PDA

View Full Version : Defintion of a 'wide' ball in ODIs...


al Furqaan
July 12, 2010, 04:41 PM
wide (noun, adj) A wide ball shall be called on any delivery if the umpire deems it too far away from either the body of the batsmen, his bat, or the stumps, or a combination of all three. Any ball which fails to contact any part of the batsmen or his bat down the leg side will automatically be called a wide. A wide ball shall be recorded as an extra, will necessitate that another legal delivery be bowled as compensation, and a single run shall be awarded to the batting team's total score.

If the offending bowler happens to be a Bangladeshi playing for Bangladesh, then a wide ball is simply any delivery which is too good for the batsmen to be hit. If the batsmen is Bangladeshi, a wide shall not be called unless the umpire is absolutely certain that the ball is at least 5 full bat lengths away from either the Bangladeshi batsmen, his bat, or the stumps, or any combination of all three.

wasi90lkv1
July 12, 2010, 04:43 PM
i do not think we should blame the "wides" for the loss. our bowling was bad, batting needed to be better.

al Furqaan
July 12, 2010, 05:01 PM
no one is blaming the wides...but they could have very easily cost us the 2nd match in bristol. we won with england needing 6 from 4, 6 from 4 with a set batsman is not exactly unthinkable...all you need is one boundary. that 6 from 4 should have been 9 from 4, but a rubel delivery got called a wide when it bounced at chest height...and the extra ball went for another 2 runs costing a total of 3. if u include all the wide ball double standards, it would probably have been something like 15 needed off the final 4.

we could have easily lost the Bristol match, although we thouroughly deserved to win, and did win despite the cockroaches masquarading as umpires.

numerous wides were NOT called on stuart broad that day, and today, at least 3 balls which bounced higher than rubels wide after the the no ball were similarlily not given. there were more, probably many more. broad bowled a straight up test length today. at one point, he had bowled 8 of 10 deliveries to ashraful at short length. given his height, ashraful's height, the bounce of the wicket it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize that at least half of those deliveries were probably wide.

to put into perspective, i saw the friggin pitch map of broads first spell...bowlers rarely bang it in like that in a test match. maybe in 60s they did, but even then England called for a 2 bouncer an over rule.

reyme
July 12, 2010, 05:10 PM
These umpires have no shame. Everytime they deliberately called a wrong call and a hair was lost due to that, they would be totally bald by now. When can we have a fair game without a single wrong call?

wasi90lkv1
July 12, 2010, 05:15 PM
when you play against a team like england in cricket, you can expect to get a few decisions against your way. the solution to this will be, try to create opportunities over and over.

i think the umpiring in this series was better than the umpiring during when england toured bangladesh. rod tucker and tony hill were worse i think.

Nafi
July 12, 2010, 05:18 PM
I couldnt believe the wide ball that was well below the head of 6ft 5 Stuart Broad.

A wide bouncer, is a ball that goes above a batsman full height. Not his batting position, otherwise batsmen could bend their knees and make themselves 4ft tall.

zainab
July 12, 2010, 06:19 PM
Even Asad Rauf was biased against BD, forget about the other colonial umpire.
Broad gets away with murder because his father is a match referee or a third umpire. I read it somewhere that umpires dont want to upset his father by penalizing him because they are in the same fraternity.
It is well known that the the brown teams will always suffer from unfair umpiring, especially BD, because the BCB is spineless to agree to umpires who penalizes BD. Hey, your own umpire was against BD and ruled in favor of England when England toured BD.

rahat90
July 12, 2010, 06:41 PM
i was at the ground today in edgebaston, and saw this huge debate in the middle. i was listening to skysports comentry on my earphone.

there was a particular delivery which razzaq bowled to trott (right hander) which went down the leg side. Trott attempted to play the ball via a 'switch hit', ie temporarily becoming a left handed batsman for that particular delivery.

according to the rule above a wide is when the ball is "too far away from either the body of the batsmen, his bat, or the stumps, or a combination of all three". but when one tries to switch hit, then a ball that would otherwise become unplayable as it is so far down legside, becomes playable, as the offside/legside are effectively 'switched'.
that brings a whole array of new issures, not only wides. it brings the question of would an lbw appeal be allowed for a switch hit, if it (prime facie) pitched outside leg?
nevertheless, razzaq was called for bowling a wide. im not too sure what the rule is on this matter, but most probs it seems to be that the offside/legisde would never switch despite any switch hit attempts.
if this is correct, i feel that this particular law definately needs reform

MatinSux
July 12, 2010, 06:48 PM
I don't think even the English team complained that much when their goal was taken away. Let me get this straight, are you complaining why Matin couldn't reach 6'5 Broad's bouncers? And what if he did reach those balls what exactly do you think he would've done with them? BAN won that match regardless & deservingly, and today 11 wides hardly mattered in the slug fest.

However, that Eoin Morgan lbw was something else tho.

BD Tigers
July 12, 2010, 09:49 PM
The consistency is not there with the umpires. Short balls from Broad, you'd think some of them are wides. As for the switch position where Rauf called a wide first, but then he changed that call after talking to the other umpire (this english umpire was very good at least)

Tigers_eye
July 12, 2010, 09:55 PM
...
If the offending bowler happens to be a Bangladeshi playing for Bangladesh, then a wide ball is simply any delivery which is too good for the batsmen to be hit. If the batsmen is Bangladeshi, a wide shall not be called unless the umpire is absolutely certain that the ball is at least 5 full bat lengths away from either the Bangladeshi batsmen, his bat, or the stumps, or any combination of all three.
QOTW.

:goal:
:goal:
:goal:

BANFAN
July 13, 2010, 01:55 AM
We all know the history of Umpires in Eng, India, Aus, Pak in their home series. Shobai churi korto, kom aar beshi. Ultimately third country umpires have come in to solve that problem. But still in ODIs/T20s one of the on field umpire still can be from home country, this stealing will continue until that's changed.

Umpires making mistakes un willingly is something different, we cannot eliminate human errors 100%. I think number of measures like referal system & more use of technology etc are already on trial to face that. I won't mind some errors despite all these, since it is again human beings who are translating the tech and limitations of technology is also there.

But those intentional stealing/churi is just annoying. illingworth's refusal to give collingwood out was disgusting, It was so huge a noise. If he doesnt hear that in English grounds, he will never hear a nick in subcontinent. Means he is unsuitable for umpiring without hearing aids.

Broad balls two consecutive bouncers over the head and If he doesn't see ball travelling 1 meter above batsmen's head, he can never be an umpire. Where as he is supposed to declare one above the shoulder and wide for the second.

Imteaz
July 13, 2010, 02:13 AM
Wrong way of judgement. :)

al-Sagar
July 14, 2010, 03:21 AM
also i want to expand the rules for LBW .......

when batsman is from BD, then u have to imagine two more stumps either side of the offstump and leg stump. that is a total of 7 stumps. also u have to imagine the height of the stump is 1.5 times higher. also any faint edge from bat gloves does not matter. and even if there is 99% doubt its OUT

but when bowler is BD only 1 stump counts. which stump umpire decides. also length of stumps wil be half. and if there is 1% doubt then out

mij
July 14, 2010, 04:19 AM
also i want to expand the rules for LBW .......

when batsman is from BD, then u have to imagine two more stumps either side of the offstump and leg stump. that is a total of 7 stumps. also u have to imagine the height of the stump is 1.5 times higher. also any faint edge from bat gloves does not matter. and even if there is 99% doubt its OUT

but when bowler is BD only 1 stump counts. which stump umpire decides. also length of stumps wil be half. and if there is 1% doubt then out

:up:

Baundule
July 14, 2010, 04:37 AM
Umpires are in tremendous pressure when officiating an Eng or Aus match. A few bad decision against those snobs can see an end of the umpire's career. So, they take the easier way.

Good post, AF bhai.

lamisa
July 15, 2010, 03:27 AM
shobai amader shathe churi kore ar amrao jodi shobar shathe churi kortam tahoileo ekta kotha chhilo.amader moni bhai o porjonto amader shathe churi kore,ki ar bolar!