• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Interesting hypothetical rule question...

AlanJLegend

U19 Vice-Captain
I was discussing this with my friend earlier, we are not exactly sure what would happen.

Suppose the scores are level so the batting side needs 1 run to win. They have lost 9 wickets, so if the fielding side takes one more wicket the match will be a tie.

The bowler bowls a wide, but the batsman is stumped off it.

What would happen? Would it be a tie or would the batting side win?


I believe that the batting side would win; despite losing their last wicket, they also recieved the winning run. I think the match would be recorded as '*batting team* won by 0 wickets".


Anybody know the correct ruling in the situation? Or am I forgetting something simple?
 

Somerset

Cricketer Of The Year
I'm no expert with regards to umpiring and scoring in those situations but would take a guess that the wide would be recorded before the stumping, indicating game over and a win to the batting side by 1 wicket. Although would also be interested to hear if anyone with a full understanding of the laws could explain either way.

How about under the same situation with one run to win and one wicket in hand, if the bowler bowls a wide but the batsman hits his own wickets, either before or after the wide is signalled - what would happen in that case? Must be a pretty uncoordinated batsman to do so, admittedly, but just raising the point.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Re. the original post: Not sure, but I'd think the batting side would win by 1 wicket, as chronolgically they scored the run before the wicket was taken, so therefore the wicket wouldn't be registered.

Cracking question though.
 

Ausage

Cricketer Of The Year
How about under the same situation with one run to win and one wicket in hand, if the bowler bowls a wide but the batsman hits his own wickets, either before or after the wide is signalled - what would happen in that case? Must be a pretty uncoordinated batsman to do so, admittedly, but just raising the point.
9 wickets down, and Chris Martin steps up to the crease.
 

SirBloody Idiot

Cricketer Of The Year
However, for Martin to hit his own wickets it would likely require some footwork which contradicts his superb "Learn How to Bat" DVD.
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
What would the scenario be if batsman X was on 98* on the last ball needing 1 to win and he ran the second to bring up his century to get run out?

Win by 1 wicket? Can you run two after you've won? Pretty sure you can't but worth asking.
 
I'm no expert with regards to umpiring and scoring in those situations but would take a guess that the wide would be recorded before the stumping, indicating game over and a win to the batting side by 1 wicket. Although would also be interested to hear if anyone with a full understanding of the laws could explain either way.

How about under the same situation with one run to win and one wicket in hand, if the bowler bowls a wide but the batsman hits his own wickets, either before or after the wide is signalled - what would happen in that case? Must be a pretty uncoordinated batsman to do so, admittedly, but just raising the point.
According to the laws of Cricket a wide is considered a wide from the instant the ball is released by the bowler regardless of when the umpires calls wide.
 
What would the scenario be if batsman X was on 98* on the last ball needing 1 to win and he ran the second to bring up his century to get run out?

Win by 1 wicket? Can you run two after you've won? Pretty sure you can't but worth asking.

No, game ends the instant they pass the target score.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
According to the laws of Cricket a wide is considered a wide from the instant the ball is released by the bowler regardless of when the umpires calls wide.
:huh:

Law 25 (Wide ball) - Laws - Laws of Cricket - Laws & Spirit - Lord's

1. Judging a Wide
(a) If the bowler bowls a ball, not being a No ball, the umpire shall adjudge it a Wide if, according to the definition in (b) below, in his opinion the ball passes wide of the striker where he is standing and would also have passed wide of him standing in a normal guard position.

(b) The ball will be considered as passing wide of the striker 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.

2. Delivery not a Wide
The umpire shall not adjudge a delivery as being a Wide
(a) if the striker, by moving,
either (i) causes the ball to pass wide of him, as defined in 1(b) above
or (ii) brings the ball sufficiently within his reach to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke.

(b) if the ball touches the striker's bat or person.
How can you judge a wide until after the ball reaches the batsman?
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
As above, if the wide is considered from as soon as the ball is released, then the stumping would not count and the game would be over. That was an interesting question, didn't know the answer off the top of my head.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Pretty sure it's come up a few times before. Didn't know the answer off the top of my head either, though. :D
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
As above, if the wide is considered from as soon as the ball is released, then the stumping would not count and the game would be over. That was an interesting question, didn't know the answer off the top of my head.
8. Out from a Wide
When Wide ball has been called, neither batsman shall be out under any of the Laws except 33 (Handled the ball), 35 (Hit wicket), 37 (Obstructing the field), 38 (Run out) or 39 (Stumped).

Would be out.
 
8. Out from a Wide
When Wide ball has been called, neither batsman shall be out under any of the Laws except 33 (Handled the ball), 35 (Hit wicket), 37 (Obstructing the field), 38 (Run out) or 39 (Stumped).

Would be out.
Nah you dont understand the hierachy of the calls. Once the wide is bowled the game is over and no further actions will be recorded.

Refer to law 21,6,A if you are confused.
 
Last edited:

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I've actually seen this happen. Well, to an extent anyway - it was only the third wicket so it didn't effect the result of the game, but there was a debate over whether the batsman finished not out or not after being stumped off a match-winning wide. He was deemed not out in the end so the situation in the first post would see a one-wicket win, as suggested by SS.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Great question.

There's another query which raises a similar issue of whether you approach things strictly chronologically (along the lines of "it was a wide before it was a wicket").

Suppose a batsman needs one run to score the game, and hits a four, but before the ball reaches the boundary he and his partner complete one run. How many runs does the batsman score? My understanding is that they only score one, presumably on the "strict chronology" basis, harsh though that would be on a batsman who's on 96 not out before facing that last ball.

I'm not 100% convinced that the "strict chronlogy" approach should necessarily apply in either case.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
He would indeed score 97. Watch the end of the Trent Bridge 05 Test. Ashley Giles hits it for four, but runs two before the ball reaches the boundary, and England's score goes from 127 to 129, rather than 131.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
You da man.

I think this was a relatively recent rule change, and I seem to remember people (Frindall?) kicking up a fuss about it on the basis that it was illogical. Can't remember quite what the reasoning was though.
 

Top