We need to reinterpret the wide down leg side

A total of 350 is up, 400 is in sight. As the bowler tramps in again, the batsman, who has been taking guard on leg stump, feints a shuffle towards square leg, then steps to off and attempts a flick over the keeper's left shoulder. Yet the bowler has out-thought the batsman. He has taken the pace off the ball, so it passes fractionally outside the line of leg stump. Had the batsman stayed still, it would have stung his left thigh.

It is, in theory, a fine piece of bowling. The bowler's satisfaction at having produced the respite of a dot ball, however, is short-lived, when, to his disbelief, the umpire turns to the scorers' box and horizontally extends both arms.

Television commentators debate his decision. There is talk for a couple of overs about how the modern ODI scene is, for batsmen, figurative fair weather. Low clouds hang about the bowlers, by contrast. Someone will mention the size of bat edges; another, the use of two white balls. Within ten minutes, however, commentators and viewers alike are marvelling at - nay, revelling in - the torrent of sixes lashing down as normal service is resumed.

His ten-over stint complete, the bowler trudges off in resignation, figure and figures both in need of a massage. The world is full of his shame. It's the same thing every night.

Contrary to popular opinion, ODI regulations do not specify that "anything down leg is a wide". The actual reading of the relevant part of the ICC Standard ODI Regulations (July 2015 revision) is as follows:

There are two main points worthy of consideration here. Firstly, what is being targeted and outlawed is not leg-side bowling but negative bowling. In theory, a bowler could bowl down leg, providing it was not deemed "negative"; in practice, of course, this is not tolerated, for reasons that the second clause goes on to highlight.

It is this latter sentence that is more significant, for its language inadvertently reveals the underlying attitude to the role of the bowler. He is there, it is clearly implied, as a waiter, meant to serve up deliveries for the batsmen to score off. If his deliveries do not grant the batsman an opportunity to score, he must be punished.

On the one hand, bowlers are supposed to be preventing runs being scored. On the other, they are expected to provide opportunities for batsmen to score. The idea of achieving a balance between bat and ball cannot be seriously entertained while bowlers are required to walk this tightrope of conflicting objectives. They already have enough damage limitation to do; damage-enabling should not be part of their job description.

At its heart, this is a problem of one-day cricket's own making. In multi-day cricket, the requirement that bowlers must bowl a side out to win naturally works towards providing chances to score. To do so, bowlers typically have to target the stumps or the bat, which tends to produce more opportunities for run-scoring. By contrast, in limited-overs cricket, since that requirement has been removed, the aim of bowlers is to avoid conceding runs, with taking wickets becoming only an auxiliary objective, used primarily to slow the run rate.

With that in mind, in limited-overs cricket there may, admittedly, need to be a way of ensuring that bowlers have some reason to bowl at the stumps - hence the above regulation. Unfortunately, its formulation leads to the contradictory requirements on bowlers, as described. It is fundamentally unfair to ask them to facilitate run-scoring and also prevent run-scoring.

To compound the problem, umpires, fallible humans that they are, do make the occasional lapse, as recounted in the opening scenario. The ODI regulation operates in addition to the MCC's Law 25.2, which makes it clear that "the umpire shall not adjudge a delivery as being a Wide, if the striker, by moving […] causes the ball to pass wide of him".

This movement is not limited merely to his move from his initial stance. If he changes position in his crease and the bowler follows him, should he move away again from the line of the ball, a wide should not be awarded.

As it stands, unfortunately, bowlers can get penalised for skilful, reactive bowling. Batsmen, by contrast, make a mess of their shot-making and are served up another chance. If the ball moves away off the seam and beats the outside edge of the bat, the bowler is applauded. If it moves the other way and beats the bat on the other side, he will be wided on leg side.

It has become almost a cliché to talk of 360° cricket, but its advent calls this entire regulation into question. Law 25.2 talks of "a normal cricket stroke", a category that is now very, well, wide. Batsmen are proving themselves to be near unstoppable. Despite bowlers trying everything, it is virtually impossible to find a delivery on the cut strip that they cannot score off - and if such a delivery were to be found, it would be in risk of falling foul of the ICC's "give the batsman a reasonable opportunity to score" line.

Therefore, despite the ICC regulation serving a useful purpose in past years, it has become obsolete in modern ODI cricket, verging on unfit for purpose. Its objective of ensuring opportunities for batsmen to score has already been achieved by the advance in batting skills; only its deleterious side effects remain.

Can it really be argued that today's batsmen would have any difficulty in adjusting to, and in due course obliterating, what is currently deemed "negative" bowling? The ICC addition to Law 25 needs to go. Relaxing its interpretation would be a small step towards redressing the lost balance between bat and ball. Batsmen have been unleashed. It's now the bowlers' turn to be free from these chains.