You are in > manchester.com  > News > MCC will not rule against Pietersen's switch-hit shot

Cricket

MCC will not rule against Pietersen's switch-hit shot

17/06/2008

The MCC has given its backing to England's Kevin Pietersen over the controversial 'switch-hit' stroke he used in the recent one-day international against New Zealand.

At a meeting at Lord's today, the MCC - the guardian of the laws of the game, said the shot "will not be legislated against" and described it as "exciting" for the game of cricket.

Pietersen came under fire from traditionalists and some TV pundits for his use of the stroke during his unbeaten innings of 110 at Chester-le-Street, in which he changed his stance and grip from that of a right-handed batsman to a left-handed batsman.

After being told of the criticism the middle-order star refuted it out of hand, saying: "Everybody wants brand new ideas, new inventions and that's a new shot. Nobody has seen it before."

He also suggested the 'switch-hit' should be no more controversial than a reverse sweep - already an accepted cricket shot.

And it appears the MCC has given its backing to Pietersen to continue to use his revolutionary new tactic in future.

In a statement following today's meeting, the MCC said it noted the "superb execution" of the shot.

And it revealed it had already acknowledged its existence in Law 36.3 in the 2000 Laws of Cricket, which governs what is considered the offside and onside in relation to a batsman's stance.

However, the statement continued: "MCC accepts that the use of a 'switch-hit' may have implications for other laws of the game, principally Law 25 (wide ball) and Law 36 (lbw), and will continue to research and discuss these implications.

"MCC believes that the 'switch-hit' stroke is a difficult shot to execute and that it incurs a great deal of risk for the batsman.

"It also offers bowlers a good chance of taking a wicket and therefore MCC believes that the shot is fair to both batsman and bowlers.

"Furthermore, MCC acknowledges that while bowlers must inform umpires and batsmen of their mode of delivery, they do not provide a warning of the type of delivery that they will bowl (for example, an off-cutter or a slower ball).

"It therefore concludes that the batsman should have the opportunity - should they wish - of executing the 'switch-hit' stroke."