Possible Guide Lines for Wides

[Acumen]

In many televised limited over competitions, there are additional lines marked on the pitch 17" inside the return creases. These are used exclusively as indicators for OFF-SIDE wides.

This might be a way to improve uniformity amongst umpires if we all adopted such a measure. The definition of a leg-side wide is unaffected by this introduction.

A photo of such markings is attached supplied by Keith Healey and Derek Bloor.

Has anyone had any personal experience of this idea? What are your views?

Attachments:

[johnfgolding]

Just got back from a T20 tournament where they had the lines.
Yes they can be useful, but there still can be an offside wide inside those lines.
It confuses the hell out of some batsman & bowlers.

[missingleg]

Does anyone else feel those lines are extremely harsh? So many balls between the return crease and the lines are easily there to cut or cover drive. Also, they don't take into account that it's harder to hit lower balls. Finally, what if the batsman steps outside his off-stump to bring the ball even further within reach, and what about the relative reach of each batsman?

[missingleg]

I did a game with those lines and I hated them. They were far too harsh, the players were confused because some batsmen moved across and some batsmen were taller and with a longer reach than others. Wides are different for each batsman so in my opinion it only confuses matters.

[swerveman]

The Sussex League 20/20 Competition rules state:

20. Umpires will apply a strict interpretation in calling wides.
(a) For off side deliveries -
A delivery passing through the outer third of the distance between wicket and return crease shall
be deemed a "wide ball" even though the batsman brings it into play by moving his position.
(b) For leg side deliveries -
If a delivery passing outside the line of the leg stump would have missed the batsman standing
in his normal guard position, it shall be deemed a "wide ball".

These rules are easier to follow when the lines are marked. I find the players are happy, because it is easier for the umpires to be consistent, and the umpires are happy, because their decisions are much simpler to make.

20/20 is supposed to be a simpler form of the game, and I think this is a good rule.

[Burbler]

These additional tramlines are only of use if they are in a game that specifically refers to them (such as the T20 above). If there is no regulatory reference to them they are worse than useless for the reasons given before. Some groundsmen are now preparing grounds and marking these lines in, quite incorrectly. I always make sure that at the pre-match discussion this issue is brought up and that we make clear that these lines are not being used.

[srinivasan]

I have always found these "wide" lines to be very effective. Helps to maintain my consistency. I would definitely recommend this to be used widely, especially, in T20 and 50 overs a side games.

[oznoz]

Our (very, very amateur) league uses them as guidelines in one-day matches (45-over) and hard lines in 20-over and six-a-side matches. I personally don't like them and do my best to disregard them when umpiring myself, but as we umpire our own matches and have so few qualified or even interested umpires I conced they do have a purpose at this level. If they're going to be there, they absolutely must be clearly defined in the league rules, marked correctly and adhered to consistently.
I should think that any half-competent umpire, and by extension any competition served by fully-qualified umpires (such as I imagine any televised league must be), would not need and would possibly be distracted or misled by additional markings on the pitch.