I've always been intrigued by cricket mainly for its general similarity to baseball — which less than some might think. Baseball derives more from rounders, which was actually called "base-ball" at one time. But I gotta admit, I kind of became obsessed with cricket during the CWC. I had earlier watched some matches, mostly Caribbean Premier League, on ESPN3, and I knew a little about it from a newspaper I used to work at where we ran a lot of wire service stories on cricket due to a large international readership.
I actually paid the hundred bucks for the CWC via ESPN Cricket, which was well worth it, in my book. And I'm looking forward to the upcoming Indian Premier League T20 season as well.
Anyway, for anyone who knows more about the sport than I do — here's something I couldn't figure out in that incredible New Zealand-South Africa match.
Given that SA was up by, I think, 15 runs going into the final over, why didn't they just bowl 6 wides? Sort of the cricket equivalent of an intentional walk. Sure, it would have cost them six runs, but so what? The game would have been done -- because in limited-overs cricket, it's possible to run out the "clock."
Anyone know the answer? Is there a rule against intentional wides? Or is it just "not cricket" to do that?
