Former Australian captain, Ian Chappell has added further to his stance against the switch hit. Chappell opines that the square-leg umpire could be given the authority to deem the ball ‘dead’ if he finds the batsman playing the switch hit.
Chappell, who earlier urged the ICC to ban the switch hit as it gives an unfair advantage to the batsman, has suggested the idea of declaring the ball dead in response to Simon Taufel’s belief that the on-field umpire already has too much to focus on.
Former umpire, Simon Taufel recently opined that it would be a highly challenging task for the standing umpire to monitor the feet of the batsman since he has to take care of plenty of things already.
The square-leg umpire can notice the change in feet of the batsman: Ian Chappell
Chappell has responded to Taufel saying that since the square-leg umpire is already looking closely at the batsman for stumping, hence he can observe the change in feet position if the batsman is trying to play a switch shot. He suggests that the umpire should declare the ball as dead if he feels that the batter is playing the unorthodox shot which Chappell so seems to have an issue with.
In his column for ESPNCricinfo Ian Chappell writes, “The respected former international umpire Simon Taufel suggested the already heavily burdened on-field officials would find it difficult to adjudicate on any switch of the hands or feet. With all due respect to a man who has done the job very effectively, I disagree.
“The square-leg umpire is already paying close attention to the batsman’s feet in case there is a stumping, so he’ll notice any change of order. If a batsman changes the order of his feet, then the square-leg umpire ought to simply declare the ball dead and no runs result.”
The 77-year-old reckons that if a batsman switches from right to left or vice versa, the field set by the bowler and the fielding captain becomes redundant. He maintains that it is unfair to the bowler.
Ian Chappell continues, “In the case of the switch hit, the batsman has one prime objective in mind: to make the bowler’s field placings redundant. Considering the bowler – in consultation with his captain – places his field taking into account the batsman’s style, how can it then be fair that the batsman becomes the opposite type of player with the bowler having no recourse to a change of field?