"Switch-hit"

[Lord]

switch hit that is.i feel it is totally unfair to the bowlers.reverse sweep is okay.but not this.what happens if the batsman is hit on the pad?is he a leftie or rightie?

[cowboysfan]

to be fair it is unfair to the bowler and the fielding team but it is fun to watch and not many can do it-its fine with me.

[coffee_rules]

No problem if somebody is freakish enough to attempt it. The same was said about reverse sweep as well.

[Lord]

to be fair it is unfair to the bowler and the fielding team but it is fun to watch and not many can do it-its fine with me.

even pick pocketing is difficult to master(n fun too wen it happens to someone else),so that should be allowed too really wierd logic!

[cowboysfan]

even pick pocketing is difficult to master(n fun too wen it happens to someone else),so that should be allowed too really wierd logic!

how many people can really hit that shot?.its really tough trust me.if the batsman wants to take the risk and also the risk of given out lbw for both sides of the wicket then why should we be worried?

[diegovegaz]

switch hit is unacceptable the feild is set for a right hander, and cricket is purely based on rules and it ought to be played by rules a batsman, switching, should be treated as breaking a rule, and certainly be made to pay a penalty

[flamy]

did he do it this match?

[cowboysfan]

did he do it this match?

he hit a six off bhajji.

[f.b.m]

I'm fully for the switch hit. Anyone with the audacity or the talent to play such a shot deserves to. But on a similar note, why the fark does the bowler have to make a special note when he's switching hands to bowl?? Stupid batsman based game.

[Lord]

how many people can really hit that shot?.its really tough trust me.if the batsman wants to take the risk and also the risk of given out lbw for both sides of the wicket then why should we be worried?

then right arm should be allowed to bowl left arm without notifying the batsman.after he is taking the risk of screwing up his lines n getting hit,shouldn't he?

[cowboysfan]

then right arm should be allowed to bowl left arm without notifying the batsman.after he is taking the risk of screwing up his lines n getting hit' date='shouldn't he?[/quote'] yes-thats unfair like fbm pointed out.

[The Outsider]

I'm for it as long as the umpire is willing/allowed to give leg before wicket on such an attempt according to a left/right hand batsman.

[Ram]

No switch hits should not be given out, especially for right arm spinners who bowl around the wicket, landing the ball 2 feet outside leg-stump. The moment the bowler decides to do that, he knows he isnt going to get an lbw and mostly, its a defensive tactic and so, its essentially the batsman who's taking the initiative to try something different so that he can score and take the game forward. So, the batsman should not be punished for his ingenuity, because its a defensive line that does not deserve an lbw decision. However, this whole argument becomes irrelevant when a bowler is bowling a normal outside-the-off-stump line and the batsman is trying the switch hit just to mess with the field settings.

[Lord]

No switch hits should not be given out, especially for right arm spinners who bowl around the wicket, landing the ball 2 feet outside leg-stump. The moment the bowler decides to do that, he knows he isnt going to get an lbw and mostly, its a defensive tactic and so, its essentially the batsman who's taking the initiative to try something different so that he can score and take the game forward. So, the batsman should not be punished for his ingenuity, because its a defensive line that does not deserve an lbw decision. However, this whole argument becomes irrelevant when a bowler is bowling a normal outside-the-off-stump line and the batsman is trying the switch hit just to mess with the field settings.

there r other ways to take the game forward.bowler is already punished bcoz he cant get lbw.n if it doesnt turn toward batsman,umpire can call wide

[Ram]

there r other ways to take the game forward.bowler is already punished bcoz he cant get lbw.n if it doesnt turn toward batsman' date='umpire can call wide[/quote'] Yes, but when a bowler even DECIDES to bowl the ball outside leg-stump, he automatically foregoes his right to claim an lbw decision of that delivery, irrespective of how the batsman treats that delivery.

[DomainK]

I'm for it as long as the umpire is willing/allowed to give leg before wicket on such an attempt according to a left/right hand batsman.

No switch hits should not be given out, especially for right arm spinners who bowl around the wicket, landing the ball 2 feet outside leg-stump. The moment the bowler decides to do that, he knows he isnt going to get an lbw and mostly, its a defensive tactic and so, its essentially the batsman who's taking the initiative to try something different so that he can score and take the game forward. So, the batsman should not be punished for his ingenuity, because its a defensive line that does not deserve an lbw decision. However, this whole argument becomes irrelevant when a bowler is bowling a normal outside-the-off-stump line and the batsman is trying the switch hit just to mess with the field settings.

I think if a batsman switches, an LBW should be given irrespective of which side the ball pitched. A few things are getting upset with a switch. And we should have rules for those. I am all for it as long as the LBW and wide (in ODIs) rules are in place. If a batsman is ambidextrous, why not?

[Ram]

I think if a batsman switches' date=' an LBW should be given irrespective of which side the ball pitched. A few things are getting upset with a switch. And we should have rules for those. I am all for it as long as the LBW and wide (in ODIs) rules are in place. If a batsman is ambidextrous, why not?[/quote'] A batsman's switch doesnt change the fact that ball was pitched outside leg-stump, which is by default a defensive line and hence cannot be given out.

[Ram]

Something related to the whole business of switch hitting; When batsman either reverse sweep or switch hit, they generally shuffle their feet to get into position. But KP, to save time with footwork, literally makes a jump to face the other side. Kinda looks hilarious on T.V. Man, he is so unique. :D

[cowboysfan]

I think if a batsman switches' date=' an LBW should be given irrespective of which side the ball pitched. A few things are getting upset with a switch. And we should have rules for those. I am all for it as long as the LBW and wide (in ODIs) rules are in place. If a batsman is ambidextrous, why not?[/quote'] i agree to this but right now the rules does not allow it-if a batsman is a right hander initially then he will be treated as such even if he switches completely -so a ball pitching outside the leg for a righthander will not result in a LBW irrespective if it plumb for a switch hitter who has changed to a lefthanders grip and stance.

[Lord]

Yes' date=' but when a bowler even DECIDES to bowl the ball outside leg-stump, he automatically foregoes his right to claim an lbw decision of that delivery, irrespective of how the batsman treats that delivery.[/quote'] suppose an offie is bowling normal over the wicket stuff.the batsman switches & is hit on the pads.would u say he is hit outside leg?