Should England have got five, not six for overthrows?

[nevada]

1 hour 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.

Good point. It's time to move on. Yes, it was a lot of drama at the end and a clear cut win would have been nice but in a world cup final where both teams are fighting tooth and nail, the margins will be very, very slim and with neither side able to wrest the match thanks to the opponent pushing equally hard, situations like yesterday's can arise. 

[puneet28]

I am unable to understand why it counted overthrow in first place? The ball deflected due to batsman. There was no fault of anyone involved there, batsmen, fielder or keeper. If everyone played fair, it should have been 2 runs rather than 6. But, hang on, this game has weird rules!

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Singh bling]

1 hour ago, IndianRenegade said:

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

1999 SF , Klusener was in dilemma to take a single or hit 4 , if target was 3 runs more then he would had definitely tried to hit boundry and probably took SA through.

[IndianRenegade]

30 minutes ago, Cricketphile said:

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 

If you read it that way then it certainly looks like a correct decision.

[Cricketphile]

1 hour ago, IndianRenegade said:

If you read it that way then it certainly looks like a correct decision.

And I didn’t come up with that interpretation. A very respected cricket columnist Paul Dennett did. However, since then, he has retracted his statement. He did that as Simon tauffel, possibly the most respected umpire alive has come out and mentioned that it was indeed an error. 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/icc-world-cup/cricket-world-cup-2019-final-simon-taufel-claims-grave-error-made-awarding-england-six-runs/news-story/df8fb4f013f4f6fa4ae04cff9b7cb105?nk=30f1693912eaed089f890c9e3e5312c4-1563178308

 

im thus most likely wrong and it was most likely an umpiring mistake. However it’s  best to wait for the official icc response. Either way it’s indeed an ambiguous wording and a rare incident 

[The Hound]

What a farce 

[Forever Indian]

1 less run and Stokes should have been at non striker end.

[zen]

An error is to alter the result of an event while assuming other things to be constant. 

 

Say there were no overthrows. Stokes still had two balls to play, which he could have played differently. Say Rashid was on strike, he could have taken a single to bring Stokes back on against a struggling Boult or could have hit a big shot himself 

 

 

 

 

[Vilander]

12 hours 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.

at the time of the throw the 

Runs Completed = 1

Runs in the Progress = 0 ( as they had not crossed yet). Adharmasena made a goof up and awarded WC to Eng. 

[jusarrived]

13 hours ago, IndianRenegade said:

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

Stokes clearly went safe last 2 balls , especially the last one where he dint want to risk getting out .  

[Vilander]

9 hours ago, Cricketphile said:

And I didn’t come up with that interpretation. A very respected cricket columnist Paul Dennett did. However, since then, he has retracted his statement. He did that as Simon tauffel, possibly the most respected umpire alive has come out and mentioned that it was indeed an error. 

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/icc-world-cup/cricket-world-cup-2019-final-simon-taufel-claims-grave-error-made-awarding-england-six-runs/news-story/df8fb4f013f4f6fa4ae04cff9b7cb105?nk=30f1693912eaed089f890c9e3e5312c4-1563178308

 

im thus most likely wrong and it was most likely an umpiring mistake. However it’s  best to wait for the official icc response. Either way it’s indeed an ambiguous wording and a rare incident 

key is to check which is the subject/object in that sentence. 

 

Tough one.

 

The ball crossed the boundary by then two runs were completed.

But when the ball left the fielder's hand 1 run was completed.

When the ball hit the back of the bat 1 run was completed. 

 

If the ball was stopped before it reached boundary then Stokes could have run the other run or ( he would have chosen to not run) then all of that would have been added, similarly since the ball left the field the 4 was added. 

[IndianRenegade]

24 minutes ago, Vilander said:

at the time of the throw the 

Runs Completed = 1

Runs in the Progress = 0 ( as they had not crossed yet). Adharmasena made a goof up and awarded WC to Eng. 

Well the claim is "at the time of the throw" only applies to "in progress run", but since the run was completed before the boundary it is counted as a completed run. really ambiguous law, ICC must come out and clarify as Taufel  has come up with a different interpretation. 

[IndianRenegade]

23 minutes ago, jusarrived said:

Stokes clearly went safe last 2 balls , especially the last one where he dint want to risk getting out .  

true, but to claim the only result of him taking the risk would have been a boundary isn't convincing. He could have as well have been caught. 

[jusarrived]

3 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

true, but to claim the only result of him taking the risk would have been a boundary isn't convincing. He could have as well have been caught. 

No one is saying that . On the contrary everyone is claiming that Eng only one cos of those over throws , but the fact is they still could have won without getting lucky there . 

[ExtremeBrainfade]

13 hours ago, nikred said:

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.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

Spot on.  It's KW's job as captain to do everything he can within the rules and spirit of the game to advocate for his team.  Being dignified and gentlemanly is great, but there are times when one must stand up for one's mates.  KW should've paused the game, got involved in a conversation with the umpires and asked them to confirm the rule for him; this would've bought some time for him for the panel of umpires to collectively come to the correct conclusion.  As it stands, KW has won friends, but no cup.

[zen]

3 minutes ago, jusarrived said:

No one is saying that . On the contrary everyone is claiming that Eng only one cos of those over throws , but the fact is they still could have won without getting lucky there . 

Chances of Stokes hitting a struggling Boult for a boundary are high. He bowled bad balls. 

[figo6762]

So the key for me is the moment Guptill released the ball, which initiate the throw , they had completed only one run:

 

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.

So it reads Runs Scored = 4 + num of times they crossed each other , when throw was initiated. 

 

If you look at the video, Guptil releases the ball when had only crossed once.  So they Dharmasena did make a mistake and the only he could have corrected it if he had went to the third umpire. 

 

It should have been 5 runs. 

 

Question is how many umpires have the ability to run through the rule book and pick it out at that moment. 

[flamy]

14 hours ago, nikred said:

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.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

[flamy]

1 minute ago, figo6762 said:

So the key for me is the moment Guptill released the ball, which initiate the throw , they had completed only one run:

 

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.

So it reads Runs Scored = 4 + num of times they crossed each other , when throw was initiated. 

 

If you look at the video, Guptil releases the ball when had only crossed once.  So they Dharmasena did make a mistake and the only he could have corrected it if he had went to the third umpire. 

 

It should have been 5 runs. 

 

Question is how many umpires have the ability to run through the rule book and pick it out at that moment. 

Isn't that their job? And, isn't it the job of ICC to pick umpires who know their job for a World Cup final?

And, what are the third and fourth umpires doing in this case? Why can't the be on alert?

 

Do other sports have snafus like this? With this much technological support, and this much at stake? 

[Vilander]

25 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

Well the claim is "at the time of the throw" only applies to "in progress run", but since the run was completed before the boundary it is counted as a completed run. really ambiguous law, ICC must come out and clarify as Taufel  has come up with a different interpretation. 

yeah per language its clear why Eng was given 6. throw or act is seperted by a comma, the point before does not say runs completed before what ( before the ball hit the bat for which the resultant penalties of 4 runs are given or if ball left the field of play - ambiguity is there. But the rule gives 6 runs in simply application. 

 

Eng won it per rule, unfortunately.