Jeez, that is bloody obscure technicality that confuses fans - not sure why at the moment of the throw matters and if the batsman crossed. Literally everyone would have been even MORE confused if 5 runs were awarded in that moment instead of 6.
Umpires made the right call - even if technically incorrect.
This is what it says
'If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be:
- any runs for penalties awarded to either side;
- the allowance for the boundary; and
- the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.'
It was not an overthrow or wilful act of a fielder. It was a freak result due to an unintended interference/interception from the bat of Ben Stokes. I still say 6 should stand.
Edit to further add - on the last bullet point, the 'act' is NOT the throw, but the ricochet of the bat. So they had of course already crossed.
Last edited by crazyp; 15th July 2019 at 15:54.
NZ were robbed when the uncouth bogans bowled underarm for the last ball in a WC match when a 6 would have meant a win.
"The ICC said umpires took decisions on the field based on their interpretation of the rules and that it did not comment on them.
New Zealand batsman Henry Nicholls brushed off the decision as part of the sport.
"It doesn't mean anything to us now, it's the game, things happen," he told BBC Radio 5 Live.
"Sometimes you get the rub of the green. England had a great tournament, they have been the dominant team for the last four years so they deserve to win it”."
It is a boundary from an overthrow. Otherwise no runs need to be awarded.
If it is not an overthrow, only two runs need to be awarded.
BTW, saying NZ were robbed is just a joke.
It clearly was an umpiring error though.
Just silly and unfortunate that a well fought game comes down to umpiring mistakes and silly rules about number of boundaries.
I still disagree - the act which contributed to the overthrow was not the throw but the bat. Also note, that logically I think everyone thought it was 6 runs, no outcry at all in the moment.
Irrespective, the one run was not crucial. It was not the last ball of the innings and decision making would have changed for the final balls.
I do not disagree on the boundaries - the better tie break should have been on the previous result in the group game and then group position if that game was also tied/rained off. England would have still won. Wickets would be as meaningless as boundaries so I rule that out directly.
According to the rules then it's an umpire mistake, but mistakes are allowed to stand for other decisions e.g. incorrect dismissals, so why not this call for 6 runs?
Was it an overthrow though?
Technically I don't think so.....as the ball hit Stokes' bat before reaching the wicket, which was further ahead in its trajectory. So I'm not sure it was an "overthrow".
The last point in the law does say "throw or act" - which in this case is the act of the ball hitting Stokes' bat, causing this whole kerfuffle.
One for discussion over a pint or 2 down the pub, for years to come, me thinks.......
The point is runs are awarded only if it is an overthrow. Otherwise, there are no runs allowed for a ball hitting a batsman
from a fielder’s throw. The act refers to the penalties awarded for a wilful ‘act’ of a fielder. It has nothing to do with the
‘act’ of throwing the ball.
I don't want to fetishise the 5 / 6 runs question, but I have to say I wonder whether the umpires knew and had digested that rule, as opposed to simply [sic] making an error re its application in the moment (as Taufel suggested, rather protectively). If they weren't sure about batsman crossing etc presumably they could have gone upstairs. The fact that they didn't makes me wonder.
It would be churlish to continue to complain about something which the losing side has already accepted.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Not strictly true. There is nothing in the Laws that states that batters cannot continue to run if the ball accidentally strikes a batter whilst running, or if a shot from the striking batter hits the non-striking batter.
It is generally frowned upon and seen as not within the spirit of the game, but if the batters do decide to run, those runs will count.
The Umpire can only disallow the runs if he feels the intervention of the batter was deliberate, in which case a dead ball would be called, and the batters would return to their original ends.
In the Final, Ben Stokes did the sporting thing and stayed on the floor after the ball struck him, not attempting to profit from the situation. It was (un)fortunate that the deflection then reached the boundary as the 4 additional runs then had to be counted.
It’s a bit greyer when it comes to the runs completed as the Laws refer to “throw or act”. What happened is a mix of Laws 19 and 37. The decisive “act” that caused the overthrow was obviously the ball striking Stoke’s bat, an accidental obstruction of the field, at which point the batters had crossed on the 2nd run, so if you take it from that act, rather than the throw, 6 runs was a correct interpretation of the Laws as written.
Last edited by hhhh; 15th July 2019 at 22:20.
What Greg Chappell did was undoubtedly unsporting, but within the laws of the game at the time. For what it is worth, I believe he paid a fairly heavy price for his mistake.
As for being “churlish to compare” the two incidents, who was it that brought up the Chappell/ McKechnie incident in the first place?
The umpires seem to have made an error over the number of runs awarded and who should have been on strike for the penultimate ball of the innings. In a close game it may very well have had an effect upon the outcome of the match. We will never know. These things do happen.
Deliberate attempt to confuse the issue.
Common sense dictates those rums were for an overthrow’. Otherwise no boundary would be given.
Anyway, congrats England.
Take this lightly- It took England
*44 years* with
2 South Africans,
1 West Indian,
1 New Zealander,
1 Irish &
2 Pakistanis
and a lame ICC Rule to win the World Cup...!
藍
On a serious note, this is an excellent side with Roy,Bairstow,Root, Butler and above all Stokes who is a true champion. Hope they maintain the form for a few years to keep England a force to reckon with. The batting is excellent when firing on all cylinders.
Last edited by RAJEN; 16th July 2019 at 03:03.
Unbelievable end to a great match. Fabulous sportsmanship from the Kiwis and I'm pleased E&W won given their performances over the last couple of years.
I'd like to see NZ win the next one...
I loved this little picture essay by the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...up-photo-essay
Did you child enjoy it? I took mine to his first ODI last so he had an idea of what to expect (lots of sitting around interspersed with some excitement). I did tell him we wouldn't be able to spend so much time walking around the ground this time. Once Buttler and Stokes started hitting out we were firmly glued to our seats.
We still have "Sweet Caroline" on continuous loop in our heads and both start singing it at random, much to my wife's annoyance.
Tapatapatapatapatalk
We'd already been to the Bangladesh game earlier in the competition so he'd been a bit spoilt seeing goodness knows how many 4s and 6s... Sunday was obviously much more of a nail-biter!
In fairness he managed to concentrate on the game pretty well. We took a few breaks out to the food area to stretch our legs (and an ice cream or two). By the time we got into the last few overs he was as tense as anyone. Changing his mind from being convinced we'd lose to convinced we'd win every other ball in the black and white way only kids can!
I don't think he's really grasped the enormity of all yet though!