Arachnodouche
International Captain
Can't the third umpire be prepared for such contingencies and communicate the error to the on field umps? These people really should be held more accountable.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Should deflected overthrows off stokes bat have only been 5 runs not 6?
- Thread starter Cookie99
- Start date
cnerd123
likes this
In theory, that's what the TV umpires are there for, so yes. I'm fairly certain it's happened before too. There was an incident in this WC where the on field umpires called over, but the were instructed to bowl one more ball by the off field officials, and so they went ahead and did so.
Why that didn't happen this game, idk
The Hutt Rec
International Vice-Captain
FFS that is not what I wanted to read!!!
Stapel
International Regular
Like many others, Taufel conviently ignores the "throw or act" part of the laws. IMHO, 'act' can only refer to Stokes' slide that knocks the ball for 4 overthrows.
Anyway, A law that states "at the instant of A or B", is a louzy law anyway.
Neil Young
State Vice-Captain
It happens when question if the batsmen have crossed after a catch. Not such a big deal in this scenario either. Just applying the law and then enforcing it correctly
But they'll change it to a deadball now, sooner rather than later.
Edit (and delete original post) - have just rechecked the laws site, there is a line break between "the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had" and "already crossed at the instant of the throw or act"
which means my earlier comment aboout the comma placement is wrong, and Taufel is right, should have been 5 runs.
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/boundaries, scroll down to 19.8.
which means my earlier comment aboout the comma placement is wrong, and Taufel is right, should have been 5 runs.
https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/boundaries, scroll down to 19.8.
Last edited:
Flem274*
123/5
cricket officiating has always been terrible because its institutionalized to defend its own terribleness. remember all the **** in defense of crap umpires pre-drs? also see the posts of *****.
i mean what kind of sport takes years and years to utilise the tools cricket has had available all along like hawkeye etc?
as soon as i saw dharmasena's name on the card i posted "chaotic neutral". i didnt account for erasmus also having an interesting game but there is no way i can post on some of the jammy aspects of this game without sounding like sour grapes.
i mean what kind of sport takes years and years to utilise the tools cricket has had available all along like hawkeye etc?
as soon as i saw dharmasena's name on the card i posted "chaotic neutral". i didnt account for erasmus also having an interesting game but there is no way i can post on some of the jammy aspects of this game without sounding like sour grapes.
That's completely different though, because the ball is dead when caught, in this situation we are talking about an odd mix where the ball is sort of half dead when it is thrown but only if it hits the bat and gets deflected for 4. Just more overly confusing stuff.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Good. Because you couldn't take it to that court anyway.
Teja.
Global Moderator
"If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the willful act of a fielder] 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.
Just like the 'throw' in the second part of the sentence derives its meaning from the 'overthrow' in the first part, the term 'the act' at the end clearly derives its meaning from 'willful act of a fielder' in the first portion. Therefore, act only covers willful acts of fielders and not any and every act on the field.
That is precisely why the term 'act' only needs to be qualified by 'the' the second time. It's not explained further because of the inherent assumption that it has already been explained previously in the provision.
Your reading of 'throw or act' is unacceptable because the first portion would be redundant and the second portion would be meaningless if we implement it.
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
MCC e-learning seems pretty clear on how it should ruled.
Brydon Coverdale @brydoncoverdale
So, although Law 19.8 regarding overthrows could potentially be interpreted two ways, this is from the E-Learning part of the MCC's Laws page, intended to help you interpret the laws. And I can't see any ambiguity here. It should have been 5 runs, not 6.
https://twitter.com/brydoncoverdale/status/1150664629200121856
Neil Young
State Vice-Captain
ok, fair enough. I don't really care about it in the context of this game, though. It's called a 5 and Wood swings lustily and edges for 4 to win the match. Who knows. I have no issues with the result, in case discussing this point indicates that I may do.
Just change the law.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
None of it helps the law make anymore sense. There's no logical reason why batsman should have to have crossed in mid pitch when the throw is coming from 70 yards away. The only proviso needed was for the batsman not to be able to run anymore runs between the ball hitting Stokes and it reaching the boundary.
thierry henry
International Coach
Regardless, I’m trying to convince myself that Stokes would’ve got 6 off the last 2 to tie anyway, to make myself feel a little less robbed
Rashid should have been on strike (Wood came in for the last ball), with 4 off 2 to win and 3 off 2 to tie.
So NZ probably better odds than Eng without the umpire mistake, but note that Stokes would have run a single (a bye if necessary) to be on strike for the last ball (unless Rashid had edged to keeper). So both sides still had a chance to win the game. Taufel is correct in saying ""It's unfair on England, New Zealand and the umpires involved to say it DECIDED the outcome". (my caps).
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
England just won a world cup based on the number of boundaries they hit. None of this is about laws that make sense. 
I do think it's just odd that England would legally be awarded 5 runs in this scenario, but 6 runs if Guptill hits the stumps and the ball deflects away for 4.
I do think it's just odd that England would legally be awarded 5 runs in this scenario, but 6 runs if Guptill hits the stumps and the ball deflects away for 4.