May 5, 2014
Yes, bowlers must be allowed to innovate in a batsman-friendly format
No, it's unfair and goes against the spirit of the game
© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
May 7, 2014, 8:53 GMT
We can call it as an Invention to the Game as it changes a lot.
Lets Leave/allow few of them to Bowlers so the game and more inventions will come, it will be good for the game and more interesting all together.
Ultimately basics will be basic, noone can overcome for those.
May 7, 2014, 7:08 GMT
For one, it's extremely difficult to gather balance and bowl a delivery after you have started to pull out of your delivery stride. I don't know how Russell managed to do it.
Btw a run-up is not mandatory in cricket. So, If the batsman sees a bowler pulling out of his stride, then he can pull out as well. That would surely make it a dead ball.
May 7, 2014, 3:15 GMT
Batsmen can advance down the pitch to the bowler, can step out to the leg side and then back in again, etc. etc. Why can't bowlers practice similar deceptions? The game has become far too heavily weighted in favour of batsmen ...
May 6, 2014, 22:04 GMT
No. I also don't think you can create a rule to prevent either side from doing this but umpire should take over if it gets carried away.
May 6, 2014, 15:47 GMT
I can say the same thing for a batsman. The batsman cannot leave the crease and come forward to hit the ball as its a concern for bowler safety.
In all cases what really matters is the bowler should not overstep while delivering the ball. Its batsman responsibility to hit the ball once he has taken a stance..
If you are a seam bowler, you will know that you need alot of concentration and a perfect run up to delivery the ball on the spot where you are intended.. But for a batsman, he can mis-hit and see the ball sailing over the rope!!
May 6, 2014, 12:13 GMT
Yes the bowler can do that. When a batsman has the liberty to play the shot of his choice like switch hit,scoop etc, the bowler should be allowed to decieve the batsman. I call it an innovation what Russel did it to Watson!
May 7, 2014, 6:47 GMT
I think it's unethical and there is a safety problem. Because, a batsman will drop his guard seeing a bowler pull-out.
May 6, 2014, 14:59 GMT
I am a bowler, but think this is going a bit to far. Bowlers must then accept bats are going to pull out more often...
May 6, 2014, 14:31 GMT
I also have to say: this is not equivalent to a switch-hit. If a batter switches stance you still know they're going to do their best to hit the ball. The same can't be said of a pull-out. There is also the issue of safety: if you are not ready to hit the ball because the bowler has communicated that they are not going to bowl, it is dangerous if it turns out they are going to bowl.
May 6, 2014, 13:52 GMT
No! If the pulling out of a delivery, then continuing it is legal, then what you would also have to accept are: (1) a bowler genuinely pulling out of a delivery and inevitably overstepping would be no-balled, (2) Tino Best vs NZ a few years ago pulled out of a delivery because he was distracted, and throwing the ball in anger, getting no-balled, (3) a batsman pulling out, deceiving the bowler into not completing his delivery properly and so 'bowling' a subpar bowl, then getting back in there and hitting it to the boundary & (4) a bowler bowling outside off to a right-handed batsman who then switch hits and misses, the ball then given wide because it now appears to be going down leg-side.
So no! Batsmen should be allowed to pull out of deliveries in time, and not given out if the bowler by chance gets them out as the ball is dead. Likewise the delivery communicating a 'pullout' in the middle of a runup should also be considered a dead ball. This is not hard to figure out.
Should South Africa have lost points for drawing a rain-marred series?
Do you agree with ICC's move to scrap the ODI batting Powerplay?
Did you enjoy the England-New Zealand ODI series?