Question on Wides

Top Contributors
B

Boris

Active Member
Question on Wides

Always been puzzled by this:

In one day cricket, wides are anything down leg side. The switch shot is completely legal.

Does that mean if a right handed batsman were to walk across and switch hands, Kevin Pietersen style, for a left handed slog over mid wicket, does that mean they are then classified as a left hander?

Which means if a ball is pitched to land well outside off and continue that path, and the switch is made to the other hand, if it passes behind them (the 'new' leg side), is it now a leg side wide?

Speculate!
 
Re: Question on Wides

The stance the batsman initially takes up before the ball is bowled is the stance that is used for determining LBW's and wides
 
Re: Question on Wides

What counts as before the ball is bowled? Delivery stride?

Pietersen's switch shot see's him moving at the very start of the delivery stride. How early is too early?
 
Re: Question on Wides

AFAIK It's just whatever stance the first take, it doesn't matter when they switch. I do remember someone once being called for a wide after a switch stance (in the early days of switch hitting), but that was most likely a brain explosion from an umpire who had never seen a switch hit before
 
Re: Question on Wides

Well this is one strange rule I have never heard of.

So pretty much if you are left handed, you can take guard right handed. Half way through the run up you switch to left handed and leave anything on a good line and length as it will be a leg side wide...
 
Re: Question on Wides

That is where your beloved spirit of cricket come into it! The moment somebody tries to do that they will be given a stern talking to and that will be the end of it.

It would not surprise me to see the switch hit banned altogether at some stage, not least because it will clear up these type of ambiguities.
 
Re: Question on Wides

Even I wouldn't call switching like that against the spirit of the game... Leaving the ball with the intent of wides is, but not switching. Which means taking a swipe at the ball and missing would be a wide.

I don't want the switch hit to be banned. I think it's one of the new T20 style shots that could be developed greatly. Something that both batsmen and bowlers could make use of. I feel it's something that we will see more of.

I think to make it work though there has to be a change of the rule that says whatever side the bat is on when it makes contact with the ball is the offside. It then allows for everything I believe.
 
Re: Question on Wides

That doesn't stop the problem of batsmen switching to draw wides. A better rule would be that there is no leg side if a batsmen switches his stance, so a wide can only be given if the balls travels outside the guidelines on either side of the pitch.
 
Re: Question on Wides

a for effort;399125 said:
That doesn't stop the problem of batsmen switching to draw wides. A better rule would be that there is no leg side if a batsmen switches his stance, so a wide can only be given if the balls travels outside the guidelines on either side of the pitch.
Click to expand...

I like the thinking and it could easily be applied to the LBW rule as well which is weighed against the bowler in terms of the leg side (for good reason in normal circumstances)
 
Re: Question on Wides

Agree with that, but the LBW might be a bit hard there to interpret.

ODI wides are a touch to small an area anyway. The automatic down legside is a little harsh.
 
Re: Question on Wides

a for effort;399125 said:
That doesn't stop the problem of batsmen switching to draw wides. A better rule would be that there is no leg side if a batsmen switches his stance, so a wide can only be given if the balls travels outside the guidelines on either side of the pitch.
Click to expand...

this is the exact solution required. if the batsman chooses to switch hit, then he forfeits the right to wides provided the ball is within the guidelines on EITHER side. that way it doesnt make the switch hit yet another thing in favour of the batsman, but actually gives the bowler the upper hand. so the batsman will have to assess the risk vs reward and that makes things more exciting.

ultimately common sense from the umpires should prevail. but there is a lack of consistency sometimes, so having a guideline rule like this would make life easier.

they definitely shouldnt ban the switch hit. as a bowler i love it. some bowlers make the argument that the bowler has to specify their hand and their delivery method (e.g. right arm over), so the batsman should too. but the batsman can easily tell where the ball is coming from as soon as the bowler takes their delivery stride, which gives loads of time to react. so it would be of no benefit for the bowler to not have to specify this.

however as a bowler, you can almost always see the batsman adjust for the switch hit before you release the ball. so as long as you are prepared for what might happen, you can adjust the delivery accordingly. in nets a few batsmen have tried to switch hit my leg spin, and as soon as i see their hands move i adjust my delivery and often i clean bowl them. it needs the bowlers to get smarter, as the switch hit presents easy wicket opportunities. instead of them complaining.
 
Re: Question on Wides

Boris;399123 said:
I think to make it work though there has to be a change of the rule that says whatever side the bat is on when it makes contact with the ball is the offside. It then allows for everything I believe.
Click to expand...

No balls thenbecome an issue, to do with placement of fielders. I prefer the option that the batsman has forfeited the right to a leg stump by switching.

Furthermore wouldn't this deter batsmen from the concept of a lefty facing up right handed to be defined right handed only to continually turn and play left handed, by removing their right to outside leg protection for LBW?
 
Re: Question on Wides

Thumbs up;399263 said:
No balls thenbecome an issue, to do with placement of fielders. I prefer the option that the batsman has forfeited the right to a leg stump by switching.

Furthermore wouldn't this deter batsmen from the concept of a lefty facing up right handed to be defined right handed only to continually turn and play left handed, by removing their right to outside leg protection for LBW?
Click to expand...

A for Effort has the answer there. Mine was a quick stab at the answer without much thought.
 
Re: Question on Wides

keep the swich shot just make it if they swiched right to left you can have a wide unless it out side the white lines
 
Re: Question on Wides

Boris;399120 said:
Well this is one strange rule I have never heard of.

So pretty much if you are left handed, you can take guard right handed. Half way through the run up you switch to left handed and leave anything on a good line and length as it will be a leg side wide...
Click to expand...

Err no, If you are left handed and have initially take a right handed stance, why will the bowler bowl down the legside (for RHB) in the first place? that will be quite stupid (and negative) won't it ?

Bowl it wider on the offside for RHB, as soon as he switches it will be way down legside to hit properly and batsman loses.

No real issues with spirit of cricket here or anything. Moreover, switch hit is improvisation of reverse sweep, which was thought up to counter negative lines - (outside leg stump ) which became commonplace in 00s.
 
Re: Question on Wides

shrek;400973 said:
Err no, If you are left handed and have initially take a right handed stance, why will the bowler bowl down the legside (for RHB) in the first place? that will be quite stupid (and negative) won't it ?

Bowl it wider on the offside for RHB, as soon as he switches it will be way down legside to hit properly and batsman loses.

No real issues with spirit of cricket here or anything. Moreover, switch hit is improvisation of reverse sweep, which was thought up to counter negative lines - (outside leg stump ) which became commonplace in 00s.
Click to expand...

This is going on the One Day legside rules, anything down the legside of a batsman is automatically a wide.

So if they start as a RHB for example. If the bowler pitches just wide of off stump in that case, on a good length, that's a good ball. But if you pitch it in exactly the same place to a left hander, they can leave it and it will be a wide, since the switching of hands changes the off stump around as you know.

So if a LHB faces up as a RHB, draws the bowler into bowling that ball wide of off stump, then quickly switches to a LHB and leaves the ball, it's a wide everytime, for what was a good line.
 
Re: Question on Wides

Boris;400981 said:
This is going on the One Day legside rules, anything down the legside of a batsman is automatically a wide.

So if they start as a RHB for example. If the bowler pitches just wide of off stump in that case, on a good length, that's a good ball. But if you pitch it in exactly the same place to a left hander, they can leave it and it will be a wide, since the switching of hands changes the off stump around as you know.

So if a LHB faces up as a RHB, draws the bowler into bowling that ball wide of off stump, then quickly switches to a LHB and leaves the ball, it's a wide everytime, for what was a good line.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point an admin made earlier- for all practical purposes, the offstump and legstump shall be denoted by the stance taken at the start of bowler's runup.

Whatever may be the favoured side(even if he is an LHB originally but has taken a stance as RHB), he is considered right handed bat for that delivery. So, you may switch and say "Hey I'm an LHB now, that is going down leg" The answer still is "Not a wide".
LHB or RHB is not determined by the favoured side, but rather by the stance taken at start of hte run up. In that way the existing rule takes care that bowlers aren't penalized.
 
Re: Question on Wides

shrek;400989 said:
That's exactly the point an admin made earlier- for all practical purposes, the offstump and legstump shall be denoted by the stance taken at the start of bowler's runup.
Click to expand...

Which was the answer to my question, and it solved the problem so I thought.
 
Re: Question on Wides

Law 25: Wide Ball

1. Judging a Wide
(a) If the bowler bowls a ball, not being a No ball, the umpire shall adjudge it a Wide if, according to the definition in (b) below, in his opinion the ball passes wide of the striker where he is standing and would also have passed wide of him standing in a normal guard position.
(b) The ball will be considered as passing wide of the striker unless it is sufficiently within his reach for him to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke.

2. Delivery not a Wide
The umpire shall not adjudge a delivery as being a Wide
(a) if the striker, by moving, either
(i) causes the ball to pass wide of him, as defined in 1(b) above or
(ii) brings the ball sufficiently within his reach to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke.
(b) if the ball touches the striker's bat or person.
Click to expand...

My interpretation of this would be that, since a wide should be judged both on a normal stance AND the actual stance of the batsman at the time the ball reaches him, a reverse shot means that as long as the ball is close enough for it to be possible for the batsman to play a "normal" (i.e. reasonably controlled, bot not necessarily orthodox) cricket stroke, the ball will not be considered a wide whichever side the ball passes him.
 
I agree with a for effort - his idea makes more sense. the laws of cricket are still arachic and need up dating for the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top