In a major twist of events, former South African all-rounder Shaun Pollock who is also part of ICC's cricket committee, has spilled beans on ICC's inner workings on the relaxation of wide rule in limited-overs cricket. He has said that the governing body is working on a plan to ease the restrictions on wide deliveries, especially when the batter moves around in his/her crease. Pollock believes that the introduction of such a change can tip the balance in the favor of the bowlers ever so slightly, in a game that is heavily dictated by the batters. 

See also: ICC Champions Trophy 2025: Indian squad announcement likely to be delayed

Pollock assures something is in the works for the bowlers

In his recent conversation with PTI on the sidelines of the SA20, Pollock assures everyone that he is in touch with the working committee who are working on a solution to ease restrictions on wide rules. 

"So it's in the pipeline, we're all discussing. We need to give a little bit back to the bowlers."

In a game largely dominated by the batters, Pollock feels something has to go in the favor of the bowlers to make the game more balanced and enjoyable for the viewers to watch. Pollock does not appear to be a big fan of the current wide rule and feels that it is a little unfair on the bowler's part. 

"The current rule tends to suggest that if he [the batter] moves and it's that point of delivery where the batter is, and that's according to where the wide will be called, I want a little bit of a change. I want them to know exactly when they're running up why or how - how can a bowler be expected to change his game plan at the last second when he's bowling? He needs to have a clear idea where he can go." 

Prior attempts to address the wide rule

Prior to Pollock's recommendation, attempts have been made in the IPL and the WPL to use DRS to accurately adjudicate wides. Both the bowlers and the batters were given the provision to challenge the on-field decision for a wide call. However, the former Australian umpire has a different opinion on this matter and is not in favor of reviewing wide decisions with the help of DRS. Furthermore, he also states that the call of a wide is purely a judgment call which is likely to differ or vary from one umpire to another umpire and therefore, deems the intervention of a TV umpire in this matter to be unwarranted.