When No ball overrides Wide: keep one final delivery decision A call of No ball overrides a call of Wide ball. A scoring feed should therefore not leave both labels as independent final decisions for the same delivery. MCC Law 21.12 states the precedence directly: a No ball call overrides Wide at any time. An update is not another delivery A feed may show an early description followed by a corrected decision. That does not automatically mean another ball has been bowled. Keep a stable event identity, preserve the update history, and distinguish the final adjudicated result from the sequence of messages that described it. For example, imagine a delivery initially described as Wide. The final umpiring decision is instead No ball, and that call is not revoked. Assume the batters do not run, the ball does not reach the boundary, no batter is dismissed, and there is no other penalty award. The example is invented for teaching, not taken from a live match. Under MCC Law 21.14, the No ball carries a one-run penalty. Under 21.15, that penalty is a No ball extra and is debited against the bowler. It would be wrong to retain a separate Wide penalty simply because the early feed message used that label. The final decision has replaced it; the message history has not created an additional scoring event. Do not infer more than the rule says This does not mean every No ball costs only its initial penalty. Law 21.14 says the No ball penalty is additional to other runs scored, boundary allowances and applicable penalty awards. Law 21.15 describes how other runs are allocated. The simplified example deliberately removes those extra events so the precedence rule can be seen clearly. Law 21.13 also says the ball does not become dead merely because No ball is called. A data system that immediately closes the event could therefore lose subsequent legitimate action. Use the actual completed event and any umpiring correction, rather than stopping at its first label. Keep a small correction trail A useful correction record preserves the event identifier, the original supplied label, the final supplied decision, the source and time of the update, and the fields that were changed. Do not silently edit a score to make it look plausible, and do not convert an uncertain label into a confident explanation. For a broader example of separating named source facts from interpretation and unknowns, Fairplay Analysis’s match-context guide explains that distinction. It is an independent cricket- information resource, not an umpiring authority or an endorsement of this hypothetical feed design. The wider website also contains separate informational market/rates/odds pages; this selected link is to its cricket-analysis resource, not a wagering recommendation. Rule source and limits Source: MCC Law 21: No Ball, especially 21.12–21.15, checked on 28 October 2026. Match- specific playing conditions and the actual umpiring decision still matter. This note does not decide a disputed real delivery from incomplete footage or commentary. Prepared for Fairplay Analysis with AI assistance and checked against the cited source. Fairplay Analysis is independent and not affiliated with MCC. This is a scoring-education note, not a prediction, betting tip or wagering recommendation.