5 points or 6 points?
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
5 points or 6 points?
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 16,311
We need a POLL.
Unbelievable how this thread is progressing!!!
First observation is the reference to the word 'act'. The rule in question is in the section pertaining to boundaries. ergo it isn't relevant to other overthrow situations when the batsmen keep running until they decide it is unsafe to do so because of potential run out or if they are actually run out.
Secondly, the heading of the rule relates to the 'overthrows or the wilful act of a fielder'. How then in the subsequent text to that rule you can argue that an act could be anything else is beyond me. You don't read a biography of Winston Churchill and the opening line is 'He was born on the 30th November 1874 at Blenheim Palace' and then start questioning whether 'He' is referring to someone else!!!
Thirdly, the rule refers to completed runs and any run in progress provided they had crossed at the time of the throw or act (see above re act!). They had only completed one run at the time of the throw and had started on their second but not yet crossed. Under the wording of this specific rule the second run therefore doesn't count. Reference to the ball only being dead when it hits the ropes is irrelevant as it is not included in this rule. I would suggest this rule mirrors what happens when a batsman hits a boundary. In other words when a batsman hits the ball, they may run two runs before it crosses the boundary. Triggaar, how many runs will the umpire give them?
Fourthly, the ICC have stated they will not comment. In other words the umpires made the decision and it stands. That doesn't mean they are saying it was correct. When have the FA come out and stated that a referee has made a wrong decision? They will only do so if it has been a horrendous decision and then they might relegate the ref to a lower division for a couple of weeks but generally mistakes by linesman (offside for example) aren't commented on but we know they can have a dramatic affect on the score.
To those saying the discussion is irrelevant and it's only the scoreline that matters are correct. However, I will be interested to see if later in the season when we have been robbed by a blatant dive or offside goal if those very same posters refrain from discussing it on this forum. (I should go back and check whether they thought Walker should have been sent off!}
First observation is the reference to the word 'act'. The rule in question is in the section pertaining to boundaries. ergo it isn't relevant to other overthrow situations when the batsmen keep running until they decide it is unsafe to do so because of potential run out or if they are actually run out.
Secondly, the heading of the rule relates to the 'overthrows or the wilful act of a fielder'. How then in the subsequent text to that rule you can argue that an act could be anything else is beyond me. You don't read a biography of Winston Churchill and the opening line is 'He was born on the 30th November 1874 at Blenheim Palace' and then start questioning whether 'He' is referring to someone else!!!
Thirdly, the rule refers to completed runs and any run in progress provided they had crossed at the time of the throw or act (see above re act!). They had only completed one run at the time of the throw and had started on their second but not yet crossed. Under the wording of this specific rule the second run therefore doesn't count. Reference to the ball only being dead when it hits the ropes is irrelevant as it is not included in this rule. I would suggest this rule mirrors what happens when a batsman hits a boundary. In other words when a batsman hits the ball, they may run two runs before it crosses the boundary. Triggaar, how many runs will the umpire give them?
Fourthly, the ICC have stated they will not comment. In other words the umpires made the decision and it stands. That doesn't mean they are saying it was correct. When have the FA come out and stated that a referee has made a wrong decision? They will only do so if it has been a horrendous decision and then they might relegate the ref to a lower division for a couple of weeks but generally mistakes by linesman (offside for example) aren't commented on but we know they can have a dramatic affect on the score.
To those saying the discussion is irrelevant and it's only the scoreline that matters are correct. However, I will be interested to see if later in the season when we have been robbed by a blatant dive or offside goal if those very same posters refrain from discussing it on this forum. (I should go back and check whether they thought Walker should have been sent off!}
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
It really doesn't bare thinking about. As if different forms of cricket aren't confusing enough, but at least they have consistencies like 6 balls per over, change of ends after each over etc. Instead of fixing what we have, lets just invent a new format. Jeez.
Braggfan
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded
- May 12, 2014
- 2,001
It really doesn't bare thinking about. As if different forms of cricket aren't confusing enough, but at least they have consistencies like 6 balls per over, change of ends after each over etc. Instead of fixing what we have, lets just invent a new format. Jeez.
I just can't imagine what they were thinking. Ten ball overs are just bizarre. Its almost a different game rather than a different format.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Well it doesn't because there is no ambiguity in that law 9.8 states you get the boundary AND the runs completed and in the process of completing had they crossed. The ambiguity is whether the throw 1 + 4, or act creating the overthrow i.e. hitting the bat 2 + 4. So doesn't mirror law 19.7 regarding boundaries struck at all. The only time runs are counted in a struck boundary is if they exceed the 4 or 6.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Not just 10 ball overs, 2 separate bowlers can bowl 5 balls each of that 10 ball over from the same end!
Shambles.
I'm going to consciously ignore the whole sorry nonsense, and pretend it isn't happening.
Braggfan
In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded
- May 12, 2014
- 2,001
Who can possibly want this?
Rodney Thomas
Well-known member
The ECB.... and no one else!
Not sure that is strictly true. I'm sure the holders of the city franchises (largely the 'Test' ground gang) are prepared to suffer it.
Geestar
New member
So it was a draw, that we should have really lost.
Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk
Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk
cjd
Well-known member
This thread should be re-named..." The Pedants Thread....and fill yer boots "
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Should have had Archer and Boult having a quick game of
Geestar
New member
And people were saying it was a bigger world cup win than the rugby
Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk
Postman Pat
Well-known member
I'll be glad when we move on from this and its all forgotten. After all no one mentions the ball hitting the crossbar in 1966 anymore do they......
The issue with 5/6 runs is clearly an anomaly in the rules and I expect the ICC to tidy it up ASAP, I suspect they will either call the ball dead when it hits the batsman, or amend the rules to say that 2 runs would have been the correct outcome in that instance.
They will surely amend the rules of the Super Over too as the most boundaries is a little weird, either make it least wickets lost in the game, or another over where anyone who has already batted or bowled can't be used again (unless they go all the way around the team).
The issue with 5/6 runs is clearly an anomaly in the rules and I expect the ICC to tidy it up ASAP, I suspect they will either call the ball dead when it hits the batsman, or amend the rules to say that 2 runs would have been the correct outcome in that instance.
They will surely amend the rules of the Super Over too as the most boundaries is a little weird, either make it least wickets lost in the game, or another over where anyone who has already batted or bowled can't be used again (unless they go all the way around the team).
Not according to The Times today. There are all sorts of arguments going on, mainly about who owns the franchises. It's turning out to be very messy
No that was won despite the officials.
The act is nothing to do with the ball hitting the bat. The rule heading is overthrow or wilful act of a fielder. How is the ball hitting the bat the wilful act of a fielder?