Should England have got five, not six for overthrows?

[ExtremeBrainfade]

2 minutes 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. 

I don't think they are expected to make an instantaneous decision on something as rare as that.  But, since it is an obscure rule, they should stop and get confirmation from their off-field colleagues.  Dharmasena seemed in a hurry to raise his arms and get on with it.  Therein lies the error.  

[Vilander]

3 minutes 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. 

the confusing interpretation could be its runs (boundary, runs completed by batsmen ( by the time the ball is dead as otherwise not specified), if any run is in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of throw ( this was eventually not needed or applicable) but the fact that they had this meant is there is a question on when a run can be legally completed here is it before the ball hit the bat or hit the rope. Seems like the rule is one querky mf , it could mean if the ball hit the bat otherwise why do they have 'together with runs in progress of they had already crossed at the instance of the throw'. 

[Asim]

Why even 5...
They ran for 2, possibly about to make 2, should be awarded 2. because fielding side has not made any mistake, it got deflected from batsman, though uniuntentionalluy but still why a penalty for fielding side... It would make some sense only if it was a poor throw or keeper was unable to grabe etc.

 

[IndianRenegade]

26 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 . 

Person who can't be name "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.

 

 

[zen]

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

5

7 minutes 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. 

Good attempt but it is ambiguous. As the text says "together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act". For many, a throw or the act consitutes from when it leaves the hand to when it hits something to go for an overthrow. Stokes was in his crease when the ball hit him (or in any case crossed) 

[IndianRenegade]

10 minutes 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. 

while that is understandable, the moment warranted a bit more caution, WC finals, final over, can potentially decide who wins the cup. They could have taken more time to deliberate.   

 

Any other match, or situation, people would have let it pass. 

[IndianRenegade]

4 minutes ago, Asim said:

Why even 5...
They ran for 2, possibly about to make 2, should be awarded 2. because fielding side has not made any mistake, it got deflected from batsman, though uniuntentionalluy but still why a penalty for fielding side... It would make some sense only if it was a poor throw or keeper was unable to grabe etc.

 

Thats because the law says so, nothing can be done. May they can revisit the law and call the ball dead if it deflects of the batting team in case of overthrow. 

[zen]

 

 

4

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, zen said:

Good attempt but it is ambiguous. As the text says "together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act". For many, a throw or the act constitutes from when the ball leaves the hand to when it hits something to go for an overthrow. Stokes was in his crease when the ball hit him (or in any case crossed) 

To add to the above, batsmen run on the throw as well. Therefore, will not be surprised if the act constitutes from when the ball departs to when it hit something to deflect  .... In the last ball of the super-over, if the ball had hit Guptill while he was running and deflected, he would have still completed the run