Ok, I am a newby umpire officiated my very first match. I have had this scenario where a left handed batsmen takes position left of his wicket(standing outside leg). Not closing his wicket at at all. The right handed bowler bowling over the wicket pitches a bouncing ball, the lefty ducs very low, the ball crosses over his head. The ball is passing on the leg side between the wicket and batsmen. Do you call this wide?
Left Handed Batsman Standing Outside Leg Stump
- Thread starter FrancisLG
- Start date
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Pretty sure it's not a wide. Don't know the ruling but have seen many batsmen 'followed' to the leg side by the bowler, swing and a miss, no wide is called.
A ball is wide is the batsman can't hit with a normal cricket stroke, and if he couldn't have hit it with a normal stroke if he was standing in a normal guard position. I would suggest standing outside leg stump is not a normal position, and that had he been in a normal position he could have hit it.
Depends on the format. Many limited over league rules now consider anything that passes behind the striker to be a wide, regardless of whether he could have played a glance, hook, or pull.
What?
If you take a leg, or two guard, you will be standing outside leg stump. Even middle would have you at least half way. I think you have this the wrong way round.
Last edited:
If the ball was between him and the stumps, and it was out of his reach then he'd be miles away from a normal guard. But actually it's not clear if that was the case.
If it goes between the striker and the stumps it's not a wide, unless by height.
Yep
On that basis we need to re-write quite a few laws.
So; not a wide (unless it was high).
Have you seen this happen?
"Leg side" for wides is considered to be that of the batsman; not of the stumps, no???
littlebabyjesus
If it's in front of the batsman any number of strokes can be played. If he's standing a yard or more off leg, he's a dick, and probably plays for my team.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This, definitely. When a batsman backs away, a bowler is entitled to follow him, but the bowler is also entitled to bowl at the stumps or just outside off as if the batsman hadn't moved. This isn't really any different. Likewise if a batsman tries some kind of dilscoop and moves over to the off side to do it, bowler can follow him but can also still aim at the stumps. Otherwise, you could have a ball hitting the stumps called wide!
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
No, just the one.
To Law 25 (wide ball)
Rules of Cricket
Add 1 (c) Irrespective of whether or not a ball is declared a wide, a batsman shall be given as out if he takes up a guard position that the umpire adjudges to be silly.
Yes. We agree. We have always agreed.
As we always do. On everything. You often get it right in the end.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Who plays cricket in this country in November?
It was not high, it was more a case of the bowler body lining the striker. I did not call it as wide.
