24 May 2010

Technology to be used more consistently....

....according to the ICC, with appropriate caveats about having to reach deals with local broadcasters. But also interestingly they want to stop batsman changing their stance until after the bowler has entered their delivery stride - should the batsman do this twice a 5 run penalty will be incured.

There's several reasons why that's crazy - 1, it's unenforcable - who decides exactly when the bowling stride has begun and how is the standing umpire meant to police it (eyes in the back of his head?). 2, you need to be consistent so if you're to create such an odd law then you need to ban the likes of Pietersen and Collingwood walking towards the bowler as they reach the end of their run up. 3, it's making it harder for batsmen to play a truly innovative shot and stifling excitement.

If I was a first class bowler, I'd be gutted - the last thing I'd want is for batsmen to stop switch hitting as even for the most talented like Pietersen, it's a high risk shot and the bowler's chances of a wicket go up when a batsman plays it.

8 comments:

Parky said...

I think you are misreading this. There is no change from the earlier ICC directive which was used to stop Warner changing his stance. What Pietersen does is still OK.

The ICC reiterated its stance that batsman can only reverse their grip on the bat, switching the bottom hand for the top, AFTER the bowler has entered the delivery area. If they do so earlier, a bowler is entitled to withdraw from his run up and the umpire will warn the batsman for wasting time.

Ed said...

Thanks for clarifying Parky. Personally I don't agree that Warner should have been stopped from taking his stance as a right hander and switching. And I don't think it's possible for the bowler's end umpire to make the call on when someone has entered the delivery area (given we're talking about split seconds), so I'd get rid of the unenforcable law altogether.

Parky said...

The determining factor is whether the batsman has moved early enough for the bowler to be able to stop in his run up. If he has the batsmen is time wasting and should be dealt with accordigly. That is why the umpires told Warner that he was contravening the spirit of the game.

It's all in the 2008 MCC Law Sub-Committee Paper on Switch-Hitting.

GROV said...

I have to say that I agree with Parky. From the umpire's perspective I cannot see a problem because it is his decision as to whether the law has been contravened.

As in a lot of cases, he has the square leg umpire to give informal help in reaching the correct decision with a discreet signal.

Ed said...

Fair enough. I come from the point of view that the less laws there are, the less controversial decisions there will be. And in particular, the less laws that are subjective the better, as the umpire's decisions will always be called into question with replays slowed down to hundredths of seconds. Whether someone has reached their delivery stride is highly subjective and if a decision like that happened in the final over of a World Cup final and impacted on who won, it would be shown up to be a law open to too much interpretation.

If it was left to me? The batsman can do whatever they like. The bowler can pull out of the delivery once - if they do so a second time it could be treated like a no ball.

Parky said...

Ed. I think you are missing the point. If the bowler suddenly finds that he is bowling at a left handed batsmen when at the start of his run up he was bowling at a right handed batsmen he has every right to stop in his run up, particularly if he will be called for a no ball because he then has three fielders behind the wicket on the leg side. As I said, the determining factor is whether the batsman has moved early enough for the bowler to be able to stop in his run up. All the umpire has to decide is who is time wasting. In my view it is the batsman. This is supported by the lawmakers and the umpires in the Warner incident.

Ed said...

I think I understand the point but just don't agree with it! Until there is a truly ambidextrous batsman then we all know what way round the batsman really bat. So in Warner's case he's treated as a left-hander for the purposes of leg-side field, LBWs etc, however he is standing as the bowler starts his run, as is half way through his run, or is in his delivery stride.

The problem I forsee is that the bowler can pull out of a delivery speculatively - they don't know the batsman will switch hit /reverse sweep and they haven't moved, but if they pull out of the delivery the likelihood is that the batsman will move to switch hands as it's a premeditated movement. How can any umpire possibly tell whether it was the bowler or the batsman that flinched first?

As a result I'd let the batsman stand however he likes - on his hands for all I care - and allow the bowler to pull out once only before calling him for a no ball. I think that makes it easy to adjudicate on as an umpire, where as currently it's potentially difficult for umpires.

I appreciate that's not how the lawmakers see it but I'm burbling - we can discuss further tonight Parky!

Parky said...

Ed. I think you need to read the MCC Laws Sub-Committee Paper on Switch-hitting. Switch-hitting and reverse-sweeping are fine. Changing your stance before the bowler delivers the ball is not. If the bowler sets his field for a left-handed batsmen and finds that the batsmen has changed to being right-handed he should be allowed to alter his field. If the bowler has time to stop in his run up after the batsman has changed his stance it is pretty clear that the batsman has moved first.