O/T World Cup cricket

[wrinkly]

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.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

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.

[flourbasher]

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

[WanChaiMiller]

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.

[WanChaiMiller]

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.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

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

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

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.

[WanChaiMiller]

(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.

[WanChaiMiller]

The 'Act', I have on pretty good authority (not google btw) is when the ball strikes Stokes.

[jocksgloves]

Why aren't wickets lost used in the event of a tie. Seems a lot simpler than the rigmarole they went through yesterday.