How do you know ?
OK the throw is released before they cross, the ball hits the bat before Stokes is in his crease. Can something accidental be described as an act ? an act infers intent.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand *** Official Match Thread ***
- Thread starter Sussex Nomad
- Start date
How do you know ?
OK the throw is released before they cross, the ball hits the bat before Stokes is in his crease. Can something accidental be described as an act ? an act infers intent.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #742
Can't you just stop your whining, accept the result and get on with your day? A coronary in waiting going on here.
Tom Bombadil
Well-known member
The only people being bitter about this on the internet as far as i can tell are Australians, Indians and Colinz.
You obviously are not tuned into any New Zealand radio stations.
No you didn't. it's ambiguous as cricinfo point out.
According to Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.
The law 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 crucial clause is the last part. A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run.
There is potential scope for ambiguity in the wording of the law, given that it references throw or "act", which may pertain to the moment that the ball deflected off Stokes' bat too. However, there is no reference to the batsman's actions at any other point in the words.
The great Englishman Edmund Hilary! Oh my, have I been wooshed? If not that is rather an ironic mistake to make there, Knocky!
Stop right there -the rest of the post (apart from the bit about Hilary) is invalidated because you've got the fundamental fact wrong.
Sigh. No, you didn't.
Obviously stayed up too late - you should have gone to bed earlier, before making a complete tit of yourself.
Thanks that's very interesting, Stokes is not the fielder and I suppose an act could be exampled by kicking the ball as opposed to throwing.
I saw a quote from an Indian supporter saying Guptil should never have run our MS Dhoni then none of this would ever have happened.
Yes, you have been!
P.S. The bit about The Queen starting a petition wasn't serious either!
To quote another poster's signature, "I don't get over things easily" I'm suffering May 1978 deja vu
Down to the decision of the on field umpires.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Even if that was the case, then Stokes would have played the last balls differently than he did. Knowing he'd save the game with a single, he played for safety as it was. Had he needed 3 to win, 2 to save it, he'd have gone for a different shot off the last ball.
I think he premeditated he was going to just hit it to ensure he got 1 run. Had the scorers made it a 5 as you are arguing, then thereafter is a different hypothetical situation. He wouldn't have played the shot he played because the match situation would have been different. So we'll never know what would have happened if it had been called a 5.
I know Dickie Bird and your point
blockhseagull
Well-known member
Pointless argument.
For starters decision has been made, secondly if 5 runs had been awarded how does that mean NZ won ?
With 2 balls remaining if we had required 4 rather than 3 do you think we would have taken two singles ? Of course not .. Stokes would have certainly played different shots for the last 2 balls in that situation. You can’t claim because a decision was incorrect that it means NZ won... unless it has happened off the last ball (which it didn’t)
You can argue all day if you like about whether it was 5 or 6 runs but you can’t claim that NZ won.
For starters decision has been made, secondly if 5 runs had been awarded how does that mean NZ won ?
With 2 balls remaining if we had required 4 rather than 3 do you think we would have taken two singles ? Of course not .. Stokes would have certainly played different shots for the last 2 balls in that situation. You can’t claim because a decision was incorrect that it means NZ won... unless it has happened off the last ball (which it didn’t)
You can argue all day if you like about whether it was 5 or 6 runs but you can’t claim that NZ won.
To be fair to New Zealanders, their proximity means a sporting rivalry and you can't help but let the Aussie attitude rub off on you a bit.
blockhseagull
Well-known member
Beat me to it !!
and the NZ herald no doubt
With you on that one at least! And Robinson should have blasted it past Bailey instead of passing to Smith!
Last edited:
