Fact Check: Did Umpire Intentionally Give No Wide To Let Virat Kohli Complete Hundred Vs Bangladesh In World Cup?

Virat Kohli completeda hundred vs Bangladesh with a six on the last ball but two balls before that match-winning maximum, there was an alleged wide that was not given by umpire Kettleborough, causing a big controversy.

The non-wide controversy has brought hate for umpire Richard. (Source: X)

A controversy has erupted after the match 18 of the Cricket World Cup 2023 finished wih star India batter Virat Kohli smashing a six to get to his hundred in what turned out to be the last ball of the game vs Bangladesh. Needing 2 runs from 9 overs. Kohli was on strike in the 42nd over bowled by Nasum Ahmed. The first ball went down the leg side but was not called a wide. 

The Indian dressing room shared a laugh as Kohli was on 97 and that non-wide allowed him to score a hundred, two balls later. It was umpire Richard Kettleborough who did not give it a wide. The fact that he had a smirk as soon as he passed it on as a non-wide landed him in a soup as on social media fans believed that he did that intentionally to watch Kohli completed his 48th ODI ton. But was it really the case?

We don't have an official clarification from the umpire. But there could be a reason why Kettleborough did not give a wide on that occasion. It could be to do with a change in laws last year. 

Watch the non-wide bowled to Kohli that has caused a controversy:

Virat kohli fans says that - Bcci don't want Virat kohli to break Sachin Tendulkar records see this video clip hypocrites fanclub..what will you say now..in Ipl same incident happened when gayle was on 99 and kohli was on non strike..that was given wide but not this #Shameless pic.twitter.com/Ys6Czjdik2

— Sachin (@Gambhir_0705) October 19, 2023

The law that states how a wide should be judged in MCC Laws of Crcket is 22.1.1. As per this law,  "If the bowler bowls a ball, not being a No ball, the umpire shall adjudge it a Wide if, according to the definition in 22.1.2, the ball passes wide of where the striker is standing and which also would have passed wide of the striker standing in a normal guard position."

Clause 22.1.2 states: "The ball will be considered as passing wide of the striker unless it is sufficiently within reach for him to be able to hit it with the bat by means of a normal cricket stroke."

In March last year, MCC announced new code of laws which also affected the Clause 22.1. This change came into effect from October 1.

“In the modern game, batters are, more than ever, moving laterally around the crease before the ball is bowled,” MCC's statement read. “It was felt unfair that a delivery might be called ‘Wide’ if it passes where the batter had stood as the bowler entered his/her delivery stride.

“Therefore, Law 22.1 has been amended so that a Wide will apply to where the batter is standing, where the striker has stood at any point since the bowler began their run up, and which would also have passed wide of the striker in a normal batting position.”

Now, come to the non-wide incident in Nasum vs Kohli case. Here, Kohli had his right foot placed outside the leg stump as he wanted to give himself more chance to hit a boundary. Nasum tried to bowl into Kohli to avoid getting hit for a boundary and six. And the ball went down the leg side with Kohli shuffling to come back to the normal guard position. 

It is likely that umpire Kettleborough not gave it as a wide because of the change of law. The smirk of his face could be to do with crowd cheering the decision with Kohli on 99 and the umpire realising how his non-wide has made them even more happy. That smirk could be more situational than anything else.