Wide calls on a reverse sweep
Mad Hamish
the ball went well down the (standard left hander) leg side and wasn't
called wide.
The commentators reckoned that it was because he'd gone for the
reverse sweep but I couldn't find anything in the rules or one day
playing conditions that would justify that call, can anybody point it
out if it is there?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Andrew Dunford
"Mad Hamish" <newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote in message
news:08s147ptq7csgvml9...@4ax.com...
> During the 20-20 last night Mitch swapped to hit a reverse sweep and
> the ball went well down the (standard left hander) leg side and wasn't
> called wide.
> The commentators reckoned that it was because he'd gone for the
> reverse sweep but I couldn't find anything in the rules or one day
> playing conditions that would justify that call, can anybody point it
> out if it is there?
No, there is no such regulation so your commentator was wrong.
Although this is not mentioned explicitly in either the Laws or any ICC
Playing Conditions, the batsman's 'normal' stance is that in which he stands
at the point when the ball becomes live i.e. bowler starts his run up.
Sounds as though Johnson was unlucky. Mind you, I've never thought reverse
sweepers deserved too much sympathy.
Andrew
Yokel
>
>
> "Mad Hamish" <newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote in message
> news:08s147ptq7csgvml9...@4ax.com...
>> During the 20-20 last night Mitch swapped to hit a reverse sweep and
>> the ball went well down the (standard left hander) leg side and wasn't
>> called wide.
>> The commentators reckoned that it was because he'd gone for the
>> reverse sweep but I couldn't find anything in the rules or one day
>> playing conditions that would justify that call, can anybody point it
>> out if it is there?
>
> No, there is no such regulation so your commentator was wrong.
>
> Although this is not mentioned explicitly in either the Laws or any
> ICC Playing Conditions, the batsman's 'normal' stance is that in which
> he stands at the point when the ball becomes live i.e. bowler starts
> his run up.
>
It is mentioned in the Laws - Law 36.3 (part of the LBW Law) which
states that "Off" and "Leg" side are determined as you describe above.
So it does not also need to be included in the playing conditions
("special regulations").
It was brought in with the 2000 change precisely to deal with issues
caused by the "reverse" shots. It covers situations other than LBW -
for example if the batsman could change "off" and "leg" side by altering
his stance as the bowler runs up, you could in theory be "no balled"
(Law 41.5) for having set three slips and a gully to his original stance.
> Sounds as though Johnson was unlucky. Mind you, I've never thought
> reverse sweepers deserved too much sympathy.
>
This was discussed at some length by governing bodies and umpires
associations in the run-up to the 2000 Law revision. The concensus was
that if the batsman is good enough to play the shot, good luck to him -
and it entertains the crowd who pay to watch the game. When you
consider the other kooky shots now developed, where do you draw the line
anyway?
--
- Yokel -
Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.
Andrew Dunford
"Yokel" <yokelstev...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:w9udnQy5_sc1M9zT...@bt.com...
> On 09/08/2011 12:34, Andrew Dunford wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Mad Hamish" <newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:08s147ptq7csgvml9...@4ax.com...
>>> During the 20-20 last night Mitch swapped to hit a reverse sweep and
>>> the ball went well down the (standard left hander) leg side and wasn't
>>> called wide.
>>> The commentators reckoned that it was because he'd gone for the
>>> reverse sweep but I couldn't find anything in the rules or one day
>>> playing conditions that would justify that call, can anybody point it
>>> out if it is there?
>>
>> No, there is no such regulation so your commentator was wrong.
>>
>> Although this is not mentioned explicitly in either the Laws or any ICC
>> Playing Conditions, the batsman's 'normal' stance is that in which he
>> stands at the point when the ball becomes live i.e. bowler starts his run
>> up.
>>
>
> It is mentioned in the Laws - Law 36.3 (part of the LBW Law) which states
> that "Off" and "Leg" side are determined as you describe above. So it
> does not also need to be included in the playing conditions ("special
> regulations").
Ah yes, overlooked Law 36 - thanks.
> It was brought in with the 2000 change precisely to deal with issues
> caused by the "reverse" shots. It covers situations other than LBW - for
> example if the batsman could change "off" and "leg" side by altering his
> stance as the bowler runs up, you could in theory be "no balled" (Law
> 41.5) for having set three slips and a gully to his original stance.
Indeed.
Actually that's a minor quibble I have with the Laws in general -
definitions are not always where one might expect to find them. Clearly the
definition of "off side of the striker's wicket" given in Law 36.3 would
also be useful elsewhere, for example in Law 25 where it is not mentioned.
>> Sounds as though Johnson was unlucky. Mind you, I've never thought
>> reverse sweepers deserved too much sympathy.
>>
>
> This was discussed at some length by governing bodies and umpires
> associations in the run-up to the 2000 Law revision. The concensus was
> that if the batsman is good enough to play the shot, good luck to him -
> and it entertains the crowd who pay to watch the game. When you consider
> the other kooky shots now developed, where do you draw the line anyway?
Things are fine as they are, although I sympathise with the bowler who is
put off by seeing an early change of stance during his run-up.
Andrew
Bob Dubery
<newsunspammel...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
> During the 20-20 last night Mitch swapped to hit a reverse sweep and
> the ball went well down the (standard left hander) leg side and wasn't
> called wide.
stance when the bowler let the ball go?
Things have to be fixed at some point, otherwise a batsman could turn
legal deliveries into wides by hopping around.