WIDE rule

[blazer-glory]

Im a little confused by the WIDE rule. Ive seen balls go down the leg side not far from the batsmen and yet be called wide. Can someone explain it for me??

 

[manee]

If it is down the leg side (of the batsman, not the stumps) in a limited overs' match, it is automatically a wide.

 

[blazer-glory]

Thanks

 

[Sureshot]

If it is down the leg side (of the batsman, not the stumps) in a limited overs' match, it is automatically a wide.

Unless the batsman ran across his off stump, the ball passed his off-stump, but went behind his legs. But that's unlikely to happen, although I could see it happening with KP.

 

[sohum]

It's gotta be down the line of leg-side as far as I know (and not go "through" the batsman). As Sureshot pointed out, if the batsman moves around, then the going down the leg side of the batsman isn't applicable any more.

 

[harishankar]

Many people would be confused, because the wide rule is one of the most ambiguous rules in cricket and different umpires use their own standards.

It's a bit of a ridiculous situation, but I've seen some matches won and lost on the fact that an umpire gives a wide when it's not one or doesn't give it when it's clearly a wide.

 

[Owzat]

In Tests I would have the umpires call wides if the bowling side is reckoned to be deliberately bowling the ball consistently outside off stump. Legside wides should be tightened up on too.

As for one dayers, is there any reason why TV can't have markers on the screen and the TV umpire call them? Assuming he is watching the game as it happens it shouldn't take him any longer to shout wide in the umpire's ear than it would for the umpire to think about it and judge. If it is clearly wide then no worries, if it isn't so clear then the TV replay umpire can call it. Even if he misses one or two it will be fairer than leaving it to umpires on the field who have enough to do and don't have TV to aid them make their calls.

I think use of technology is inevitable, so many watch TV and see umpiring mistakes that are made without having the same TV replays to make their decision. How can you judge if a ball is outside leg stump on one full speed view of the delivery? What I find funny is we have twenty replays for run outs, drinks breaks when fielders can get a drink any time and the batsmen may have only just got to the crease, and we'll have half a dozen replays to see if the ball crossed or touched the ropes to decide fours which may add ONE run to the total. And yet the commentary teams continually question why sides don't bowl 15 overs an hour. It's easy to waste time, most of the time is wasted with drinks and replays anyway. So why use a replay to see if a four is a four and not if a batsman is out? Surely a wicket can be much more crucial to a result than a single run? To err is human, to err when you have technology is surely daft?

 

[Sureshot]

It is up to the umpire's discretion, which is why sometimes people don't like a wide being called, as they think it wasn't. However, I think most of the times it's given correctly. Bowlers tend to be a bit more annoyed with the wides given for a short ball going over the batsman's head.

 

[manee]

Unless the batsman ran across his off stump, the ball passed his off-stump, but went behind his legs. But that's unlikely to happen, although I could see it happening with KP.

You're right, I had to go to the nets and just jotted down a quick answer. I probably should have said "of the batsman, and the stumps".

 

[Adarsh]

The rule really needs to be tightened. Really needs to be. Here are some situations where it's really ambigious:
1) When the ball pitches within the stumps but spins so much that it's out of the batsman's reach. Some umpires give that as a wide, while others don't. Needs sorting out.
2) When a reverse sweep is played and the ball goes down the initial stance's legside. Again, ambigious, I've seen it go either way.
3) When the batsman gives himself room, the wide margin increases to anywhere down his legside to the initial margin outside the off stump.

 

[usy]

see if the ball is really wide, but the batsman tries to plays the shot by reaching for the ball and it goes just under his bad, even though no contact is it counted as a wide or normal ball, as Batsman could have hit it.

I've seen lots of fights in streets for that reason!

 

[sohum]

The rule really needs to be tightened. Really needs to be. Here are some situations where it's really ambigious:
1) When the ball pitches within the stumps but spins so much that it's out of the batsman's reach. Some umpires give that as a wide, while others don't. Needs sorting out.
2) When a reverse sweep is played and the ball goes down the initial stance's legside. Again, ambigious, I've seen it go either way.
3) When the batsman gives himself room, the wide margin increases to anywhere down his legside to the initial margin outside the off stump.

While these situations are ambiguous, I think leaving it up to the umpire's judgment is fine as long as they apply it consistently. I think specifying rules to too much of standard will lead to silly rules where the batsmen gets away "playing" a shot to a perfectly decent LBW appeal from an off-spinner.