IPL 7: Intentional wide ball — where to draw the line?

In the MI vs RR game, there was a situation where a wide could have ensured qualification for Royals.

Written by Harsha Bhogle | Updated: May 30, 2014 6:18 pm

There was much drama in the last IPL league game between Mumbai Indians and Rajasthan Royals. It tested everybody’s presence of mind, but the lingering thoughts left behind are very interesting. And I think we might see a new approach to chasing targets when it gets really close.

Whenever something happens for the first time, it seems incredible because it is a leap in our knowledge, in our awareness of our profession. When a fielder first threw the ball back in, crossed the boundary line and returned to catch it, we were speechless. Now, most good fielders do it and in fact spend a lot of time practising catches by the boundary. When the first scoop was played over the keeper, we thought the batsman would soon need a dentist. Now, it has almost become the preferred shot for a tail-ender! The loopy bouncer, the wide yorker, the reverse sweep, all of them first evoked surprise and are now routine. So too the doosra, but that cannot be in this list because it is the outcome of administrators willing to look the other way with the laws of the game.

And so, I won’t be surprised if in future, we have the following situation. A team needs three to win to qualify on net run rate, the batsman gets a fine yorker that he knows he cannot hit for four but with the field spread back will happily tap the ball for two aware that he now has an extra couple of deliveries from which to hit one for six. With big bats and calm minds that might be a good bargain. And it is completely within the law and the spirit of the game.

But it now shifts the moral compass towards the bowler. As in the Mumbai Indians vs Rajasthan Royals game you could have a situation where one dot ball later, a wide could have ensured qualification for the Royals in spite of guaranteeing defeat in that game. Does the bowler wilfully bowl a wide then? There are a couple of issues to consider. For a start, it is not unknown for a fast bowler to let rip a bouncer, even if above head high, to send a message to a cheeky batsman. To that extent, it is an intentionally illegal delivery. And you do, wilfully, bowl a wide ball to get a stumping in any case.

Remember that by now the batsman is expecting it too and might adjust for it. Also, unless the wide ball is really wide, it is not entirely out of range for a batsman. And, purely for the sake of argument, what if you position short fine leg a yard and a half away from the leg stump and bowl it straight at him! There are so many possibilities that may not have been considered earlier. There are, I am sure, many more. For as Mohandas Menon pointed out to me, a no-ball is in fact a safer option because once the game is lost, there is no free-hit either.

Now, given the times we live in, there is another factor to an intentional wide or the no-ball. Can it attract the attention of anti-corruption? Admittedly, it is for tactical reasons and it isn’t a wide or a no-ball bowled in the middle of the game for no reason (as with the Asif and Amir episode). But think about it. A planned wide or no-ball guaranteed to alter the result of a cricket match? I would love to know what the establishment and the fans think about it and therefore, the precedent it would set. Would it almost legalise the intentional but exaggerated wide? And would that get the dark side of our game excited? And to take Mohandas Menon’s point about the no-ball further, as he himself points out, can you intentionally lose a match to win qualification? (Remember the Suraj Randiv episode where he bowled an intentional no-ball to end the game and thus prevent Sehwag from getting a century?)

On another note, I asked a couple of former bowlers if they would be willing to bowl a wide if it effectively meant winning and going through. One of them said he would be torn by the thought. The other said his primary responsibility towards the team was to win for them. And you can’t argue against that.

As you can see, we may have stumbled onto an interesting debate with tactical, moral and legal issues!

For all the latest Sports News, download Indian Express App now

  1. A
    Amitendra Kumar
    Jun 1, 2014 at 8:19 am
    I have a question here...if Royals would have bowled the wide...Mumbai would have got extra run without conceding any delivery so then they could have qualified so why are we discussing this..
    Reply
    1. A
      Ats
      May 31, 2014 at 12:47 am
      Sorry, please can someone explain how a wide-ball after the scores were tied would have won the Royals this game? Wouldn't the wide ball not be counted in the balls bowled....thus then it would still be within the target balls that the target got achieved...I know this is not the point of the article, but it is used as the basis, hence the question to clarify my understanding
      Reply
      1. E
        eswar sakamuri
        Jun 1, 2014 at 7:19 am
        Yes, I would rather bowl wide or no ball the ultimate goal is playing qualifier
        Reply
        1. J
          Josh Albright
          Jun 2, 2014 at 7:10 am
          "In the MI vs RR game, there was a situation where a wide could have ensured qualification for Royals."This statement is false. MI would have chased the target in 14,3 overs in that scenario, which is exactly what they were aiming for in the first place.
          Reply
          1. A
            anonymous
            Jun 2, 2014 at 7:08 am
            if there would have been a wide.. it wouldnt be a legal delivery.. and that means the target is chased in 14.3 runsso wat do you think that professional players didnt know it and you only figured it out.. lol.. wide means the delivery isnt counted.moron
            Reply
            1. M
              mitul goyal
              Jun 1, 2014 at 12:32 pm
              for the specific case of mi vs rr...wide would have actually helped mumbai qualify as they were one run short and didn't have deliveries to get it. With wide ,they would have gotten that run at exactly the no. of deliveries mentioned at the starting.as to the question of shoulkd the bowler do it or no is legal though immoralbut with the kind of game ipl has become...such tactic isn't incomprehensible and should be allowed.though doing such a thing in test or one day might be frowned upon
              Reply
              1. P
                Parag
                Jun 4, 2014 at 10:21 pm
                E.g. in this match, Scores were level at 14.3. If Falkner bowls 14.4 a dot then MI would need a boundary on 14.5 to win a game with qualification. However Falkner can bowl 14.5 a wide or a no ball and end the match then and there without giving MI batsman an opportunity to hit a boundary on 14.5. Therefore RR keeping their NRR above that of MI. Hope this explains it :-)
                Reply
                1. S
                  Simple maths
                  May 30, 2014 at 3:46 am
                  I don't get how wide can change result. It doesn't increases the no. of bowls/overs. In the IPL match, overs would have remained to 14.3 and the new requirement would become 4 - (1 wide) in 14.4.
                  Reply
                  1. R
                    Ramasubramani Hariharaiyer
                    May 31, 2014 at 8:10 am
                    I think Faulkner should hAve bowled a wide and allow Mumbai to win,but out of the tourney on run rate basis.After all when Mumbai team does not believe in FAIRPLAY (they are at the bottom of the table) why worry about FairPlay against them?Had Faulkner bowled a wide,Royals would have entered qualification round instead of Mumbai and Thayer highly deserved it
                    Reply
                    1. R
                      Ratnadeep Ray
                      Jun 2, 2014 at 7:52 am
                      No.. Read carefully what Harsha Bhogle wrote: "you could have a situation where **one dot ball later**, a wide could have ensured qualification for the Royals".Hence somehow Faulker had to make 14.4 a dot. Then he could have bowled a wide (or no ball) to make RR through.
                      Reply
                      1. R
                        Rohit Khale
                        May 30, 2014 at 7:12 am
                        It is not such a new thing. If you follow NBA players are intentionally fouled and free throws are given so that they don't run down the clock.
                        Reply
                        1. R
                          Rohith Daniel
                          Jun 1, 2014 at 1:16 pm
                          If he had bowled the wide, they would have reached the target within 14.3 overs. That means, MI would have qualified if it was a wide ball.You people forget how the game works ? Lol !
                          Reply
                          1. S
                            Saravan Krishna
                            Jun 1, 2014 at 7:11 am
                            Dear Harsha,Mumbai would have still qualified had RR bowled a wide because it would have meant that they chased it down in 14.3 overs as was required. Please correct it.
                            Reply
                            1. M
                              MIandMU
                              Jun 1, 2014 at 9:59 am
                              In the MI vs RR match, a wide/ no-ball would have ensured that the match ended in 14.3 overs. Than way MI would have qualified as they needed to chase the target in 14.3 overs.
                              Reply
                              1. T
                                tarun
                                Jun 1, 2014 at 9:11 am
                                The answer to this discussion lies in the premise of its subject only, I.e. the ball bowled by the Faulkner , it was a knee high fulltoss bowled outside leg stump by a bowler of caliber of Faulkner , the odds that he was trying to bowl a wide are much more than he was trying to bowl a yorker . In a way its a lesson for the bowler to try to do what you are best at rather than try to play stastics with the batsmen. For instance what are the odds that you bowl a perfect wide but it so perfect that it goes for a four???
                                Reply
                                1. V
                                  Venky
                                  Jun 2, 2014 at 5:46 am
                                  All the s who dint see " A dot ball later" That means a dot ball after tie and then a Wide ball.
                                  Reply
                                  1. V
                                    Vinayak Agarwal
                                    Jun 1, 2014 at 11:20 am
                                    Get your figures right. Intentional wide would have made RR lose as MI would have won in the 19.3
                                    Reply
                                    1. V
                                      Vipin Gupta
                                      Jun 1, 2014 at 8:51 am
                                      I think it would be perfectly legal to do it. And nowhere is it written in the rules of the game that bowling a wide ball is immoral. Essentially the other team has already lost the match and you need to ensure it by bowling a wide ball. Thats what it is.
                                      Reply
                                      1. V
                                        VJ
                                        Jun 5, 2014 at 10:26 am
                                        In case of MI vs RR its pretty clear.There would have been no need for the supposedly 14.4 dot ball. As MI would have won the game in 14.3 with 5.3 overs to spare. Doesnt not matter who says what.
                                        Reply
                                        1. Load More Comments

                                        IPL Fixtures

                                        TODAY

                                        36th T20

                                        04:00 PM (IST) April 30, 2017 .

                                        Kings XI Punjab vs Delhi Daredevils

                                        Punjab Cricket Association Stadium, Mohali
                                        TODAY

                                        37th T20

                                        08:00 PM (IST) April 30, 2017 .

                                        Sunrisers Hyderabad vs Kolkata Knight Riders

                                        Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium, Hyderabad

                                        38th T20

                                        04:00 PM (IST) May 1, 2017 .

                                        Mumbai Indians vs Royal Challengers Bangalore

                                        Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai

                                        39th T20

                                        08:00 PM (IST) May 1, 2017 .

                                        Rising Pune Supergiant vs Gujarat Lions

                                        Maharashtra Cricket Association Stadium, Pune

                                        40th T20

                                        08:00 PM (IST) May 2, 2017 .

                                        Delhi Daredevils vs Sunrisers Hyderabad

                                        Feroz Shah Kotla, Delhi