Should England have got five, not six for overthrows?

[IndianRenegade]

However, according to Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.

The law states: "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, and 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."

 

The crucial clause is the last part. A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run.

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows

 

[Cricketics]

Not surprised Dharamsena is involved here too. 

[IndianRenegade]

1 minute ago, Cricketics said:

Not surprised Dharamsena is involved here too. 

Not sure why they didn’t open up the rule book and involve the third umpire. I guess they can’t involve the third umpire in this situation, may be something in the rules that prevent them.

[cowboysfan]

idiot dharmasena was so quick to signal 6 runs,he could have gone to the 3rd umpire to confirm it .

[IndianRenegade]

8 minutes ago, cowboysfan said:

idiot dharmasena was so quick to signal 6 runs,he could have gone to the 3rd umpire to confirm it .

As suspected I didn’t find anything that will allow them to consult the third umpire, as there was no doubt that the ball crossed the boundary l.

[Jimmy Cliff]

Farce of a decision and farcical "win".

[Cricketphile]

Poor decision by the umpires at a crucial stage. Dharmasena should have done better as he has stood in a World Cup final before. That said, was a pressure situation and inattentional blindness probably played a part as they were mostly checking about whether to give the boundary and didn’t bother about the second runs legitimacy. It’s not possible to memorize the entire cricket rule book and what happened was a very very rare incident in a high pressure situation , with 2 calls having to be made at the same time (the boundary off the bat and the second run). Easy for me to type this but I’m sure it’s much more difficult. They r human and make mistakes and a mistake they did make on this occasion 

[Pollack]

Let's say those extra 4 runs were not awarded. Do you think England wouldn't have tried harder to score more of the remaining deliveries. On the last ball, England batsman didn't try to hit hard since only 2 were required. He would have gone for a big shot if not. The point is these things even out in the end and players play according to the situation. There are bad decisions made during the course of the game but are only wrong decisions made during crucial stage wrong and if so why? It's a game and fortune does play a role but its all even in the end.

[bowl_out]

What a farce. Adharmasena

[IndianRenegade]

24 minutes ago, Pollack said:

Let's say those extra 4 runs were not awarded. Do you think England wouldn't have tried harder to score more of the remaining deliveries. On the last ball, England batsman didn't try to hit hard since only 2 were required. He would have gone for a big shot if not. The point is these things even out in the end and players play according to the situation. There are bad decisions made during the course of the game but are only wrong decisions made during crucial stage wrong and if so why? It's a game and fortune does play a role but its all even in the end.

I couldn’t hit 2 runs but I could have hit 3 runs is the most atrocious excuse I have ever heard!

Edited July 15, 2019 by IndianRenegade

[Pollack]

15 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

I couldn’t hit 2 runs but I could have it 3 runs is the most atrocious excuse I have ever heard!

I will try one more time. Let's say you are chasing 350 and you ended up scoring only 260 in 50 overs. Does that mean if target was 270 your team wouldn't have chased it. Is that how you analyse the game? You play according to the situation. If those extra 4 runs were not awarded for all we know England would have tried more harder since the equation would be more difficult. 

Last ball England didn't go for the big shot. It was a juicy full toss. A delivery that Stokes could have hit it for a six with eyes closed. Had equation been tighter like 4 or more required he would have smashed it for a six. Infact I still feel he should have gone for it. He thought may be can run 2 just placing it gently so that the fielder on the boundary takes some time to reach.  If you still don't understand feel free not to quote me and sulk in your own unfair to NZ world.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Pollack

[JourneyMan]

What's done is done. You shouldn't leave things to the last ball or the last run. If you can't win by a clear margin don't complain about the odd run or ball that didn't go your way. 

[nikred]

I feel NZ just let it go. They should have put more pressure on the on field umpires which could have resulted in them going upstairs.
I think you should always have that one guy in your team who is a nerd enough to point these things out. [emoji848]

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

[IndianRenegade]

20 minutes ago, Pollack said:

I will try one more time. Let's say you are chasing 350 and you ended up scoring only 260 in 50 overs. Does that mean if target was 270 your team wouldn't have chased it. Is that how you analyse the game? You play according to the situation. If those extra 4 runs were not awarded for all we know England would have tried more harder since the equation would be more difficult. 

Last ball England didn't go for the big shot. It was a juicy full toss. A delivery that Stokes could have hit it for a six with eyes closed. Had equation been tighter like 4 or more required he would have smashed it for a six. Infact I still feel he should have gone for it. He thought may be can run 2 just placing it gently so that the fielder on the boundary takes some time to reach.  If you still don't understand feel free not to quote me and sulk in your own unfair to NZ world.

You don’t even know to do analogies, of course the probability you could have got 270 is more than 350, the same way the probability they could have got 2 is more than 3 runs (if they followed the rules). They couldn’t get 2, hence the claim that they could have got 3 as well is not convincing. It’s like saying I only got 260 chasing 270 but had I chased 350 I would have won!!!!

 

Do you mind explaining why he didn’t go big shot? Because he could have as well hit it straight down the throat of someone. Your framing that the only two possibilities was they either got the two runs or he would have hit it for a boundary is sucking up to a team who couldn’t get over the line if not for a technicality even after help from the umpires. 

[Pollack]

18 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

You don’t even know to do analogies, of course the probability you could have got 270 is more than 350, the same way the probability they could have got 2 is more than 3 runs (if they followed the rules). They couldn’t get 2, hence the claim that they could have got 3 as well is not convincing. It’s like saying I only got 260 chasing 270 but had I chased 350 I would have won!!!!

 

Do you mind explaining why he didn’t go big shot? Because he could have as well hit it straight down the throat of someone. Your framing that the only two possibilities was they either got the two runs or he would have hit it for a boundary is sucking up to a team who couldn’t get over the line if not for a technicality even after help from the umpires. 

I agree my analogy wouldn't explain much but you anyway get the point but still trying to act like not because it doesn't suit your "NZ robbed off a victory" narrative.  The bolded part gives it away that any kind of debate or logic will fail to convince you since you seem to hate a particular team. 

Regarding why he didn't go for the shot? How can I say? Anyway I already said in previous post he thought maybe they can complete two runs just placing the ball since fielder has to run in a bit. Since only 2 were required of 1 he though let's go for the safe option rather than take the chance of going for a big one. If he had more runs to score he would have had no choice.

[Pollack]

@IndianRenegade no more follow-ups . You can continue your umpire helped England narrative. It anyway seems to be popular all over. Emotions rule over pragmatism as always. It's a game things go in your favour at times and at times in opposition. It all evens out in the end. 

[Cricketphile]

I read the rules and I think the correct decision was made by Dharmasena there. 

The rule (19.8) states that 

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 and 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.

 

the ‘together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act’ comes after a comma, after the statement ‘and the runs completed by the batsman’. This means the runs completed by the batsman comes first and thus the 2 runs that they had completed get a preference.

[IndianRenegade]

10 minutes ago, Pollack said:

I agree my analogy wouldn't explain much but you anyway get the point but still trying to act like not because it doesn't suit your "NZ robbed off a victory" narrative.  The bolded part gives it away that any kind of debate or logic will fail to convince you since you seem to hate a particular team. 

Regarding why he didn't go for the shot? How can I say? Anyway I already said in previous post he thought maybe they can complete two runs just placing the ball since fielder has to run in a bit. Since only 2 were required of 1 he though let's go for the safe option rather than take the chance of going for a big one. If he had more runs to score he would have had no choice.

The bold part was a response to you claiming I was sulking to NZ world. But what i said is a FACT England won on a technicality even after the umpires gave them an extra run. It doesn’t matter which camp you are from whether you think NZ should have won or Eng should have won. 

[IndianRenegade]

4 minutes ago, Cricketphile said:

I read the rules and I think the correct decision was made by Dharmasena there. 

The rule (19.8) states that 

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 and 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.

 

the ‘together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act’ comes after a comma, after the statement ‘and the runs completed by the batsman’. This means the runs completed by the batsman comes first and thus the 2 runs that they had completed get a preference.

What? They had completed only one run at the instant of throw and had not crossed.

[Cricketphile]

2 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

What? They had completed only one run at the instant of throw and had not crossed.

The instance of the throw clause applies only to the 3rd case. The runs completed is the 2nd case. So to break the rule into 5fragments, 

1. If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder -                    it did. Check. 

 

2. the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side -           none here. Move on. 

 

3. and the allowance for the boundary - this is the 4 runs given. Check.

 

4. and the runs completed by the batsmen, - 2 runs completed. Check. Note it doesn’t specify the time that they completed the runs in this clause. That comes in the next clause after the comma 

 

5. together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act. - had not completed any here so none added. 

6 in total