Should deflected overthrows off stokes bat have only been 5 runs not 6?

[Lillian Thomson]

Feeling robbed when your team gets the rough end of the stick is all part of the experience. I still believe we would have won the 92 Final had Ian Botham not been given out incorrectly for a duck in the first over our chase.

 

[StephenZA]

Feeling robbed when your team gets the rough end of the stick is all part of the experience. I still believe we would have won the 92 Final had Ian Botham not been given out incorrectly for a duck in the first over our chase.

You should not have even been in that '92 final....

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You should not have even been in that '92 final....

Let me guess. You're still bitter that South Africa's gamesmanship backfired on them at the end.

 

[cnerd123]

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'm missing something here, help me out. You're assuming Stokes would have completed the second run before the ball hits the stumps in this scenario, right?

 

[Bahnz]

duh obviously you're right. blargh, sleep time.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

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

That's the interpretation. The problem is the law itself just says any "completed run" but doesn't say when the ball should be dead. In normal circumstances the ball doesn't go dead until it hits the rope does it?

So unless they have specifically said we rewind the clock so the ball effectively is dead when it's released it's impossible to interpret when the cutoff for a completed run is.

The law needed to say "any runs completed by the batsman before the throw comes in" It doesn't so there is the ambiguity.

It's a badly written law.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That's the MCC interpretation. The problem is the law itself just says any "completed run" but doesn't say when the ball should be dead. In normal circumstances the ball doesn't go dead until it hits the rope does it?

So unless they have specifically said we rewind the clock so the ball effectively is dead when it's released it's impossible to interpret when the cutoff for a completed run is.

The ball isn't dead when released. It's just that the batsman seemingly have to have crossed in mid pitch at the time of release for the run in progress to count.

 

[Spikey]

I mean, given they literally do the laws of the game and I'm not aware of an ICC playing condition over-riding it, I'm pretty comfortable taking the MCC interpretation.

The actual ICC ODI playing condition is:

19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

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.

Clause 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.

https://icc-static-files.s3.amazona...dc402/04-Mens-ODI-Playing-Conditions-2018.pdf

seems pretty clear cut to me, they're basically using the MCC interpretation

(incidentally, I think a long over-due ICC playing condition will be put in regarding runs deflected off the bat, etc. the 3rd umpire can surely rule on it)

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think it'll take more than New Zealand getting a bit of bad luck for the ICC to start changing long standing rules.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

.

 

[Spikey]

I think it'll take more than New Zealand getting a bit of bad luck for the ICC to start changing long standing rules.

they change elements of the playing conditions literally every year, sometimes in sync with the MCC changing the laws of the game, sometimes not. I'm sure they'll take a hard look at this given the attention, if the ICC has ever given you the impression that they're not reactive...

Everyone seems to agree that runs being scored via deflections of the bat is not ideal...

 

[slippy888]

Why none of the commentators mention this and what happen to the New Zealand management and players in dressing room could they not see this was a massive error.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Why none of the commentators mention this and what happen to the New Zealand management and players in dressing room could they not see this was a massive error.

No one had studied the rules close enough to realise the batsman had to cross prior to release. "No one" includes the commentators, players and management of both sides and everyone on here - and maybe the umpires.

 

[Attitude]

As you can see from the laws it states the batsmen should be awarded 4 from the boundary, 1 for the completed run, but not 1 for the sixth run as the ball was thrown before the batsmen crossed for the second run?View attachment 24795

Yes no question about it. NZ were robbed. Its a disgrance. And I went in wanting England to win. However the way things transpired, I am sorry to say this, but there has never been a more undeserving winner of a World Cup. Sorry, that is all there is to it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's all okay. The ICC have cleared it up once and for all. "The umpires take decisions on the field with their interpretation of the rules and we don't comment on any decisions as a matter of policy."

 

[Bijed]

It's all okay. The ICC have cleared it up once and for all. "The umpires take decisions on the field with their interpretation of the rules and we don't comment on any decisions as a matter of policy."

This explains Dharmasena's continued existence

 

[Spintolose]

Again, it doesn’t mean NZ were robbed, Stokes probably would’ve approached that last ball differently if he’d known a 1 wasn’t enough for a super over, but yeah afaic it’s fairly clear.

Exactly that. With 3 to win and 2 to guarantee the super over he would have won the game there and then.
It was a bung me to the boundary ball if ever i've seen one.

 

[weldone]

Exactly that. With 3 to win and 2 to guarantee the super over he would have won the game there and then.
It was a bung me to the boundary ball if ever i've seen one.

except he wouldn't be on strike; Mark Wood would

 

[weldone]

Is the rule ambiguous? At least the MCC interpretation isn't. Is there any need to change the rule just for making it less ambiguous? I tend not to think so. Eager to hear why many in this thread are calling for changing this rule.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

except he wouldn't be on strike; Mark Wood would

Except he might not even have got in. Rashid would have faced the penultimate ball and might have hit it for 6.