Reply With QuoteYes 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
Hall Of Fame
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
Hall Of Fame
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
Hall Of Fame
Needs VAR lolOriginally Posted by flourbasher
Hall Of Fame
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.
Moderator
No he didn't. It was an overthrow not a wilful act therefore they had not crossed at the time of the throw.
Hall Of Fame
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.
Hall Of Fame
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.
Moderator
I'm with you on this one!
Moderator
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.
Hall Of Fame
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
Posting Permissions