Spirit of game.

[goose]

5 minutes ago, Cricketphile said:

I could be wrong but I don’t think stokes can ask to withdraw the 4 runs as what he did happen. And we all unambiguously saw it happening. There’s no room for doubt. The only thing stokes could have said was claim that he purposely did it. That would be the only way stokes can ask to withdraw what happened. But then if he purposely did it, there was a legitimate obstructing the field appeal that Williamson could have appealed for. Anyway stokes signaled sorry straight away beforehand it ran to the boundary so it is what it is 

but in the example CG gave the run out happpened too. it wasn't even a case of bad luck. Bell wrongly assumed the ball had gone to the boundary and was therefore dead. Dhoni declined the wicket. Stokes could do something similar.

[Cricketphile]

4 minutes ago, goose said:

but in the example CG gave the run out happpened too. it wasn't even a case of bad luck. Bell wrongly assumed the ball had gone to the boundary and was therefore dead. Dhoni declined the wicket. Stokes could do something similar.

Yes but dhoni didn’t decline the wicket. He declined his appeal if I remember correctly. That’s in his control. U need to appeal for the umpire to  give certain decisions like the lbw or a runout. However things like a boundary or bowled or a catch do not need to be appealed. This particular case was a boundary and stokes had no control over anything. It went for a four and we all saw it and there’s nothing anyone can do 

[sourab10forever]

Why is the rule there in first place?

Declare ball dead if the ball has hit the batsmen while running unless he could still be run-out.

 

Deliberate attempt at blocking the ball or changing your path is anyways given out.

[goose]

7 minutes ago, Cricketphile said:

Yes but dhoni didn’t decline the wicket. He declined his appeal if I remember correctly. That’s in his control. U need to appeal for the umpire to  give certain decisions like the lbw or a runout. However things like a boundary or bowled or a catch do not need to be appealed. This particular case was a boundary and stokes had no control over anything. It went for a four and we all saw it and there’s nothing anyone can do 

i'm on the verge of agreeing but hang on. can a run out only follow an appeal? it was brought to the umpires attention. is that the same as an appeal? i see your point but nothing stopping two teams coming to an agreement on anything surely

Edited July 15, 2019 by goose

[CG]

Yes but dhoni didn’t decline the wicket. He declined his appeal if I remember correctly. That’s in his control. U need to appeal for the umpire to  give certain decisions like the lbw or a runout. However things like a boundary or bowled or a catch do not need to be appealed. This particular case was a boundary and stokes had no control over anything. It went for a four and we all saw it and there’s nothing anyone can do 

Point is after decision was given and bell crossed the boundary they were able to withdraw the appeal.So in cricket if both team captain's agree anything can happen.

[Cricketphile]

5 minutes ago, sourab10forever said:

Why is the rule there in first place?

Declare ball dead if the ball has hit the batsmen while running unless he could still be run-out.

 

Deliberate attempt at blocking the ball or changing your path is anyways given out.

It’s a very very rare occurence and possibly hasn’t even been considered before today. This rule is an extension of the overthrow rule where if the throw misses the wicket, the ball can go to the boundary. Unfortunately it made its appearance in a World Cup final with 9 off 3 and the team at the receiving end went on to ‘lose’. A similar case is when if the ball hits a batsman’s bat and bounces up, a fielder can catch the ball. The batting team suffers in such a case. But either case, the ball is not dead and play continues 

[Cricketphile]

11 minutes ago, goose said:

i'm on the verge of agreeing but hang on. can a run out only follow an appeal? it was brought to the umpires attention. is that the same as an appeal? i see your point but nothing stopping two teams coming to an agreement on anything surely

Yes. A runout can only happen if a fielder or anyone from the fielding team appeals. The appeals don’t have to be a loud howzat. Just a look or a raised hands may suffice. The batsman can walk off too without being given 

[Cricketphile]

4 minutes ago, CG said:

20 minutes ago, Cricketphile said:

Yes but dhoni didn’t decline the wicket. He declined his appeal if I remember correctly. That’s in his control. U need to appeal for the umpire to  give certain decisions like the lbw or a runout. However things like a boundary or bowled or a catch do not need to be appealed. This particular case was a boundary and stokes had no control over anything. It went for a four and we all saw it and there’s nothing anyone can do 

Point is after decision was given and bell crossed the boundary they were able to withdraw the appeal.So in cricket if both team captain's agree anything can happen.

The captains can withdraw only things that they have control over. The appeals that they made during the game r things that they have control over. However, a boundary signaled is not something they can appeal. That’s the umpire’s jurisdiction and the captains cannot do anything. The umpires can decide to change things but it’s clear according to the rules that it was a four and we don’t need a precedence of changing rules within a game. That was out of the question 

[goose]

for stokes to decline the runs would open all sorts on what is an isn't considered deliberate/unlucky/freaky. i've made my mind up. it was the right decision to accept the runs. should have been 5 thought not 6. and the Bell incident was rubbish. two wrongs though....

[Cricketphile]

2 minutes ago, goose said:

for stokes to decline the runs would open all sorts on what is an isn't considered deliberate/unlucky/freaky. i've made my mind up. it was the right decision to accept the runs. should have been 5 thought not 6. and the Bell incident was rubbish. two wrongs though....

Yes. I don’t think stokes can withdraw runs he scored though. Don’t think he has the power to do that. And They ran 2. Plus the 4. It was 6. Unfortunate but it is what it is 

[goose]

3 minutes ago, Cricketphile said:

Yes. I don’t think stokes can withdraw runs he scored though. Don’t think he has the power to do that. And They ran 2. Plus the 4. It was 6. Unfortunate but it is what it is 

there's a consensus that it was actually 5. at the point the fielder threw the ball the second run had not been completed. there's a whole article in Cricinfo on this point.

[CG]

Simply put stokes did not claim the run and would not have ran after the overthrow just because it went to boundary it should not have been given.

[Cricketphile]

5 minutes ago, goose said:

there's a consensus that it was actually 5. at the point the fielder threw the ball the second run had not been completed. there's a whole article in Cricinfo on this point.

Thanks for pointing me to the article. Didn’t know that. Seems that it indeed was 5 runs then and not 6. That’s a huge blunder from the umpire but then these rules r so specific. It’s certainly sad. That may mean that stokes is off strike too for that ball and Rashid on strike ? Don’t know 

[goose]

should have shared the trophy. sounds less preposterous then winning 'on boundaries'

[Cricketphile]

1 minute ago, goose said:

should have shared the trophy. sounds less preposterous then winning 'on boundaries'

Were that to happen, the rules should have stated that from day 0 of the tournament. The rules of the boundaries were specific and it’s not a new rule. It’s been there for many years so u can’t change it. All teams knew of the rules. England won. Fair and square 

[goose]

1 minute ago, Cricketphile said:

Were that to happen, the rules should have stated that from day 0 of the tournament. The rules of the boundaries were specific and it’s not a new rule. It’s been there for many years so u can’t change it. All teams knew of the rules. England won. Fair and square 

oh i know that. i'm saying the ICC probably spent two seconds on concocting some rule they never thought would happen. the rule should have been play another super over.

[nikred]

It’s a very very rare occurence and possibly hasn’t even been considered before today. This rule is an extension of the overthrow rule where if the throw misses the wicket, the ball can go to the boundary. Unfortunately it made its appearance in a World Cup final with 9 off 3 and the team at the receiving end went on to ‘lose’. A similar case is when if the ball hits a batsman’s bat and bounces up, a fielder can catch the ball. The batting team suffers in such a case. But either case, the ball is not dead and play continues 

Good point on the ball hitting non striker's bat and going to a fielder for a catch.

But I will be surprised if this rule hasn't been considered before. Even for a casual viewer like me, I have come across this scenario multiple times and felt it was unfair for the fielding team. It's tragic that it had to appear in such a crucial time of the world cup final and change the tide of the match.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

[Cricketphile]

Just now, goose said:

oh i know that. i'm saying the ICC probably spent two seconds on concocting some rule they never thought would happen. the rule should have been play another super over.

Agree. A second super over would be nice but then with a new bowler and new batsmen. Kind of like in penalty kicks in soccer. That would be fun 

[haiwan]

8 hours ago, Vijy said:

and even in these countries, for most of them, it is not the no. 1 sport - Oz, Eng, RSA, NZ, etc. only in SC, it's numero uno but even in ind I feel it's declining slowly.

it should continue to decline in India. Other sports needs their due attention. Most of the cricket matches are fixed anyways.

[Mariyam]

4 hours ago, goose said:

Yes we have seen rules broken before on the pretense of spirit of the game. Pundits and social media are strangely silent on whether Stokes should have declined the extra runs. Probably too big a can of worms to open up just yet.

Can a batsman decline the extra runs, thereby over ruling the umpire?

 

The 4 extras were the umpires call.

 

What would have been against the 'spirit of cricket' is the ball taking a deflection off the bat and the England batsmen running those extra runs. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Mariyam