Originally posted by FiveTimes
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
KP's new shot - legal or not?
Collapse
X
-
-
I think it should be allowed. Everyone keeps saying that bowler has to inform whether going over the wicket or around.Originally posted by Moscow Mule View PostYou've also got the "fairness" of the battle between bowler and batsman. The bowler has to inform the umpire if he's changing from around to over the wicket. KP didn't tell the umpire he was going to change to a left-handed grip.
If the batsmen is told to do the same then spinners should say before hand if they are going to bowl a leg break or off spin or even a googly!
At the end of the day a leg spinner is allowed to off spin and vice versa. So a batsman should be allowed to play whatever stroke he wants. He is taking the risk, not the bowler.Comment
-
Batsmen have been playing reverse sweeps and hooks for years. I remember Gough pulling one for six over third man for England. The difference here is that KP changed his grip, i.e. switched his hands around.Originally posted by realityhack View PostThere's nothing specifically in the rules about that AFAIK, except the 'fair play' edict as cited above. If the bowler has to inform the umpire if he decides to go over/around, then it's only fair the batsman does the same for right/left.
Doing that as late as the bowlers delivery stride means that the batsman has about half a second to get his lines and length right before swinging the bat. That makes it a much riskier shot. A good bowler should be pleased to see a batsman doing that.
I don't see it as a problem. It's nowhere near as serious as Muralitheran being allowed to bowl no-balls.Comment
-
Originally posted by stackpole View PostI don't see it as a problem. It's nowhere near as serious as Muralitheran being allowed to bowl no-balls.
Chuck
Comment
-
Yes, but I'm wary of that word. The BBC delete your posts on their 606 website if you say Muralitheran chucks. Do the admins on here let you get away with it then?Originally posted by BA to the Stars View Post
ChuckComment
-
chuckOriginally posted by stackpole View PostYes, but I'm wary of that word. The BBC delete your posts on their 606 website if you say Muralitheran chucks. Do the admins on here let you get away with it then?
chucky
chuck berry
up-chuck
HTH.Comment
-
I can't imagine Muralitheran's lawyers checking every internet forum in the world for potential libel so we're probably safe..."See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."Comment
-
I'm not a cricket fan, but I fail to see how it could be classed as cheating or unsportsman like. It's not like he built a brick wall or had a 2 foot wide bat or anything.Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.
I preferred version 1!Comment
-
The "Fit" hits the "Shan"Comment
-
Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers

Comment