Talk:Wide (cricket)

message: Why is there a definition of what happens when a "ball" is pitched in baseball?
--Caverra47 09:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ball" Definition 

message: If the bowled ball hits the batsmen's bat or person, it is NOT a wide.
Some people reading the article might not realise this.
The problem is that the following sentence is not quite clear enough:
A batsman may not, by definition, be out bowled, leg before wicket, caught, or hit the ball twice off a wide. He may be out handled the ball, hit wicket, obstructing the field, run out, or stumped.
In my experience there are often people saying you can't be caught off a wide (due to the above sentence).  They think that they hit a wide ball and shouldn't be out caught.
From the rules of cricket it says:
2. Delivery not a Wide
The umpire shall not adjudge a delivery as being a Wide
(b) if the ball touches the striker's bat or person.
Rule 2b needs to be more clearly stated in the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.205.209.100 (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity of what isn't a wide 

message: The statement is made here that a ball that is too high to hit is a Wide. That is not right. It is a popular misunderstanding because of differences between the governing rules in professional cricket, and because of historic definitions.
The clue is in the name. It is a Wide. The 2000 (current) version of the Laws of Cricket removes previous references to 'so high over or so wide of the wicket,' and now talks in Law 25 only about a Wide being wide.
 
In the Laws now, a bouncer over head height is a No ball according to Law 24, and any beamer over shoulder height (often over waist height) is an unfair or dangerous No ball according to Law 42. Being a No ball affords the batsman more protection than being a Wide because, above the stated heights, even if he does hit it - or it hits him - he can't be out in most ways, and the run penalty for a No ball is always applied.
The Laws are modified in professional cricket by the ICC Playing Regulations, and otherwise, so that any bouncer over head height is a Wide, and repetition of bouncers over *shoulder* height are No balls, according to which type of cricket is being played, e.g. T20 allows one such bouncer per over, Test cricket two. See No ball
Atconsul (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Ball too high to hit is not a Wide in Law 

message: The article states that umpires have become stricter in interpreting Wide balls.
That may be true, but more significantly the Law has become stricter on purpose. 
Law 28 of the 1947 code stated simply that a Wide ball "passes out of reach of the Striker, and would not have been within his reach when taking guard in a normal position."
Law 25 of the 2000 code states that the ball is a Wide "if it passes wide of the striker where he is and which also would have passed wide of him standing in a normal guard position ... unless it is sufficiently within his reach for him to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke."
By these words, the Lawmakers intended to make the definition stricter, and it is. The Law does not say what a "normal cricket stroke" is, and amateur interpretations of it vary with interesting results. But it is simpler than it seems: Let the batsman stand still as he normally takes guard. Now imagine that he tries to hit the ball without moving either foot. If he cannot get a full bat on it (not just the toe), it is not sufficiently within hs reach. The area of balls that pass within reach on this principle is rather circular, so if the ball is quite low or quite high as it passes the batsman, it will need to be nearer to him in width to count as a good ball. 
The definition does not depend on the state of the game, the skill of the batsman or his ability to play 'normal strokes,' it does however depend on the size of the batsman and the angle of the ball.
This Law is more harsh on legside Wides in particular. It does not require a batsman to attempt to open up his stance to play a leg shot, and if the ball passes wide of his heels, he cannot hit it, so it is a Wide. If he does open up his stance and try to play it, he may bring the ball within reach, and therefore lose the protection he is otherwise afforded. Atconsul (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increase in Wides is also a matter of Law, not just of Interpretation