Australian news February 25, 2010

Warner seeks answers on legality of switch-hit

Cricinfo staff
  shares 63

David Warner wants the ICC to clarify its stance on switch-hitting after the umpires in Tuesday night's Twenty20 against West Indies told him he couldn't face up right-handed. The left-handed Warner tried to get in position for a switch-hit against Narsingh Deonarine but the bowler backed out and Warner exchanged words with the umpires Bruce Oxenford and Rod Tucker after the incident.

"It was a funny one - Ox said to me, 'You can't do it because they have to chop and change the field all the time'," Warner told the Sydney Morning Herald. "I told him, 'Well it's not hard and I'll tell them when I'm going to bat right-handed or left-handed so they can change the field'. Whatever. I have to wait for the bowler to change from over the wicket to around the wicket so what's the difference? The umpires told me I have to notify the bowler so I turned around and said, 'OK, I'm going to bat right-handed.'

"Tuck looked at me and goes, 'Nuh'. I let it go. But then I went to the square-leg umpire in the next over and I said, 'Why can't I do it?' He basically said it's too much time and it's not in the spirit of the game. I still went to bat right-handed - but he shook his head again."

A Cricket Australia spokesman said their understanding was that Warner's tactic was not against the rules of cricket and might be an issue the ICC could decide on once and for all. When Kevin Pietersen showed off his left-handed switch-hit in 2008 it was ruled by the MCC, the guardians of the game's laws, that the stroke would not be made illegal.

Warner said he batted right-handed as a child and during most net sessions he bats right-handed for the last five minutes. He does not want to abandon the switch-hit, which he believes gives him the advantage of being able to hit with the turn regardless of whether an offspinner or a legspinner is operating.

"Last year at The Oval, we had a practice out in the middle and Haury [Nathan Hauritz] was bowling," Warner said. "They were turning square and I got sick of it. I couldn't hit a ball, so I batted right-handed and I started putting him into the stands. That's when Tim Nielsen said to me, 'What's going on here?' So I thought I might as well bring it out in a game. If a spinner is working to a plan to me, why can't I try to counteract it?"

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • santhoshkudva on February 28, 2010, 6:45 GMT

    just curious, why can't it be assumed that a switch hit is JUST ANOTHER SHOT played by a batsman? forbidding a batsman from playing the shot is equivalent to asking the batsman to play the ball on its merit. if a bowler is bowling at the stumps all the time (like mcgrath does) does the batsman not give himself room to force it towards the cover region?

  • Idie on February 26, 2010, 13:50 GMT

    Switch hit should not be allowed for the simple reason that the bowler cannot change his guard from over to around the wicket at the time of delivery. We should not be considering a switch hit as a batsman's variation similar to a bowler variations like doosra or googly. If switch hit is allowed, then the bowler should be allowed to change guard at the last second as well. Also the LBW rules may need to be amended to identify which is the leg stump.

  • PulteneyJeff on February 26, 2010, 7:02 GMT

    I would like to see whether the MCC make this legal, but I think this should include the "reverse sweep" as well, the arguements cover both cases.

    And, if we go further, if the bowler wants to bowl wide on the crease, or as happens more in T20, from 2 yards behind the crease, he should have toadvise the batsman as well.

    As mentioned by adopt, we should also get the bowler to advise of bowling a googly or doosra or Bouncer!!

  • A_HTIMAN on February 26, 2010, 5:11 GMT

    A batsman should be allowed to change his stance because cricket is a game of minds and the guys with best innovatives should win. So it's not unethical to bat right handed. But the batsman should notify the umpire first. So in Mr.Warner's 2nd request it should be allowed. Everyone can't play both handed so the talent should get the opportunity. If a right hander and a left hander is batting it is okay to set the field why can't it be okay when a batsman change his stance?? What cricket needs is new ideas like Dilscoop, switch hit, malinga's action, KP's switch hit, switch stance, doosra... etc.

  • Uranium on February 26, 2010, 4:23 GMT

    Switch hitting and changing stance should be legal. The bowler should be able to change the bowling arm and side of the wicket. The current rules are stupid.

  • on February 25, 2010, 23:05 GMT

    If switching is allowed then why does a batsman take his guard at the start of his innings? Why does the fielding team set a field based on his position at the crease? I think that if the batter is going to switch he should inform the fielding team and the umpire in the same way a bowler must inform the umpire whish side of the wicket he is going to bowl from and which hand he will use.

  • Nudeballer on February 25, 2010, 22:49 GMT

    Warner says "If a spinner is working to a plan to me, why can't I try to counteract it?" . I agree that he should be able to, but if he decides to bat right handed he should advise the umpire. The umpire should then announce it to the bowler, the same way he does when he advises a change to the bowler's strategy, eg "Right arm around the wicket" I don't have any problem with retaining a conventional LH grip and reverse sweeping or pulling; this has been a part of the game for ages. The issue should only be when the grip is changed and he "converts" to the opposite hand.

  • on February 25, 2010, 21:44 GMT

    I agree with nazfak - as long as he announces it before hand, and preferably before the over, then it should be ok. Switching during an over will get disruptive, and in the middle of a delivery is definitely not ok. But not much time will be lost if the batsmen announces it before the fielders get set into their positions.

  • convertorboy on February 25, 2010, 21:17 GMT

    Changing the stance affects many aspects of the game: the field, LBW and wide rulings. While I'm not against the change, it does give the batsman another advantage over the bowler. I would suggest the batsman be forced to stick to the stance at the beginning of the innings. If he changes stance, be it before or during the run-up, the leg-side aspect of the LBW rule be voided.

  • on February 25, 2010, 20:57 GMT

    Mr. Warner, what if the bowler wants to bowl with this right hand for the first over and then the next over he wants to bowl with left hand or even switching the hands while running, should we allow that too? If the batsman is taking a different stance then he should be batting on that stance all the time..otherwise, it is always unfair.

    Regards,

  • santhoshkudva on February 28, 2010, 6:45 GMT

    just curious, why can't it be assumed that a switch hit is JUST ANOTHER SHOT played by a batsman? forbidding a batsman from playing the shot is equivalent to asking the batsman to play the ball on its merit. if a bowler is bowling at the stumps all the time (like mcgrath does) does the batsman not give himself room to force it towards the cover region?

  • Idie on February 26, 2010, 13:50 GMT

    Switch hit should not be allowed for the simple reason that the bowler cannot change his guard from over to around the wicket at the time of delivery. We should not be considering a switch hit as a batsman's variation similar to a bowler variations like doosra or googly. If switch hit is allowed, then the bowler should be allowed to change guard at the last second as well. Also the LBW rules may need to be amended to identify which is the leg stump.

  • PulteneyJeff on February 26, 2010, 7:02 GMT

    I would like to see whether the MCC make this legal, but I think this should include the "reverse sweep" as well, the arguements cover both cases.

    And, if we go further, if the bowler wants to bowl wide on the crease, or as happens more in T20, from 2 yards behind the crease, he should have toadvise the batsman as well.

    As mentioned by adopt, we should also get the bowler to advise of bowling a googly or doosra or Bouncer!!

  • A_HTIMAN on February 26, 2010, 5:11 GMT

    A batsman should be allowed to change his stance because cricket is a game of minds and the guys with best innovatives should win. So it's not unethical to bat right handed. But the batsman should notify the umpire first. So in Mr.Warner's 2nd request it should be allowed. Everyone can't play both handed so the talent should get the opportunity. If a right hander and a left hander is batting it is okay to set the field why can't it be okay when a batsman change his stance?? What cricket needs is new ideas like Dilscoop, switch hit, malinga's action, KP's switch hit, switch stance, doosra... etc.

  • Uranium on February 26, 2010, 4:23 GMT

    Switch hitting and changing stance should be legal. The bowler should be able to change the bowling arm and side of the wicket. The current rules are stupid.

  • on February 25, 2010, 23:05 GMT

    If switching is allowed then why does a batsman take his guard at the start of his innings? Why does the fielding team set a field based on his position at the crease? I think that if the batter is going to switch he should inform the fielding team and the umpire in the same way a bowler must inform the umpire whish side of the wicket he is going to bowl from and which hand he will use.

  • Nudeballer on February 25, 2010, 22:49 GMT

    Warner says "If a spinner is working to a plan to me, why can't I try to counteract it?" . I agree that he should be able to, but if he decides to bat right handed he should advise the umpire. The umpire should then announce it to the bowler, the same way he does when he advises a change to the bowler's strategy, eg "Right arm around the wicket" I don't have any problem with retaining a conventional LH grip and reverse sweeping or pulling; this has been a part of the game for ages. The issue should only be when the grip is changed and he "converts" to the opposite hand.

  • on February 25, 2010, 21:44 GMT

    I agree with nazfak - as long as he announces it before hand, and preferably before the over, then it should be ok. Switching during an over will get disruptive, and in the middle of a delivery is definitely not ok. But not much time will be lost if the batsmen announces it before the fielders get set into their positions.

  • convertorboy on February 25, 2010, 21:17 GMT

    Changing the stance affects many aspects of the game: the field, LBW and wide rulings. While I'm not against the change, it does give the batsman another advantage over the bowler. I would suggest the batsman be forced to stick to the stance at the beginning of the innings. If he changes stance, be it before or during the run-up, the leg-side aspect of the LBW rule be voided.

  • on February 25, 2010, 20:57 GMT

    Mr. Warner, what if the bowler wants to bowl with this right hand for the first over and then the next over he wants to bowl with left hand or even switching the hands while running, should we allow that too? If the batsman is taking a different stance then he should be batting on that stance all the time..otherwise, it is always unfair.

    Regards,

  • karim_s on February 25, 2010, 19:59 GMT

    I don't see what's wrong with switch hitting. The ONLY concession I would perhaps make is that if a batsman does it even once in an innings, then the leg-side wide rule does not apply to him for the rest of the innings (i.e.: both sides are considered his offside).

    Also, as for Law 21 saying the bowler should notify the batsmen of his "mode of delivery" .. I think thats nonsense also. Why can't a fast bowler suddenly decide to bowl with a spinner action? Or why can't he decide to come around the wicket without first seeking parliamentary approval ?

    Come on, ICC ... bowlers and batsmen innovating is not bad for the game. It's the stupid new rules that you come up with which hurt the game.

  • adpot on February 25, 2010, 19:32 GMT

    I think it should be legal. I have seen other users commenting about players should bat either RH or LH the entire game. So how can you justify an off-spinner bowling a wrong one or Fast bowler bowling off-cutters or leg-cutters? Cricket is a game of improvisation and both the bowler and batsmen should be ready to face the challenge rather than being critical of it.

  • Cybertox on February 25, 2010, 19:19 GMT

    Might as well make switch hitting legal and allow the bowlers to counter it by letting them bowl right arm or left arm without notifying the batsman. It adds a whole new dimension to the game.

  • rgom on February 25, 2010, 19:06 GMT

    I want switch-hit to be made legal, but then, will the batsmen be OK if the bowler goes from over-the-wicket to round-the-wicket during run up?

  • on February 25, 2010, 19:01 GMT

    Law 24 point 1 of the laws of cricket talks of the mode of delivery - http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-24-no-ball,50,AR.html

    "It is unfair if the bowler fails to notify the umpire of a change in his mode of delivery. In this case the umpire shall call and signal No ball."

    If the bowler has to notify of a change, why can't the batsman?

  • on February 25, 2010, 18:08 GMT

    i think dave warner is a show off , if australia was in a bad position in the game he never would have done that , they had west indies beaten down and out ,that's when he try to belittled the bowler by showing he is ambidexterous. i have nothing against reverse sweeps or switch hitting but taking a different stance before the bowler dilevers the ball is unacceptable . dave warner should focus on batting one way , try to stay not out as often as possible so he can convince the selectors to pick him in all 3 forms of the game, i think he has the potential to do it... thanks bobby gonsalves...

  • nafzak on February 25, 2010, 17:46 GMT

    Count me in favour of this - if the batsman anounces his batting stance before the start of the over then I see nothing wrong. Same with the bowler. Now, If he switches in the middle of a delivery, that's another matter. What if he is hit on the pad in front of the wicket and the ball was pitched outside the line of the off stump in his original stance or for that matter outside the line of the leg stump - how should the umpire rule? Would it not be fair too to allow the bowler to switch hands if the batsman is allowed to switch while waiting for the delivery? I think that most of us will agree with switching by batsman or bowler as long as it is announced before the start of the over. Switching bowling hand or batting stance during the over but before ball is in process of being bowled, would delay the game because of field changes, etc., and that's not going a good thing. Switching during the bowler's run up by either bowler or batsman should be illegal.

  • wallstreet on February 25, 2010, 17:34 GMT

    Respect the innovation ICC...Nothing much to say about this matter...

  • on February 25, 2010, 17:32 GMT

    As long as the batsman says "I'm batting x handed" There isn't a problem, but when they start jumping all over the place when the bowlers running in, there's a problem, when the batsman starts doing that, the bowler should be allowed to change hands or go around the wicket without telling the batsman

  • sandunk on February 25, 2010, 17:27 GMT

    Couple things..

    I guess the real issue was time wasting since the field has to be adjusted and if the batsmen keeps shifting, its could be painful...So perhaps umpires can say ok, you can switch only after an X number of balls have been bowled, just like a one an over no-ball rule.

    And second, how in the world could a batsman think he will bat better wrong handed than how he was he right handed. Other than looking cool and making a big news, I dont see any cricketing reasons...If he is really that good playing it wrong handed, then might as well keep it that way for good!!

  • on February 25, 2010, 16:45 GMT

    This shld be BANNED. Instead, I would say the batsman need to bat entirely Right handed or Left handed if he has intentions to bat other way. That wud be fair to bowlers. It's not just BATSMAN game. C'mon!!

  • on February 25, 2010, 16:09 GMT

    How abt if a bowler take the guard in RH and bowling in LH!

  • on February 25, 2010, 15:28 GMT

    My feeling is that this would be made legal. And batsmen, would be made legal to switch even after the ball is bowled. In future, though, bowlers will argue for changing hands when they are leaping, adding to the confusion.

  • on February 25, 2010, 14:59 GMT

    This is not quite Switch Hit, Kevin Pietersen style. Pietersen switches after bowler has bowled the delivery while here Warner is taking a different stance. I am surprised to see umpires have prevented him from doing so. Back in 1986-87 test series in India, Sunil Gavaskar decided to bat left handed against Imran Khan. It was surprising to see but no one had any issues with it. I do not remember which test it was in that 5 tests series but I clearly remember and Gavaskar was out LBW, first ball, playing left handed.

  • santhoshkudva on February 25, 2010, 14:40 GMT

    what next? prevent a batsman from moving around in the crease? ask him not to stand outside the crease as umar akmal does? not to stand wide outside the leg during slog overs?

  • santhoshkudva on February 25, 2010, 14:37 GMT

    i feel a batsman must be allowed to stand any which way he wants but for the records he can have only one stand per innings, ie he can be either a left hander or a righthander per innings and not both. for example, in the warner case, no matter how he stands, the rules applicable to left handers should hold good for him. it is entirely his loss if a ball is bowled outside the lefthander's off which turns out to be his leg. simple as that. i dont know why such a big deal is being made out of this.simple as that. the powers that be are being one eyed to the whole thing. it must be remembered that a batsman is only enhancing the bowler's chances of dismissing him by switching hands. if the batsman is prepared to pay the price, i see no reason why anyone should compel him to play within restrictions.

  • on February 25, 2010, 12:40 GMT

    It's shocking how many ppl can't even understand the article and ramble on about letting him playing switch hit when infact he was trying to change the batting stance after informing to the umpires as well as the bowling side.

  • rustin on February 25, 2010, 11:59 GMT

    This is stupid. If he is ready to tell the bowler his stance before the run-up, there is no question of even going against the spirit of the game.

  • zuluman on February 25, 2010, 11:08 GMT

    Then a bowler once he has the ability can bowl in one six ball over - two full pace right handed deliveries, two left handed off breaks, one right handed leg break and whatever lawful delivery he might be able to bowl.................

  • Geraldine on February 25, 2010, 10:42 GMT

    Switching during the bowling is one thing, but before the bowl is being bowled and even warning the bowler, I can't see anything wrong with that except that it's unusual and some umpires don't like things that are different than what they're used to...

  • jamrith on February 25, 2010, 10:04 GMT

    As long as the battter makes known his intention before the bowlerstarts his run-up, there should be no objection. Switch-hitting or ambidextrous batting is quite common in baseball. Obviously very few batters would be able to pull it off.

  • ArjunVS on February 25, 2010, 9:56 GMT

    IMHO, switch hitting is fine, and it is another dimension of the game. However the most crucial element is the judgment of the LBW rules, that are different were the bowler bowling to a left or a right handed batsman.

  • raysa on February 25, 2010, 9:06 GMT

    I find it amazing that this was even questioned. A bowler only has to specify which side of the wicket to bowl. He can also bowl with either hand if he is good enough. He can bowl fast or spin, leg breaks or off breaksfrom behind the stumps or in front. A batsman should be entitled to hit the ball any way he likes to wherever he likes. The problem for the umpire was that as Warner faced up left handed and switched and missed the ball completely it became too difficult for Oxenford to determine whether it was a wide down the legside to a left handed batsman or a legitimate delivery outside the offstump to a right handed batsman. I personally believe he should have called it a wide because the bowler would have bowled to him as a lefthander. Batsmen moving about the crease is a problem for limited overs cricket. How often do we see a legside wide called which would have otherwise struck the batsman if he had remained immobile.

  • dineshdbest on February 25, 2010, 8:29 GMT

    A switch hit shud be permitted but then if a left handed batsman turns right...the wide rules shud be like the left handed...the ball going behind his legs shud not be considered a WIDE if it doesnt go out of the marked line.

  • randikaayya on February 25, 2010, 8:21 GMT

    @vk47: You got it all topsy turvy mate. read the article again. Warner asked to change his stance BEFORE the delivery is bowled. Similarly if a bowler wants to switch from over to round or EVEN the bowling hand (Like Hashan Tillakaratne used to) they can given prior notice to umpire and batsman. I don't see given the circumstance how one is deemed legal and the other 'against the spirit of the game'

  • masumaman on February 25, 2010, 7:26 GMT

    obviously it is illelal. but what can be done is that the batsman can say he will bat the other way round before the bowler starts a over.

  • Subra on February 25, 2010, 7:23 GMT

    If a bowler has to inform the batsman if he is changing from left-arm to left-arm round or from left arm to right arm - should the batsman also not do so! These days all the laws seem to be favouring the batsman. If t he ball must have a certain weight and dimensions, why are batsmen allowed to use 'sledgehammers'? Give the bowler a fair deal. Siva from Singapore

  • Nuxxy on February 25, 2010, 7:03 GMT

    I think it should like a reverse sweep...they can do it, but only after the bowler has already started his runup. They reason they shouldn't do it before the bowler delivers is a practical one...they batsman can keep declaring the opposite stance, and wasting time while the field keeps changing.

  • sudzz71 on February 25, 2010, 6:35 GMT

    I don't think allowing it is such a big of a deal, because there is opportunity for both the bowler and batsmen in this. If a reverse sweep is allowed if a shot of the back of the bat is allowed then why should a switch hit not be allowed? Its quite ridiculous to say that just because it causes disruption in the field it will not be allowed.

  • Skott on February 25, 2010, 6:21 GMT

    Fair enough a batter not being able to change hands in the middle of the bowlers run up, but they should be able to face up either way if they let the bowler know first.

  • Marktc on February 25, 2010, 5:48 GMT

    It should be allowed, but in the nature of fair play, the batsman should declare, just like the bolwer needs to, which side he will be facing up. This would allow the rare left/right batsman a chance to make the most of the wicket and his talent as well as giving the fielding side and bowler a fair chace to combat this. However, changing your stance from left to right or visa versa, suddenly, without notice, gives the batsman an unfair advantage in terms of the bowling restrictions. If this is allowed, then the permimetres of the bowling ito wides etc, need to be altered to combat this.

    I think the problem at the moment though, is that the umpires decides on this, on the field. There needs to be rules set so players know where they stand. If it is not currently illegal, the umpire should have no right to stop it, despite time taken in changing fileds. This will be the match referee's issue when reviewing the match.

  • jaininkashi on February 25, 2010, 5:48 GMT

    Actually what warner was trying was not switch-hit. He just wanted to change his stance before bowler started his run-up. I think that it shud be allowed & I have seen people doing that in ODI. But if he was trying to do that every now & then even in a single over, then that shud not be allowed. Also, to some ppl's amusement I have seen a bowler bowl with different hands in International game. He is the SL player hashan tilakratne. Now that is an innovation on the bowler's part. I still think changing stance before bowlers run up shud be allowed but not the switch-hit.

  • madhan17 on February 25, 2010, 5:44 GMT

    ICC where allowed the switch hit so u can play that short, they y shout the umpiers saying not to play that short to david warner, it is not a very easy short to play a switch hit i think it was one of the difficelt shot to play, how many of them tryed to play that shot so we should allow this shot, infact bowler have lost to chance to take wicket if any one try to play this kind of short

  • mumbaiguy79 on February 25, 2010, 5:37 GMT

    The simple rule should be that when a batsman switches his stance, the regular laws applicable to that particular stance should apply. For example, in Warner's case, if Warner started out left handed when the bowler starts his run-up and then switches to being right handed, then the rules for a right hand batsman should apply. This should apply when adjudicating LBW, Wides and so on.

  • on February 25, 2010, 5:29 GMT

    MCC (and ICC) may care to consider the subtle difference between Kevin Pietersen's use of the switch hit and David Warner's. If I am not mistaken, Kevin Pietersen takes a normal right hander's stance and as the bowler is at the point of delivery he reverses his hands on the bat and turns around. In the instance that I saw at Sydney, on taking his guard as a right hander, Warner already had his hands reversed on the bat so all he had to do was to turn round as the bowler was in the act of delivering. Since it is virtually impossible to make an effective hit with the hands reversed without turning round, Warner's reversing of the hands was, in effect, saying to the bowler that he would be playing the shot as a left hander. The logic of that should surely be that for eg, lbw purposes, the umpire should regard his leg side to be his leg side as a left hander since by the act of reversing the hands in advance he had indicated his intention, in advance, to face the next ball as a left hander

  • hermithead on February 25, 2010, 5:16 GMT

    Cricket has too many rules as it is! Let the players and spectators define the game for a change. Why must we continue to resist the evolution and innovation of this great game? Theres so much effort put into these petty little rule changes to maintain the status quo when it could be used to ehance the game and maximise its potential as a truly entertaining and enjoyable sport to play and watch. Let's get on with it!!

  • drinks.break on February 25, 2010, 5:10 GMT

    Vimal001 & Pranav, the point you're missing in Warner's complaint is that he agreed NOT to change stance while the bowler was coming in to bowl (so he CAN'T be accused of trying to upset the bowler's line, or of changing sides just before delivery). He asked to be allowed to notify the bowler before he started his run-up, which was refused. He then asked to notify the bowler before the beginning of the over (that he would bat right-handed for the whole over), but he was refused again. At this rate, if he comes out at the beginning of his next innings and says, "I'm going to play right-handed today," they'll still refuse him. It's just the logical conclusion of the umpires' decision. The umpires' decision was totally unreasonable.

  • bobagorof on February 25, 2010, 5:04 GMT

    There's no law defining how a batsman should play the ball - tailenders are constantly finding 'interesting' uses for their bats. NZ batsman Craig McMillan even took to standing square on to the bowler at times and nothing was said. Also, if a batsman wants to walk around his crease in playing the ball, there is no law against that. Similarly, there is no law about the grip the batsman must use - in Warner's case, he kept the same grip from the point the bowler started his run-up. Under the current rules, he has played the ball legitimately. What I find most disappointing about this whole thing is that the umpire would not allow Warner to declare that he was batting right handed for a particular ball. There is no law that states the batsman must play with the same hand for their whole innings - as long as they tell the bowler before they start their run-up, there should be no problem.

  • vk47 on February 25, 2010, 4:53 GMT

    What if the bowler changes from right arm over the wicket to left arm over while running in? Even better, what if he runs around the umpire and delivers the ball from round the wicket? Would it be deemed illegal? Of course. Then it is illegal for the batsman to change his stance. Simple and fair.

  • deepthaT20 on February 25, 2010, 4:50 GMT

    Well I think this kind of ability should be appreciated and isnt it more exiting than Tendul's 200 ?( it was a great innings) How many international player can do this u think? Even umpires would have been bit shocked seeing his switching but These things will certainly take CRICKET forward. Stop worrying about bowlers. Very soon they will start switching arms . Keep it up Warner !!!

  • ElementaryJeeves on February 25, 2010, 4:39 GMT

    As is typical with the ICC they refuse to see the blinding obvious. Let the batsman change his stance as he pleases and once he does that all rules relating to the leg side and off side become null and void. So, If Warener starts with a left handed stance and switches to a right handed stance then the bowler can bowl the ball wide of the right hander's leg stump but the ball will not be deemed a wide. Similarly rules relating to the leg-side and off-side for lbw will also become negated. Simple solutions for a simple world.

  • ElementaryJeeves on February 25, 2010, 4:39 GMT

    As is typical with the ICC they refuse to see the blinding obvious. Let the batsman change his stance as he pleases and once he does that all rules relating to the leg side and off side become null and void. So, If Warener starts with a left handed stance and switches to a right handed stance then the bowler can bowl the ball wide of the right hander's leg stump but the ball will not be deemed a wide. Similarly rules relating to the leg-side and off-side for lbw will also become negated. Simple solutions for a simple world.

  • AyeSayer on February 25, 2010, 4:33 GMT

    It is like saying you should not bown googlies :)

    All things considered, it will make it more interesting if the batsman are allowed to switch after informing the bowler.

  • on February 25, 2010, 4:32 GMT

    A switch-hit is one of the more exciting cricket shots to watch. Of course, like almost any other stroke, it had its own risks, maybe even more so. Why can't the fielding side acknowledge that the batsman on strike is a switch-hit specialist and try and set a field for that? That's the intrigue of cricket. It's like telling a batsman not to use the pull stroke, just because the fielding side has opted for a full off-side field placement.

  • Wallace on February 25, 2010, 4:20 GMT

    It should be allowed, at least in T20 since that is where new innovations are occurring. To be fair and safe (for close fielders on the off side) though, it should have to be declared at the very least before the bowler starts their run up. This could slow things down a lot with changing of fields though.

    I think a fair compromise would be to have the batsmen declare their stance at the start of an over, and stick with it for that over. Perhaps you could also allow them to change mid over if and when the bowler changes the side of the wicket they are bowling from.

  • popcorn on February 25, 2010, 4:10 GMT

    If Kevin Piteresen was allowed,David Warner should have been allowed too.

    Or put a stop to switch hitting - on the grounds that Sachin Tendulkar gave his opinion that it is illegal - because the field is set by the fielding captain depending on whether a batsman bats NORMALLY / USUALLY left handed or right-handed.

  • on February 25, 2010, 4:03 GMT

    personally i think they should not allow the stance to change. A) becuase it kills the line the bowler is bowling. B) the game is turning into a batsman game, they need to protect the bowlers to make it an even game C) i believe it would test a batsman out to play a reverse shot without changing his stance and make it fun... besides that Warners innings was just brutal. great knock

  • chankm on February 25, 2010, 3:49 GMT

    It's ridiculous for the umpires to claim that it takes too much time to change the field between the left and right handed stance. The fielding side always adjust when a left hander is partnering a right hander whenever a single is taken. It doesn't make sense to expect the time taken caused by a single player switching hand would be substantially greater than a left/right handed combination would after single.

  • manasvi_lingam on February 25, 2010, 2:58 GMT

    Innovation should be rewarded not punished. When Ranji invented the leg glance most contemporaries found it shocking, but now it has become a part of the batsman's repertoire. The same goes for the sweep, the scoop, the reverse sweep, etc.

  • Cricketencyclopedia on February 25, 2010, 2:57 GMT

    To be honest, I think that the umpires decision not to allow David Warner to use the switch hit is absolutely ludicrous. The game of cricket has evolved in such a way that players have realized the need of being innovative, so that they can execute their strategies wisely, and also to further enhance their cricketing skills over a long period, so that they can adapt to any situation of the game. David Warner was well within his rights for attempting to play the switch hit, if he felt like adding variety to his strokeplay. Since it is ok for bowlers to use variation in their bowling, I see nothing wrong with a batsman trying to be innovative.I tihnk that the umpires are trying to damage the spirit of the game without realizing it.

  • drinks.break on February 25, 2010, 2:57 GMT

    What's wrong with it is lazy umpires. It's not the field changes they're worried about, it's having to run across to square leg on the other side more often than is absolutely necessary!

  • vimal001 on February 25, 2010, 2:54 GMT

    WELL I THINK WARNER IS A BOMB BATSMEN IN T20 BUT TO RB VERY HONEST SWITCH SHOULD NOT B ALLOWED BECAUSE TODAY BOWLERS HAVE NO MARGIN FOR ERROR SO IT LOOKS VVERY HARSH TO THEM AND MORE IMPORTANT PETER TUCKER ALREADY SAID THIS IS TAKING MUCH EXTRATIME WHICH AGAINST THE SPIRIT .IF WARNER CAN DO THAT BOWLERS ALSO GIVEN THAT HE CAN CHANGE HIS BOWLING HAND (R OR L) JUST BEFORE THE DELIVERY

  • theJAL on February 25, 2010, 2:32 GMT

    switch hit involves a lot of risk taking... if a batsman is willing to take that risk to pull of such a stunt, he should be allowed to do so. i don't see it being against the spirit of the game. in fact there are more chances that the batsman might not pull it off after all and may end up getting out. moreover in this case, it was not even switch hit, warner asked for changing even before the ball was bowled... what the hell was wrong with that?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • theJAL on February 25, 2010, 2:32 GMT

    switch hit involves a lot of risk taking... if a batsman is willing to take that risk to pull of such a stunt, he should be allowed to do so. i don't see it being against the spirit of the game. in fact there are more chances that the batsman might not pull it off after all and may end up getting out. moreover in this case, it was not even switch hit, warner asked for changing even before the ball was bowled... what the hell was wrong with that?

  • vimal001 on February 25, 2010, 2:54 GMT

    WELL I THINK WARNER IS A BOMB BATSMEN IN T20 BUT TO RB VERY HONEST SWITCH SHOULD NOT B ALLOWED BECAUSE TODAY BOWLERS HAVE NO MARGIN FOR ERROR SO IT LOOKS VVERY HARSH TO THEM AND MORE IMPORTANT PETER TUCKER ALREADY SAID THIS IS TAKING MUCH EXTRATIME WHICH AGAINST THE SPIRIT .IF WARNER CAN DO THAT BOWLERS ALSO GIVEN THAT HE CAN CHANGE HIS BOWLING HAND (R OR L) JUST BEFORE THE DELIVERY

  • drinks.break on February 25, 2010, 2:57 GMT

    What's wrong with it is lazy umpires. It's not the field changes they're worried about, it's having to run across to square leg on the other side more often than is absolutely necessary!

  • Cricketencyclopedia on February 25, 2010, 2:57 GMT

    To be honest, I think that the umpires decision not to allow David Warner to use the switch hit is absolutely ludicrous. The game of cricket has evolved in such a way that players have realized the need of being innovative, so that they can execute their strategies wisely, and also to further enhance their cricketing skills over a long period, so that they can adapt to any situation of the game. David Warner was well within his rights for attempting to play the switch hit, if he felt like adding variety to his strokeplay. Since it is ok for bowlers to use variation in their bowling, I see nothing wrong with a batsman trying to be innovative.I tihnk that the umpires are trying to damage the spirit of the game without realizing it.

  • manasvi_lingam on February 25, 2010, 2:58 GMT

    Innovation should be rewarded not punished. When Ranji invented the leg glance most contemporaries found it shocking, but now it has become a part of the batsman's repertoire. The same goes for the sweep, the scoop, the reverse sweep, etc.

  • chankm on February 25, 2010, 3:49 GMT

    It's ridiculous for the umpires to claim that it takes too much time to change the field between the left and right handed stance. The fielding side always adjust when a left hander is partnering a right hander whenever a single is taken. It doesn't make sense to expect the time taken caused by a single player switching hand would be substantially greater than a left/right handed combination would after single.

  • on February 25, 2010, 4:03 GMT

    personally i think they should not allow the stance to change. A) becuase it kills the line the bowler is bowling. B) the game is turning into a batsman game, they need to protect the bowlers to make it an even game C) i believe it would test a batsman out to play a reverse shot without changing his stance and make it fun... besides that Warners innings was just brutal. great knock

  • popcorn on February 25, 2010, 4:10 GMT

    If Kevin Piteresen was allowed,David Warner should have been allowed too.

    Or put a stop to switch hitting - on the grounds that Sachin Tendulkar gave his opinion that it is illegal - because the field is set by the fielding captain depending on whether a batsman bats NORMALLY / USUALLY left handed or right-handed.

  • Wallace on February 25, 2010, 4:20 GMT

    It should be allowed, at least in T20 since that is where new innovations are occurring. To be fair and safe (for close fielders on the off side) though, it should have to be declared at the very least before the bowler starts their run up. This could slow things down a lot with changing of fields though.

    I think a fair compromise would be to have the batsmen declare their stance at the start of an over, and stick with it for that over. Perhaps you could also allow them to change mid over if and when the bowler changes the side of the wicket they are bowling from.

  • on February 25, 2010, 4:32 GMT

    A switch-hit is one of the more exciting cricket shots to watch. Of course, like almost any other stroke, it had its own risks, maybe even more so. Why can't the fielding side acknowledge that the batsman on strike is a switch-hit specialist and try and set a field for that? That's the intrigue of cricket. It's like telling a batsman not to use the pull stroke, just because the fielding side has opted for a full off-side field placement.