The switch hit has created waves throughout the cricketing fraternity. While a few like Ricky Ponting & Co. have appreciated Kevin Pietersen's new innovation, others like Australia's outspoken Ian Chappell have panned it.

I have no issues with the new shot - the only issue I have is that the MCC hasn't cared to review the leg before rule, the wide rule and every other related rule in the book before giving the switch hit the all clear.

How is the switch hit different from the regular reverse sweep? That is now a productive shot for many batsmen around the world like Matthew Hayden, Virender Sehwag and Younis Khan. The problem is that the reverse sweep is played without the batsman changing his stance, which means a right-handed batsman's back faces the square leg boundary before the ball is bowled and, even as he plays the shot, the off side and the on side with respect to the batsman don’t change at all.

The switch hit, on the other hand, is played with the right-handed batsman becoming a left-handed batsman - what was the off side becomes the on side and the leg stump is now the off stump. And all of this happens as the bowler bowls his delivery.

The fact that so much thought has been put into the creation of such an innovative shot and its skillful execution must certainly be appreciated. However, there are so many grey areas with respect to other cricketing rules when such a shot is brought in that either there has to be a radical rethink over the laws, or else the switch hit must be deemed illegal. And here's why...

1. The fielding captain and the bowler put a lot of thought into the field placing before a ball is bowled. But sadly, even with perfect field placing and after bowling the ball in the perfect spot, the batsman can make all planning totally redundant by simply switch hitting. The fielders cannot run and change their positions while the bowler is running up, and certainly not during the fielding restrictions.

2. The switch hit makes it difficult for a batsman to be given out leg before wicket. Consider this: A right-handed leg spinner bowling around the wicket tries to pitch the ball outside leg stump and spin the ball inwards. As the ball is being bowled, the right-handed batsman suddenly becomes a left-hander and tries to pull off a slog sweep. He misses the ball and it spins in and hits him in line with the stumps. But, under the existing lbw rules, the batsman cannot be given out leg before because the ball has pitched outside leg stump. So, we either have to ban the switch hit from cricket or modify the existing leg before rules to incorporate the new shot.

3. Before every over, the bowler has to inform the batsman, via the umpire, which hand he is going to use and which side of the wicket he is bowling from. If the batsman can simply change his stance midway through an over without informing anybody, why can't the bowler be given that liberty to surprise the batsman? If a bowler can't change his side during an over, if a fielder can't move outside the 30-yard circle while a ball is being bowled on spotting a switch hit, why should a batsman be allowed to make a mockery of the rules and get away with it?

4. The current cricketing laws permit no more than three fielders between square leg and the wicket keeper on the on side. To echo Ian Chappell's thoughts, consider the following: A team needs one run to win off the final ball with only one wicket in hand. With three slips and a fine leg in place, all the batsman needs to do is simply swap sides and attempt a shot - any shot. The ball should automatically be deemed a no-ball by the umpire or, worse, could now be called a wide if it drifts down what is now the batsman’s leg side. The batting team wins regardless of the outcome of the final ball.

If the cricketing authorities are thinking that teams are not mulling over such a possibility, they are certainly under-estimating the intellect of the cricket playing fraternity. It is only a matter of time before we see a closely-fought match end in such a farcical way. After all, the ICC & MCC had to wait for a Trevor Chappell to bowl an underarm ball to realise the vagaries of the laws. Perhaps they should have thought over the ramifications of legalising the shot before jumping the gun.

Really, with such laws and batsmen with bats whose edges are as thick as the front face, who would want to be a bowler nowadays? If this is an indication of the things to come, I suggest we do away with bowlers altogether and replace them with machines.