MCC to probe Pietersen switch hit

[SamL]

The MCC will discuss the legality of Kevin Pietersen's remarkable "switch-hitting" strokes on Tuesday.

The right-handed batsman reversed his batting stance and smashed two sixes in the manner of a left-hander during England's 114-run win over New Zealand.

Pietersen's improvisation has provoked some commentators to question whether it gives batsmen an unfair advantage.

But the Hampshire star rejected the claims as "absolutely stupid", adding the game must embrace innovation.

World governing body the International Cricket Council (ICC) had already raised concerns about the legality of the stroke before Pietersen's incredible hitting off all-rounder Scott Styris at Chester-le-Street on Sunday.

The ICC's cricket committee made recommendations at its annual meeting in Dubai last month for the MCC, the custodian of cricket's laws, to review the "switch hit".

An MCC spokesman told BBC Sport its committee was scheduled to discuss the matter at Lord's on Tuesday, but stressed the meeting was not convened because of Pietersen's innings. "Our secretary Keith Bradshaw, our head of cricket John Stephenson and other committee members will be having a meeting and one of the things they are going to be discussing is Kevin Pietersen's shot as the MCC have been asked to look at it by the ICC," he said.

Unlike bowlers, a batsman does not have to notify the umpires and bowler if they opt to reverse their batting style.

However, the shot raises a number of questions for umpires, including the lbw and leg-side no-ball laws.

But despite the controversy, Pietersen believed he has broken new ground with his stroke.

The first six flew over deep square leg boundary (for a left-hander) at Chester-le-Street, while the second bore more of a resemblence to a Marcus Trescothick slog sweep over the ropes at long-on.

"Reverse sweeps have been part of the game for however long, I am just fortunate that I can hit it a bit further," Pietersen said.

"Everybody wants brand new ideas, new inventions and that's a new shot." England one-day captain Paul Collingwood, who was standing at the non-striker's end as Styris bowled, admitted: "I covered my eyes as soon as he turned his body around.

"He did actually come up the wicket and said 'I was thinking about doing that in bed last night'."And Pietersen, who hit Sri Lanka spinner Muttiah Muralitharan for a six in similar fashion in a Test match two years ago, added: "We were in a position where I needed to push the accelerator and it worked. Nobody has seen it before.

"On other occasions it might not work but the most important thing is a convincing England victory.

"I play to win, I would do anything to win and the most important thing is we are 1-0 up.

"The key to it is to try to raise the bar on Wednesday again, hit our straps on Saturday and if we have a good week we will have won a series."

Asked whether he thought his switch-hits should be outlawed as he is effectively a right-handed batsman playing left-handed, he responded: "I don't agree at all. "To be honest, if you're playing right-handed you shouldn't even have the ability to hit left-handers for six like I do, so no, it's not a problem."

And Pietersen is determined that England do not let up against New Zealand in the remaining one-day fixtures.

"What the guys have done here, they've absolutely demolished New Zealand again. We want to make this a real tough trip for people coming here," he told BBC Radio 5 Live.

"We hammered them in the Test matches, we hammered them in the Twenty20, we hammered them again tonight, and we want to keep hammering them and send them home with absolutely nothing.

"5-0 would be great. They beat us in the one-dayers in New Zealand so we want to get it back."

To be I think thats a little harsh. If right footed football players can use their left foot and Ronnie O'Sullivan can use both hands to play snooker then why can't Pietersen play a few shots left handed.

Most right handed players can't even a ball left handed yet alone hitting a ball for 6 with your left hand. Fair play to him, if he's good enough to do it I think he should be able to.

What do other people think?

[davieG]

Don't they do it in the Twenty20 games?

[Tilley]

I think it's absolutely pathetic.

[DBEightyFive]

Agreed!! I think its crazy the question the legality of it, surely it shows initiative and forward thinking. Kids are going to see those shots and KP as a role model and the MCC is trying to piss all over the flames, they should be running with this, marketing it, advertising it in my opinion.

Cricket was going down the pan before the Indian Premier League came in and revived it (with big money obviously) and this new guy putting up money for England to play in West Indies.

[SamL]

Agreed!! I think its crazy the question the legality of it, surely it shows initiative and forward thinking. Kids are going to see those shots and KP as a role model and the MCC is trying to piss all over the flames, they should be running with this, marketing it, advertising it in my opinion.

Cricket was going down the pan before the Indian Premier League came in and revived it (with big money obviously) and this new guy putting up money for England to play in West Indies.

Couldn't agree more about the first bit. Personally, I don't think the MCC will do anything about it, surely they can't ban a shot? It's good for the game that new shots are being bought in.

I think it's great that he can change in the space of a few seconds it takes for the bowler to bowl the ball. If Pietersen or anybody else had to tell the Umpire that he was going to change his stance it wouldn't be as effective. It's just a tactic that seems to work very well so I think he should be able to carry on doing it.

[Corky]

This is a joke, but not uncommon. As soon as someone tries something different, the powers that be don't like it. Bowlers bowl all kind of delivery, like yorker, slower ball, bouncer, the batsman is rarely prepared for that, so it should be no different the other way round.

Get on with the bloody game MCC, and stop trying to deny invention. Crocket has moved on from 1895.

[davieG]

I'm sure as soon as someone tries it and is out it'll stop dead in it's tracks.

[lildave3]

What?!

That's crazy.

[Flynny]

The one-day game already makes life a deal tougher for the bowler. There's a fair few things analagous to this that a bowler isn't allowed to do, so to outlaw this would make sense and it's what I'd expect to happen.

[Lillehamring]

no worse than that guy who throws the ball side-arm rather than bowling it, he flaunts the law by keeping his arm straight, but it's clearly something very different to bowling.

[Sparky]

Certainly had me out of my seat , do the ICC really want to ban entertainment

[Flynny]

no worse than that guy who throws the ball side-arm rather than bowling it, he flaunts the law by keeping his arm straight, but it's clearly something very different to bowling.

When round-arm bowling originated before "proper" overarm? Not really.

[Head Honcho]

I think it's absolutely pathetic.

Why?

How can you have a batsman changing hands halfway through the bowlers run?

All the bowler needs to do is stop his run reset the field and start to bowl again-stalemate!

[RowlattsFox]

I don't see any reason to ban the shot, yes its not really fair on the bowling side because of the field settings but thats just unfortunate. If I was on the bowling side, I'd hoping the batsman tries this kind of shot, it worked for KP yesterday but most other times it might not.

KP started to change his stance very early and I think Styris had more than enough time to change the length of the delivery. It would be interesting if the bowler could change from a right hander to a left hander at the last minute, although I don't imagine many, if anyone, being able to do that.

[Jack]

I think he should be allowed to play the shot.

If you've got it, flaunt it and all that.

[Corky]

I think he should be allowed to play the shot.

If you've got it, flaunt it and all that.

Like my perfect square cut Bowlers always give me too much width (I'm a left-hander) so I carve them through the off-side.

[Lillehamring]

When round-arm bowling originated before "proper" overarm? Not really.

the point being that it is a rare (unique?) style in the modern game and, after a lot of huffing from others who can't bowl like this, it was allowed. KP does something that others can't do and so people get upset.

so, i say let him do it, and let the others catch up.

i'm sure we'll soon see an increase in 'round arm' bowling now, now people know they can do it, and there will probably be many who are better than this guy.

[Flynny]

the point being that it is a rare (unique?) style in the modern game and, after a lot of huffing from others who can't bowl like this, it was allowed. KP does something that others can't do and so people get upset.

so, i say let him do it, and let the others catch up.

i'm sure we'll soon see an increase in 'round arm' bowling now, now people know they can do it, and there will probably be many who are better than this guy.

Again: that's simply not true. There wasn't a load of huffing, and his bowling action has been done for decades, it just happens to be rare. It's allowed by the rules. Slinging's fine.

Pietersen's shot is also allowed by the rules, but it wrecks the flow of the game to such an extent that it won't be allowed. If truely ambidextrous batsmen start to do it, and all batsmen start working on being able to do something similar, it swings the balance of the game so much in their favour that it could easily become quite ludicrous. Allowing it to stand would set a dangerous precendent, Malinga's bowling does nothing of the kind.

[Ashley]

Pathetic.

[Joe.]

Am I missing something here? Is it not exactly the same as a reverse sweep, something which is allowed in the game?

[Jack]

Am I missing something here? Is it not exactly the same as a reverse sweep, something which is allowed in the game?

That's what I thought.

[Tevez]

Money and Arrogance is taking over cricket.

[Flynny]

Am I missing something here? Is it not exactly the same as a reverse sweep, something which is allowed in the game?

Not at all. A reverse-sweep doesn't involve a complete change in stance.

Money and Arrogance is taking over cricket.

What does that have to do with this?

[Joe.]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtm...ietersen115.xml

[Joe.]

Not at all. A reverse-sweep doesn't involve a complete change in stance.

But isn't it only the bowler who has to inform the umpire of a change of stance? I don't think it's the same for batsmen so surely Pietersen's technically doing nothing wrong?