No one is calling for a change in that part of the current rule, just saying the umpires got it wrong. The actual change would involve not awarding overthrows if the ball strikes the batsman. In the situation that prevailed logically England would have had two runs and the game carries on.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.
That's a bit disturbing you think that would be a possibilityinjuring the batsman
(not saying even 1% of fielders may take the approach; but some dick can)
Never know with nasty people like Starc playing the game.That's a bit disturbing you think that would be a possibility
Did you think people want to do that and the only reason people don't is because they're worried the ball will go for overthrows?
Martin Crowe was a vocal campiagner for dead ball after hitting the stumps, thought it encouraged shying at the stumps which was exciting for the spectators.Deflected overthrows probably shouldn't exist at all. Assuming it comes into contact with the stumps/umpire/batsman. Makes sense for misfielding but once it hits something or someone (that isn't a fielder) it should probably be a dead ball (though if batsman have crossed then they should be able to complete the run unless run out).
Of course he should have been off strike, he should have been in ****ing gaol.https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...s/news-story/df8fb4f013f4f6fa4ae04cff9b7cb105
Taufel pretty firm in saying it should have been 5 and Stokes should have been off-strike