So the "making something out of nothing" genie has been let out of the box again in the Otago-Northern Districts Shell Trophy match at Carisbrook.

Talk of witch-hunts, collusion-busting, match commissioners investigating and all manner of codswallop has been talked over the 22.3 overs of mayhem which allowed Northern Districts to score 285/6 to set Otago a target of 282 runs to win.

It's a wonder the critics haven't been searching New Zealand's phone traffic in the direction of Indian bookmakers to get to the root of this problem.

Certainly it is not cricket to give away such easy runs.

But when has it ever been cricket?

English county cricket has been full of this sort of carry on for years. It's been done on a smaller scale, no doubt, in nearly every club competition in New Zealand for years.

It is something that happens in every country in the world.

Put simply, as abhorrent as the notion of ever giving away runs cheaply to any batsmen may be, the laws of cricket at the moment allow it to happen.

What is so different about this tactic, and the choice of teams to forfeit the second and third innings of a game to make a one innings contest between the first and fourth innings?

It was done in a South Africa v England Test match last summer, although the reasons for it are now a lot clearer through Hansie Cronje's admission of match-fixing.

And to make the claim, as some have tried to do, that this smacks of the 77-run over bowled by Robert Vance to Lee Germon in 1989/90, is to forget the facts.

That occasion was dominated by Wellington's urge to wrap up the Shell Trophy for that season. It was in the last innings of the game, so Wellington was not enticing Canterbury to set it a target.

Canterbury was so far out of the game and was content to play out time with only two of the final 15 overs left, and two wickets left, that Wellington decided to get the scores a little closer by offering an over of cheap runs.

Vance bowled 17 deliberate no balls, and then in the final over bowled by Evan Gray, there were five more deliberate no balls.

It was the bowling of deliberate no balls in the last two overs, and the callous and desperate attempt to hi-jack the match, that made that game such a farcical one.

What in fact happened was that Wellington, like the scorers who were forced to rely on reporters' notebooks to get the real score, lost count and came desperately close to losing the game.

In fact, when all the final sums were done, Canterbury ended up only one run short of its original target. Had Canterbury won the game, it would have won the Shell Trophy itself.

As it was Wellington was docked four points because of its slow over rate.

There was no comparison between that match and what happened at Carisbrook this morning.

The only possible area of law that can be exploited in this situation is the matter of collusion.

And how anyone proves that is another matter to be contended.

Are investigations to be made between the cellphone records of the two camps? Is a discussion over a late night beer between players from two teams sufficient evidence that the events of the next day were discussed? How can umpires know if a wink and a nod between two captains have anything to do with setting up an exciting finish?

The mind boggles.

And what about the punter who happened along to Carisbrook in the hope that he might see a good game of cricket this afternoon. Chances are he won't be leaving until the match is decided one way or the other.

At least a contest of skills, Otago's batsmen against Northern Districts' bowlers, is going to occur.

Surely that beats two teams spending a day in the middle trying to look after their respective averages and to heck with everyone else.

It is not cricket for the purist but nor is it illegal.

© CricInfo