What constitutes a "wide" in limited overs games?

[jnaveen1980]

Watched several T20s in recent days. Wide interpretation is wildly varying. Mostly it is unfair on bowlers. With batsman making a pre-emptive move the position of wide guideline changes. They more or less apply it correctly when it is on the off side. Sometimes they still get it wrong.

But when it is down the leg and batsman moves to off side they don't apply the same interpretation. They call it a wide just because it barely misses the leg stump regardless of batsman's movement . If the batsman were to stand in his original position it would have hit his pad.

Hope there is some sort of standardization like another line next to leg stump. Also when it is between batsman and leg stump it should not be called a wide. In one of the India encounter it was called a wide.

 

[Sher Khan]

I think the "anything down the leg side is a wide" rule comes into effect because cricket deems it as a negative line. Whilst anything outside off within the wide margins is considered a score-able delivery.

 

[Sports_Psychologist]

I believe that line marking should be followed at all instances, it is the art of the batter to play the ball wherever he is standing from and the bowler shall only ball within the defined markings, this concept of bowler bowling a ball at far away from the wicket is just useless, bowlers should be able to hit the wickets if the batter movers, why not bowl a deadly yorker no matter what the batter is doing.

 

[jnaveen1980]

I believe that line marking should be followed at all instances, it is the art of the batter to play the ball wherever he is standing from and the bowler shall only ball within the defined markings, this concept of bowler bowling a ball at far away from the wicket is just useless, bowlers should be able to hit the wickets if the batter movers, why not bowl a deadly yorker no matter what the batter is doing.

I think Scott Styris talked about this during Asia cup. Why not hit the stumps if the batsmen move across.