Get your very own personalised Duke's Bar gifts!
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 86

Thread: O/T World Cup cricket

  1. #41
    Keep it quiet but that 6 runs Stokes got 2 plus 4 overthrows should really have been only 5 as 1 run plus 4 overthrows.

    Ssshhhhh

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,060
    Yes but as Ashley Giles has said, if we needed more than two off the last ball then our Kiwi batsman Ben Stokes would have blasted it for a boundary

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by flourbasher View Post
    Yes but as Ashley Giles has said, if we needed more than two off the last ball then our Kiwi batsman Ben Stokes would have blasted it for a boundary
    Needs VAR lol

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill View Post
    Keep it quiet but that 6 runs Stokes got 2 plus 4 overthrows should really have been only 5 as 1 run plus 4 overthrows.

    Ssshhhhh
    No it shouldnt. Taufel has got the ruling wrong.

    Law 19.8. which relates to “overthrow or wilful act of fielder".

    Rule 19.8 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 last word 'act' is the key. Act in this situation means 'hit the batsman' but could mean 'hit the stumps' or 'hit the umpire'.

    If the 'act' occurs after the batsman have crossed then the run in progress will count. The ball hit Stokes after they had crossed for the second run so 2 runs are counted plus the boundary.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,962
    Quote Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller View Post
    No it shouldnt. Taufel has got the ruling wrong.

    Law 19.8. which relates to “overthrow or wilful act of fielder".

    Rule 19.8 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 last word 'act' is the key. Act in this situation means 'hit the batsman' but could mean 'hit the stumps' or 'hit the umpire'.

    If the 'act' occurs after the batsman have crossed then the run in progress will count. The ball hit Stokes after they had crossed for the second run so 2 runs are counted plus the boundary.
    No he didn't. It was an overthrow not a wilful act therefore they had not crossed at the time of the throw.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,787
    They had a player wrongly called out for lbw as well.

    Although Bairstow should have had a free hit for a no ball and shouldn't have been out.

    Not a cricket expert but I'm guessing there's a lot of wrong decisions made by umpires in cricket since it's quite a long game.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,054
    Quote Originally Posted by CAMiller View Post
    No he didn't. It was an overthrow not a wilful act therefore they had not crossed at the time of the throw.
    If the ball had not hit anything on the way through to the boundary then you are right - you take the position of the batsman at the time of the throw.

    However, if it hits something on the way through, then you take the position of the batsman at that point.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    34,141
    Quote Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller View Post
    No it shouldnt. Taufel has got the ruling wrong.

    Law 19.8. which relates to “overthrow or wilful act of fielder".

    Rule 19.8 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 last word 'act' is the key. Act in this situation means 'hit the batsman' but could mean 'hit the stumps' or 'hit the umpire'.

    If the 'act' occurs after the batsman have crossed then the run in progress will count. The ball hit Stokes after they had crossed for the second run so 2 runs are counted plus the boundary.
    I'm with you on this one!

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    12,962
    Quote Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller View Post
    If the ball had not hit anything on the way through to the boundary then you are right - you take the position of the batsman at the time of the throw.

    However, if it hits something on the way through, then you take the position of the batsman at that point.
    That's not what the rule says. The 4 resulted as an overthrow (despite hitting something on the way there) not as the result of a wilful act. The wilful act statement is in there to prevent fielders booting/throwing the ball over the boundary for 4 when in rare circumstances the runners look like getting more than 4.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,060
    There's a lot of interpretations going on here which tells its own story.

    At the end of the day we're World Cup winners and Australia aren't. Their whole nation will be seething that we won it.

    Rejoice

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,586
    Quote Originally Posted by CAMiller View Post
    That's not what the rule says. The 4 resulted as an overthrow (despite hitting something on the way there) not as the result of a wilful act. The wilful act statement is in there to prevent fielders booting/throwing the ball over the boundary for 4 when in rare circumstances the runners look like getting more than 4.
    I'm with CAM on this one.

    Hitting Stokes can surely not be described as a "wilful" act by the fielder. Why would he want to hit Stokes with the throw?
    Even if he did aim at Stokes the "act" would have still been at the time he threw the ball i.e. before they crossed.

  12. #52
    That’s the core of it, the second run of the two only counts if the batsmen had crossed before the fielder throws the ball (which in this case then hits Stokes bat)

    So 1 plus 4 overthrows not 2 plus 4 overthrows.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    5,060
    But what does it all mean
    We can't say NZ would therefore have won because England still had the chance to get what they required.

    It's like Orient fans saying that if Revell,s wonder goal had gone over the bar then Leyton would have won

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,054
    Quote Originally Posted by CAMiller View Post
    That's not what the rule says. The 4 resulted as an overthrow (despite hitting something on the way there) not as the result of a wilful act. The wilful act statement is in there to prevent fielders booting/throwing the ball over the boundary for 4 when in rare circumstances the runners look like getting more than 4.
    Willful Act (as I understand it) can mean the things you mention also throwing the ball so it hits the batsman, umpire or rebounds off the keeper.

    If what happened Sun resulted in the ball rolling away Stokes would not have taken the run (not in the spirit). If it rolls away for 4 the batsman has no decretion. However, if the batsman feels the fielder had deliberately thrown it at him you would take the run. In that situation its assessed at the point the batsman is struck (all be it very rare in cricket).

    For example in a situation where youre taking a second run. The throw is made before you cross but hits the keeper after you cross before the runner has made his ground and rolls away allowing a third. Then 3 runs are counted (you see this quite often). It is assessed at the time it hits the keeper and not when the throw is made.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill View Post
    That’s the core of it, the second run of the two only counts if the batsmen had crossed before the fielder throws the ball (which in this case then hits Stokes bat)

    So 1 plus 4 overthrows not 2 plus 4 overthrows.
    Not true Grist.

  16. #56
    Ambitious but crap, doesn’t quite sound the same.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller View Post
    Not true Grist.
    (Forgive the cut and paste)

    Law 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:

    1.Any runs for penalties awarded to either side;
    2.The allowance for the boundary; and
    3.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.

    IF THEY HAD ALREADY CROSSED AT THE INSTANT OF THE THROW OR ACT is the important bit, they hadn’t crossed on the second run when the fielder threw the ball in, so the run in progress doesn’t count.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill View Post
    (Forgive the cut and paste)

    Law 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:

    1.Any runs for penalties awarded to either side;
    2.The allowance for the boundary; and
    3.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.

    IF THEY HAD ALREADY CROSSED AT THE INSTANT OF THE THROW OR ACT is the important bit, they hadn’t crossed on the second run when the fielder threw the ball in, so the run in progress doesn’t count.
    The key word is 'act'. Read what I posted above.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,054
    The 'Act', I have on pretty good authority (not google btw) is when the ball strikes Stokes.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,645
    Why aren't wickets lost used in the event of a tie. Seems a lot simpler than the rigmarole they went through yesterday.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •