[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand *** Official Match Thread ***

[BensGrandad]

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?

That is my view that it was a freak that could never have been foreseen.

 

[Triggaaar]

I get why it's being discussed, it's just a shame it couldn't have been a sub-thread, instead of turning this one into a boring, drawn-out point-scoring exercise.

Yes, sorry. But they started it

 

[lawros left foot]

I was talking to a New Zealander lady this morning, she was of the opinion that these things happen in sport. She was disappointed that they lost, but was quite philosophical about the whole thing.

And, like me, she wished either team could have beaten the Aussies like that, but, did say it wouldn't have happened, cos the convicts would have cheated to get the win.

 

[knocky1]

Century up 101 pages.

 

[Eeyore]

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).

A bowling penalty shoot out ?

Two nominated batsman on each team. Everyone else bowls one ball alternating five times.

If the scores are level after five balls it goes to sudden death.

If still level after ten it goes to the team who have the batsman with the biggest willy.

 

[Eeyore]

Century up 101 pages.

The thread has a reserve day.

 

[Triggaaar]

the rule refers to completed runs and any run in progress provided they had crossed at the time of the throw

Interesting that you've removed the comma. Miss-quoting the rule isn't going to actually change it.

They had only completed one run at the time of the throw

Which is irrelevant, as already explained.

Reference to the ball only being dead when it hits the ropes is irrelevant as it is not included in this rule.

The ball being dead is implicit in most of the rules. 'Completed runs' is a common term in the rules, and unless stated otherwise, it means completed before the ball is dead.

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?

That's a handy question, as it re-enforces my point. Before the rule about overthrows is the rule "Runs scored from boundaries". It says that (except for the circumstances we're discussing) "the batting side shall be awarded whichever is the greater of
the allowance for the boundary
the runs completed by the batsmen together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant the boundary is scored."

Note that in this rule, they have not used the comma. That is because both completed runs AND runs in progress are limited the instant the boundary is scored.

The very next rule says almost the same thing (in that particular sentence), but adds the comma. Why would they add a comma? Because the timing of the throw only applies to runs in progress, it does not apply to completed runs.

I feel it's appropriate to add my victory dance at this point:

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.

Agreed - they're not commenting, so they're not saying it was correct or incorrect. I didn't claim they were saying it was correct. Why are you saying 'Fourthly', as if it in any way backs up your argument?

 

[Triggaaar]

The ambiguity is whether the throw 1 + 4, or act creating the overthrow i.e. hitting the bat 2 + 4.

Keep up at the back. Although you can tell from reading posts here that the 'act' is not clearly described (whether it's a wilful act, or the act creating the overthrow (ie hitting the bat), it doesn't matter either way, it's still 2 + 4.

 

[Sheebo]

And people were saying it was a bigger world cup win than the rugby

Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk

Don’t get the need for anyone to compare these things - it cannot be and shouldn’t be compared to anything... Muxh like the whole club v country tosh - they’re 2 completely separate things!

 

[drew]

Keep up at the back. Although you can tell from reading posts here that the 'act' is not clearly described (whether it's a wilful act, or the act creating the overthrow (ie hitting the bat), it doesn't matter either way, it's still 2 + 4.

 

[Triggaaar]

Are you telling us you were fishing all along? If not, your post doesn't make sense.

 

[knocky1]

Keep up at the back. Although you can tell from reading posts here that the 'act' is not clearly described (whether it's a wilful act, or the act creating the overthrow (ie hitting the bat), it doesn't matter either way, it's still 2 + 4.

Excellent performance Trig. No sign of wavering or leaving the debate. A double century of pages looks on the cards albeit in a Boycott style..

I salute your stubborness and agree with you..

 

[dazzer6666]

Century up 101 pages.

99. Two have been deducted.

 

[Triggaaar]

Excellent performance Trig. No sign of wavering or leaving the debate. A double century of pages looks on the cards albeit in a Boycott style..

I salute your stubborness and agree with you..

It's a curse. Obviously many a better man would shrug and walk away.

In my defence, I a) find it interesting, b) am disappointed not to see those in the press make any effort to understand the wording of the rule, and c) owe it to the gods to teach.


PS - thanks

 

[Bodian]

These are from the MCC's e-learning for umpires and others. The top one is the main slide, the other two are the transcript of the video referred to.





MCC clearly state that completed runs means 'all runs completed BEFORE the instance of the throw', and that the run in progress means the one taking place AT the instance of the throw.

The interpretation by MCC for umpires is clearly "The runs scored before the fielder released the ball are counted, as well as the runs awarded for the boundary". Nothing whatsoever about a 'completed run' being after the fielder released the ball. If we are arguing purely about the 'throw' - then it should have been five runs, wherever the comma is placed. If we are arguing about the 'act' being the hitting of Stokes' bat - then that is a nonsense as 'act' is referring back to the only other mention of 'act' in the law, which is a wilful act by the fielder.

Not sure we can really argue this much more either way. MCC set the laws, and this is their guidance.

 

[knocky1]

These are from the MCC's e-learning for umpires and others. The top one is the main slide, the other two are the transcript of the video referred to.

View attachment 113055
View attachment 113056
View attachment 113057

MCC clearly state that completed runs means 'all runs completed BEFORE the instance of the throw', and that the run in progress means the one taking place AT the instance of the throw.

The interpretation by MCC for umpires is clearly "The runs scored before the fielder released the ball are counted, as well as the runs awarded for the boundary". Nothing whatsoever about a 'completed run' being after the fielder released the ball. If we are arguing purely about the 'throw' - then it should have been five runs, wherever the comma is placed. If we are arguing about the 'act' being the hitting of Stokes' bat - then that is a nonsense as 'act' is referring back to the only other mention of 'act' in the law, which is a wilful act by the fielder.

Not sure we can really argue this much more either way. MCC set the laws, and this is their guidance.

I’m sure we can.

 

[Triggaaar]

These are from the MCC's e-learning for umpires and others. The top one is the main slide, the other two are the transcript of the video referred to.

MCC clearly state that completed runs means 'all runs completed BEFORE the instance of the throw', and that the run in progress means the one taking place AT the instance of the throw.

It's a shame they don't have the same rules in their rule book.

If we are arguing purely about the 'throw' - then it should have been five runs, wherever the comma is placed.

According to the slides you've shown, it would be 5 runs. Not 'wherever the comma is placed', but because the rules are different to the ones in the book.

One of two things have happened:
a) They've intended for it to be only the runs that were completed before the throw (plus the run in progress etc etc), but they've got someone who failed at English to write it up.
b) They intended for it to be completed runs before the ball hit the boundary, but they got someone who failed at English to translate the rules for the e-learning guides.

Not sure we can really argue this much more either way. MCC set the laws, and this is their guidance.

Yep. They're amateurs.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Not sure we can really argue this much more either way. MCC set the laws, and this is their guidance.

We can't. The on-field umpires made their decision which stands and a member of The MCC Laws sub-committee disagreed with it.

As arguably the doyen of cricketing newspapers The Times this morning didn't either and merely reported MCC Laws sub-committee member Taufel's remarks and stated they've approached The MCC for further comment, I'm more interested in the response now, if any, of The Marleybone Cricket Club to The Times of London and others for clarification on a matter of the laws of the game than the continuing postulation on here.

 

[knocky1]

We can't. The on-field umpires made their decision which stands and a member of The MCC Laws sub-committee disagreed with it.

As arguably the doyen of cricketing newspapers The Times this morning didn't either and merely reported MCC Laws sub-committee member Taufel's remarks and stated they've approached The MCC for further comment, I'm more interested in the response now, if any, of The Marleybone Cricket Club to The Times of London and others for clarification on a matter of the laws of the game than the continuing postulation on here.

The fact you state, that the sub committee member has asked the MCC to state what the law means, is proof of ambiguity. The postulation continues.

 

[dangull]

Cant imagine the Germans were droning on and on in a similar forum when Lampard's goal was ruled out in the World Cup a few years ago. Life is not always fair, and mistakes and bad luck can happen to anyone.