Kevin Pietersen refused to let his brilliant 151 against Sri Lanka in Colombo be tainted by controversy after he was warned by the umpires for playing his switch-hit, despite him being the first England player to have been sanctioned in this way.

Pietersen, who reached his hundred with one of several switch-hits he played against Sri Lanka's spinners, was given an official warning by umpire Asad Rauf, after his intention to utilise the shot twice in two balls had caused the bowler, Tillakaratne Dilshan, to pull-up in his delivery stride.

Obviously, if the batsmen keeps threatening and the bowler keeps refusing, a stalemate ensues, which is presumably why the International Cricket Council's cricket committee introduced a directive in 2010 which allowed umpires to first warn batsmen and then apply a five-run penalty for a second offence, with the runs added to their opponents score.

The ICC's view is that a batsman must not set himself to play the switch hit or reverse-sweep either by altering his grip or stance before the bowler enters his delivery stride. Should the batsmen transgress, as Pietersen clearly did on several occasions here, the bowler can decide not to bowl the ball, which is what Dilshan did, albeit with a hint of overacting after the mauling Pietersen had already given him.

The ICC's stance contradicts that of MCC, the guardians of the Laws of Cricket, which saw no reason to ban the shot following the intense debate it caused when Pietersen first played it against New Zealand in 2008.

Their view is that such innovation is good for the game and that any extra risk-taking on the part of the batsmen should always be encouraged, a Corinthian approach at odds with ICC's prosaic caution. Both views have gravity, even if Pietersen's clearly lie with the MCC.

David Fuller's view Corinthian? As in a sporting rake? Elaborately elegant? Whatever, I side with the MCC.