Hall of Fame Member
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....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.
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?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.
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?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.
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.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.
seems pretty clear cut to me, they're basically using the MCC interpretation19.8 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.
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...I think it'll take more than New Zealand getting a bit of bad luck for the ICC to start changing long standing rules.
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.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.
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.
Exactly that. With 3 to win and 2 to guarantee the super over he would have won the game there and then.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.