Mark Nicholas in Cricinfo
Pity the umpire in the split second before the switch hit. ICC's
directive picks the moment that a bowler's back foot lands as the start
of the delivery. From this point the batsman can do as he pleases with
hands and feet but not before. Three times Kevin Pietersen made to
switch and three times Tillakaratne Dilshan pulled away from releasing
his offbreak. On the third occasion Asad Rauf warned Pietersen for time
wasting.
Incredible really. International teams bowl their overs at 13 an hour
and no one blinks an eye while the most thrilling batsman makes to
switch hit and finds himself on the wrong side of the law. Not Rauf's
fault, he is the messenger and one with a lot on his plate. Rauf could
not possibly have been sure of exactly the moment when Pietersen changed
his stance because he was watching Dilshan's back foot. Er, or was he
watching Dilshan's front foot, lest he no ball? Hmm, or was he watching
the return crease, lest he no ball there? Or was he intent on the
striker's end of the wicket, the business end, with the popping crease
in his peripheral? Or was he briefly somewhere else? Long days out there
in the Colombo sun.
David Warner's switch hit six over mid-off - or is it mid-on?- in a T20I
against India earlier this year rang the bells once more. Now Pietersen
has them clanging like Notre Dame. The switch hit is different from the
reverse hit because the batsman swaps his hands on the bat and rotates
his body 180 degrees, to become a left-hander in Pietersen's case.
Generally, the stroke is a plus for a game that is not completely sure
how to embrace the 21st century. When it is played successfully
spectators, quite literally, gasp in wonder. They talk about it, most
love it. We don't see it often because it is difficult, showy and takes
big cojones. It's right up Pietersen's street, and Warner's. Less so say
Andrew Strauss or Rahul Dravid. But they wouldn't want to stand in the
way of progress.
There are two things to consider here. Cricket's lifeline is the balance
between bat and ball. Given the bowler must commit to releasing the
ball from one side of the wicket and with a part of his foot behind the
popping crease, the batsman who is not so shackled must give something
away if he wishes to change striking position. This should be leg stump.
As the law stands, a batsman should not be given out lbw if the ball
pitches outside leg stump. A simple change to that law, effectively
taking the leg-stump advantage away from the batsman would even it up.
Thus, if you choose to switch hit you forego your leg stump and can be
lbw if you are hit between wicket and wicket either way round.
The second thing is the ICC directive mentioned above. Once the bowler
is at the point of delivery there is little he can do in response to the
batsman's move. The directive should be that the batsman may do as he
pleases from the start of the bowlers' approach to the crease. This way
the bowler has a better chance to respond and should not feel that
pulling way is his only defence. Were the lbw law changed, the bowler
would have an aggressive option and may even see the batsman's change of
stance as an opportunity to take his wicket.
From this more evenly balanced reaction to the switch hit would come the
conclusion that it is the bowler who is timewasting by refusing to
deliver. Not the batsman, who is bringing to the game his sense of
imagination and adventure.