Umpire's Decision?, Reverse sweep Options

[Stirer]

I posed this question in the last forum and didn't get a response:

A batter plays a reverse sweep - and misses the ball, which then hits him on the pad. THere's an appeal for LBW.

In deciding whether the ball pitched outside of the leg stump, does the umpire consider leg stump as being leg when the batter initially faced the bowler .... or is the leg stump the other one (which would have been off stump when facing up), when he had turned around in the crease to play the shot?

If the latter, then where do you draw the line ... if the batter was square on to the bowler when playing his shot?

If the former, then the batter playing a conventional offspinner, can turn and swish with gay abandon knowing that the ball will not get him out LBW.

[Guest_chinaman_*]

Evening, Stirer. How`s life as a newbie?

I answered this just before the changeover , but here`s my two cents again. As there`s no reference to this point in the laws , I think we have to assume that the leg stump has to remain the one on the batsman`s legside upon delivery , regardless what he does afterwards. I think this has to be the case. Otherwise (as you mention) a RHB facing an offspinner or a LHB facing a leggie/SLA could simply turn around and pad away any delivery outside off that he didn`t fancy playing , & I think there`s enough pad-play in cricket as it is. A bowler can`t bowl five deliveries as a right-armer then fire one in with his left arm , at least not without informing the batsman first , which renders it somewhat pointless. Besides , I think the bowler has the right to know where he has to pitch the ball , to get an LBW , before he delivers it.

[Guest_Cha Cha Cricket_*]

Hello, this is my first post so here we go lol!!!

The reverse sweep is played by tired batsman who tries to be inventive, or in the dieing stages in a limited overs stage where the best a batsman can achieve is a single and maybe the odd 4. It is not a pretty shot an i feel cricket can realy do without it, therefore some rules could come in to phase it out! A bastman should be able to be given LBM wherever the ball pitches and can be given out if the ball was not in line when the ball hits the pad. Commentators like Tony Greig always state that where do u call it a reverse sweep, where do u draw the line on whether it is a reverse sweep or not?? It is pretty obvious to decide if it is a reverse sweep, an umpire is more than qualified to make a judgement on that then he is to ajudicate a live LBW!!!

cha cha cricket.

[Guest_chinaman_*]

Agreed, it`s an ugly shot , with the rewards rarely worth the risk - it seldom seems to result in a 4 with a one-day field in place. I see it pretty regularly , played by piss-poor county batsmen in tedious domestic one-dayers , generally against non-spinning off spinners. I remember mike gatting pulling out a particularly bad example in the 1987 WC final , earning himself a lot of stick in the process

[Stirer]

Guys, I don't agree with you that it is a poor shot, or a tired shot. In any cricket (one-dayers or tests) it gives the batter another option in opening out the field. Jonty Rhodes was a classic; he hit many reverse sweep sixes in ODI's against some of the world's top spinners and even medium pacers. Jonty picked it up from a reverse hit in hockey - where he declined to play for the national team in favour of cricket.

I remember some commentators remarking that it was an unfair shot, and that the batter should have to indicate whether he was going to play the shot or not!!!! It's like asking the bowler if he was going to bowl a slower ball or a googly or whatever. It is plain and simple, another shot in the batter's armoury. It has to be played with skill and timing and confidence, otherwise it will look like a low-grade "agricultural shot". Cricket is all about innovation.

[Guest_chinaman_*]

Hmm. You make a good defence here , perhaps I should clarify/backtrack a little bit . I have no inherent problem with the shot as such - I don`t think it`s in any way unfair- nor do I deny that it can be played well ( with jonty certainly being the best). It`s just that it isn`t played all that well most times I see it in English domestic games , frequently being played when a drive might be a better choice

[Guest_AJSullivan_*]

In a spin bowlers perspective its a great shot! Im a leg spinner and if anyone ever plays it against me I am extremeley happy. To me it shows that they have run out of ideas and need to play risky shots to score some runs.

The chances of top adge are quite high as well as a chance of missing it all together which if hitting the pads gives a great LBW oppurtunity due to the fact that its pitched on or just outside OFF stump and playing across the line is not a great way secure you place at the crease (IMG:http://abcofcricket.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Guest_mindgames_*]

No doubt it is a risky shot but then one-dayers are all about risk-taking. It is a great shot to unsettle the bowler and create doubts in the captain's mind about his field placements if played well and regularly.

As for the debate about whether a RHB batsman should be considered a RHB or LHB (since hes playing a reverse shot), i think the umpire decides that based on the batsman's stance at the point of delivery as chinaman pointed out. In that case, the LBW decisions, wides, etc. are decided based on the batsman's stance at the moment of delivery.

By the way, has it ever happened that a batsman changed his stance before the ball being bowled and the umpire made his decision based on the stance at the point of delivery of the ball.

Also, what happens when a batsman has no stance (right or left) at the moment of delivery of the ball, that is hes facing the bowler straight, how does the umpire base his decisions in that case?

[Stirer]

Interesting point again, Mindgames. If it is BEFORE the bowler bowls, then the bowling team will obviously take the time to change the field to cater for the LHB to RHB or vice verse. If he changes while the bowler is running u to bowl and before delivery, then the bowler has the option of not delivering the ball (dead ball) or of continuing in the knowledge that the batter might be off balance, or not properly "settled".

If the batter is facing square on to the bowler, then I would imagine it depends on how he took guard. I remember an incident where a NZ batter (I don't remember who it was - perhaps McMillan) stood as a RHB as though the ball was being bowled by square leg umpire, and with both pads covering the stumps. This was obviously to unsettle the bowler - Shane Warne. He did this for the entire over or more, and still clobbered a few fours - driven through the covers!

[mrsingh]

Hi to all. I'm a new member in this forum. The discussion on this subject prompted me to register and say my bit.

I read with interest the discussion on the reverse sweep and the effect of his changed position for the purpose of LBW.
Since I am an umpire, I may be allowed to add my two bits worth. The 2000 code of the Laws of Cricket does provide for this situation. It says, in effect, that the position that the striker takes when the ball comes into play (i.e. when the bowler starts his run up) will determine what is leg stump and what is off stump.
In the situation that Admin mentions where the striker stands square, I'd treat him as a LH or RH batsman depending on the guard taken. If he doesn't take guard, as some few batsmen do, I'd decide on the basis of his grip on the bat, (quite outside the scope of the Law, actually) and (don't tell anyone I said so), make haste in giving the smart aleck out LBW.
regards to all....

ps I can handle any queries you might have on the Laws. My pleasure