is he advocating that we create a
>> new method of being out, I wonder?
>
> I vote for the latter.  In the first season we will see scorebook entries 
> such as:
>
> AB de Villiers swapped hands 7
>
> But it won't stop there.  The following year one can expect to see:
>
> MJ Clarke took two steps down the pitch before playing shot 26
> or
> S Chanderpaul adopted two-eyed stance 0
> or
> MS Dhoni removed bottom hand from bat before cover drive crossed 30-metre 
> circle 18
>
> One can imagine Chanderpaul collecting numerous first-ballers until he 
> gets his act together.
>
> In year three the style police will take over completely:
>
> AJ Strauss failed to transfer weight to back foot 87
>
> Until finally there is a harness built and placed at the wicket, into 
> which the batsman is strapped.  The logistics of running between the 
> wickets are left as an exercise for the reader.

Technology! The batsman runs on the spot as hard as he can, a computer 
calculates how long it will take him to reach the other end based on the 
number of steps and the average length of the batsman stride as found in 
strict laboratory conditions with a standard reduction in speed for fatigue. 
The bails will be connected to the stumps by electric contacts so the exact 
moment of breaking the wicket is known. The bowling team can request an 
immediate retesting of any batsman's stride if they believe a factor that 
changes the equation has occurred eg being knocked unconscious, traumatic 
amputation of a leg or arm by a Brett Lee beamer

"Jayen"  wrote in message 
news:fc7c0788-4c8f-48eb-a458-5b25b95e113c@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

> There would be one run subtracted from
> the batsman's (and hence the team's) score (scoreboards the world over
> would need to be modified to add a minus sign).

New Zealand scoreboards are already equipped with minus signs, a consequence 
of low batting standards in these parts.

<snip>

Andrew

On Jun 23, 5:03 pm, "R. Spanditt"  wrote:
> On Jun 23, 1:47 pm, jzfredricks  wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 1:44 pm, "R. Spanditt"  wrote:
>
> > > you obviously don't like the game as it is today, then? he is the main
> > > reason cricket has become a bigger sport since the 60's in australia
> > > (he and kerry)
>
> > huge call that
>
> not really, it's just the facts. ian chappell negotiated more power
> for the players and that changed a lot.
>
> > I can't speak about the man that was. All I know is that when ever I
> > hear him commentate I keep asking myself "what drugs is this man on".
>
> extremely strong sedatives if any.. he knows the game as well as any,
> a champion.

Just doesn't know the Laws of the game that well!

"Phil."  wrote in message 
news:4237ef92-7337-4340-b4a6-106a8a7f3499@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:03 pm, "R. Spanditt"  wrote:
> On Jun 23, 1:47 pm, jzfredricks  wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 1:44 pm, "R. Spanditt"  wrote:
>
> > > you obviously don't like the game as it is today, then? he is the main
> > > reason cricket has become a bigger sport since the 60's in australia
> > > (he and kerry)
>
> > huge call that
>
> not really, it's just the facts. ian chappell negotiated more power
> for the players and that changed a lot.
>
> > I can't speak about the man that was. All I know is that when ever I
> > hear him commentate I keep asking myself "what drugs is this man on".
>
> extremely strong sedatives if any.. he knows the game as well as any,
> a champion.

=Just doesn't know the Laws of the game that well!

Never been a prerequisite for a player or a commentator

Villanova wrote:
> Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting
>
>
> If an adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to
> allow bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either
> deliver from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman
>
>
>
> http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/355643.html
>
> The problem with switch-hitting
>
> It is unfair to ask bowlers to say beforehand how they are going to
> operate and then not subject batsmen to the same rule
>
>
> June 22, 2008
>
> Kevin Pietersen was right when he said following the first ODI against
> New Zealand, "The reverse-sweep has been part of the game for however
> long." Mike Gatting's futile attempt in the 1987 World Cup final springs
> readily to mind, but I recall the innovative Javed Miandad was the first
> to employ the shot.
>
> However, Pietersen was wrong, and for more reasons than just the obvious
> contradiction, when he went on to say: "That is a new shot played today
> and people should be saying it's a new way to go." He's wrong for the
> reason I put forward on total-cricket.com in May 2001.
>
>
> "While on the subject of legislation there's another case looming where
> the players are well ahead of the administrators. This happened with
> Bodyline and the underarm delivery. Whether or not you agree with
> Douglas Jardine ordering his bowlers to pitch short to a packed on-side
> field, or Greg Chappell who asked his younger brother to imitate Sir
> Francis Drake, no one can accuse them of operating outside the laws. If
> the administrators didn't want Bodyline bowling or underarm deliveries,
> they should've thought of it before the event and legislated
> accordingly, rather than castigate the instigators after the event.
>
> The same will happen with the reverse sweep if the administrators don't
> act swiftly to clarify the situation. It is unfair to ask the bowlers to
> nominate beforehand the way they are going to operate (over or round,
> left or right arm) and then allow batsmen to change their mode of
> striking after the ball is in play.
>
> I have no problem with a batsman who cleverly uses his wrists to upset
> the field placings by reverse sweeping. However, I can't accept that a
> batsman is allowed to change the order of his hands and/or feet after
> the bowler commences his run-up, as this in effect makes him the
> opposite type of player to the one who took strike. By this method a
> right-hander becomes left (or vice versa) after the bowler commences his
> run-up and renders the field placings obsolete. This is taking an unfair
> advantage, while a batsman sticking with the first method is pitting his
> skill (evenly) against that of the bowler.
>
> If that isn't reason enough to change the law, then administrators
> should ponder what would happen in a Test if a batsman decides to change
> mode with his team needing one run to win and only a ball remaining. If
> three slips and a gully are in position, in theory the batsman would be
> turning those fielders into four men behind square leg and would have a
> legitimate claim for a no-ball under the current legislation.
>
> It couldn't happen? Well, I'll bet that's what the administrators were
> thinking before 1932-33 and prior to 1980-81 when first Jardine and then
> Greg Chappell jolted them out of their smugness."
>
> I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is
> unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By
> including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order
> of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a
> shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but
> he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler
> originally intended.
>
> How can it be fair when a captain has placed the field for a specific
> set of circumstances and then the batsman, without warning the fielding
> side, renders them obsolete by completely changing his stance? If an
> adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to allow
> bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either deliver
> from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman.
>
> Maintaining an even balance between bat and ball is crucial in ensuring
> the game of cricket remains a fair contest. The administrators are
> already pushing the envelope by reducing the boundary dimensions at a
> time when bats are constantly improving; if they are not careful,
> cricket will become a game of entertainment rather than an entertaining
> game.
>
> Throughout history bowlers have never been shy about fighting back when
> they feel they are pushed beyond the limit. They have resorted to
> chucking, Bodyline, and bowling underarm to even up the contest, and if
> this anomaly isn't corrected, then I wouldn't blame them for indulging
> in methods like those to make their protest.
>
>
> --
> posted via www.usenetfast.com - Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

I agree with you so much i'm going to email the ICC on all of our
accounts. Why should a batsmen be allowed to change stance mid-ball
but a bowler needs to make clear to everyone which side he's coming
from.

"cricketanator"  wrote in message 
news:cd75db33-c009-453b-80c5-8a91a20a89ee@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> I agree with you so much i'm going to email the ICC on all of our
> accounts. Why should a batsmen be allowed to change stance mid-ball
> but a bowler needs to make clear to everyone which side he's coming
> from.


I actually heard someone, maybe from the ICC, suggest that if a bowler is 
good enough to change hands after his delivery stride, then that would be 
acceptable too.

The ICC won't accept an email from my account without a password, so you're 
totally fucked.  You don't know my password, which is "b0ll0cks", without 
the quotes.  Let me know what they say...

--
George
"Dolphins, Eskimos, who cares?! It's all a bunch of tree hugging hippie 
crap!" - Eric Cartman - 20 August 1997

"Wog George"  wrote in message 
news:plmck.17884$IK1.12825@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
> You don't know my password, which is "b0ll0cks", without the quotes.
>
>

Ooops!  Please disregard my previous post.

--
George
"Dude, you don't understand.  I.. I'm a Jew.  I have a few hangups about 
killing Jesus!" - Kyle Broflofski - 4 April 2007

On Jun 22, 4:19 pm, Villanova  wrote:
> Ian Chappell on Kevin Pietersen's recent switch hitting
>
> If an adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to
> allow bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either
> deliver from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman
>
> http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/355643...
>
> The problem with switch-hitting
>
> It is unfair to ask bowlers to say beforehand how they are going to
> operate and then not subject batsmen to the same rule
>
> June 22, 2008
>
> Kevin Pietersen was right when he said following the first ODI against
> New Zealand, "The reverse-sweep has been part of the game for however
> long." Mike Gatting's futile attempt in the 1987 World Cup final springs
> readily to mind, but I recall the innovative Javed Miandad was the first
> to employ the shot.
>
> However, Pietersen was wrong, and for more reasons than just the obvious
> contradiction, when he went on to say: "That is a new shot played today
> and people should be saying it's a new way to go." He's wrong for the
> reason I put forward on total-cricket.com in May 2001.
>
> "While on the subject of legislation there's another case looming where
> the players are well ahead of the administrators. This happened with
> Bodyline and the underarm delivery. Whether or not you agree with
> Douglas Jardine ordering his bowlers to pitch short to a packed on-side
> field, or Greg Chappell who asked his younger brother to imitate Sir
> Francis Drake, no one can accuse them of operating outside the laws. If
> the administrators didn't want Bodyline bowling or underarm deliveries,
> they should've thought of it before the event and legislated
> accordingly, rather than castigate the instigators after the event.
>
> The same will happen with the reverse sweep if the administrators don't
> act swiftly to clarify the situation. It is unfair to ask the bowlers to
> nominate beforehand the way they are going to operate (over or round,
> left or right arm) and then allow batsmen to change their mode of
> striking after the ball is in play.
>
> I have no problem with a batsman who cleverly uses his wrists to upset
> the field placings by reverse sweeping. However, I can't accept that a
> batsman is allowed to change the order of his hands and/or feet after
> the bowler commences his run-up, as this in effect makes him the
> opposite type of player to the one who took strike. By this method a
> right-hander becomes left (or vice versa) after the bowler commences his
> run-up and renders the field placings obsolete. This is taking an unfair
> advantage, while a batsman sticking with the first method is pitting his
> skill (evenly) against that of the bowler.
>
> If that isn't reason enough to change the law, then administrators
> should ponder what would happen in a Test if a batsman decides to change
> mode with his team needing one run to win and only a ball remaining. If
> three slips and a gully are in position, in theory the batsman would be
> turning those fielders into four men behind square leg and would have a
> legitimate claim for a no-ball under the current legislation.
>
> It couldn't happen? Well, I'll bet that's what the administrators were
> thinking before 1932-33 and prior to 1980-81 when first Jardine and then
> Greg Chappell jolted them out of their smugness."
>
> I still believe changing striking mode once the ball is in play is
> unfair and a simple change to the law would eradicate the problem. By
> including a clause saying "a batsman is not allowed to change the order
> of his feet or hands from the time of taking his stance to playing a
> shot" it still leaves the reverse sweep as an option for the batsman but
> he has to take a risk, and the field placings remain as the bowler
> originally intended.
>
> How can it be fair when a captain has placed the field for a specific
> set of circumstances and then the batsman, without warning the fielding
> side, renders them obsolete by completely changing his stance? If an
> adjustment isn't made to the law then it would only seem fair to allow
> bowlers to weave up to the crease and at the last moment either deliver
> from over or round the wicket without telling the batsman.
>
> Maintaining an even balance between bat and ball is crucial in ensuring
> the game of cricket remains a fair contest. The administrators are
> already pushing the envelope by reducing the boundary dimensions at a
> time when bats are constantly improving; if they are not careful,
> cricket will become a game of entertainment rather than an entertaining
> game.
>
> Throughout history bowlers have never been shy about fighting back when
> they feel they are pushed beyond the limit. They have resorted to
> chucking, Bodyline, and bowling underarm to even up the contest, and if
> this anomaly isn't corrected, then I wouldn't blame them for indulging
> in methods like those to make their protest.
>
> --
> posted viawww.usenetfast.com- Fastest downloads from $4.50/month !

What happens if the batsman has a totally two-eyed stance i.e. both
feet facing down the pitch towards the stumps at the other end? We
used this stance at school to play "French" cricket. It was OK for
defence and deflections and could even be used as a launching pad for
attacking shots.

Grrenidge and Haynes used to do this somewhat against real quicks. I'm looking to cut and pull, time is short, lets start off chest on. Makes sense to me.
You probably aren't going to be playing too many front foot drives down the ground starting like that, but.............