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

[LlcoolJ]

Just been listening to the final hour on TMS. Absolutely superb from Aggers and co. He almost lost his voice at the end!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00076y4

 

[Triggaaar]

The rule clearly states it does matter.

They do not.

For a run to count, the batsmen *must* have crossed at the point the throw (or willful act) occurred.

If it said that, we'd be in agreement. But it doesn't say that. It does not say 'wilful act'.

 

[Easy 10]

I just hope you accept that everyone (in each team) knew that's how it would be done before the start of the match, and it didn't favour one side over the other.

I bet they didn't.

 

[Triggaaar]

I bet they didn't.

Well no, you're right, they didn't all know But they should have. There would certainly be people in the team (not just the on-field 11) whose job it is to know and understand the rules, and the team (as a whole) has gone into the competition knowing the deal.

 

[Audax]

It doesn't actually say that. It says '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', but it doesn't clarify whether it means the act that caused the ball to go to the boundary, or whether the act can only mean a wilful act.

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? The law starts out by clearly stipulating "willful act". It subsequently uses the word "act" without using "willful", but it clearly in the phrasing is referring back to the original statement that opens the law. From the MCC Law 19 "Boundaries" (https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/boundaries):

19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

If the boundary [1] results from an overthrow [2] or from the wilful act [3] of a fielder [4], 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 [5].

Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.

[1] - The law is only activated in the event of a boundary.

[2] - The law is activated in the event of overthrows; or

[3] - The law is activated in the event of a willful act.

[4] - In situation [3], it is only activated if the willful act was by a fielder.

[5] - This text is only considered once the law has been activated. As such, the reference to an "act" here is blatantly referring to the willful act I've cited at [3], as no other act can trigger the rule.


It is therefore blindingly obvious that the ball deflecting from Stokes' bat is completely irrelevant for the purposes of this law.

More importantly still, in this instance the references to an "act" are irrelevant, as we are dealing with the subset of the the law that deals with "overthrows" and "throws". In the instance we saw on the weekend, the law is more simply read as follows:

19.8 Overthrow

If the boundary results from an overthrow, 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.

Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw.

 

[Audax]

If that is the accepted interpretation amongst umpires, then fair enough. If that is the case, can you provide examples of where this has been ruled on before?

I am speculating that it is the accepted interpretation, primarily because a) Taufel is a very well respected umpire, and b) Taufel is part of the MCC laws sub-committee, which makes anything he says on this matter *very* pertinent. If it's not the accepted interpretation amongst umpires, then I'm sure we'll hear from other umpires to dispute his statement.

I can't cite any examples as it is a rather rare occurrence, and normally happens where the outcome is clear cut or where scrutiny is avoided because the event hasn't occurred at a crucial juncture in a match.

So you're saying the fielding side would need to be a bit more subtle about it.

A lot more subtle.

On a related note - I have previously seen fielding sides deliberately allow a ball to reach the boundary, in order to ensure the striker remains off-strike for the next over (knowing that they would then get a crack at a lower order bunny). That, however, is not considered unfair play, nor is it considered to trigger the law in question here (it doesn't consider a willful non-act).

 

[Triggaaar]

Are you being deliberately obtuse here?

When struggling with your argument, resort to insults. Good plan.

The law starts out by clearly stipulating "willful act". It subsequently uses the word "act" without using "willful", but it clearly in the phrasing is referring back to the original statement that opens the law.

I disagree. It's certainly not clear, but regardless, there's another, much more important, point that goes against you anyway:

"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 [5]."

The second part of that is what you're discussing (whether they had crossed at the instant...). The first part is 'runs completed by the batsmen'. That first part does not include the caveat of 'at the instant of the throw or act'.

The ball is dead when the ball hits the boundary. At that point, the batsmen had completed 2 runs. You add those, plus any runs that were in progress if they had already crossed etc etc. If it was intended to only include runs that were completed before the throw (which would be ludicrous), then it would not separate the completed runs from the runs in progress, as it has.

 

[Triggaaar]

I am speculating that it is the accepted interpretation, primarily because a) Taufel is a very well respected umpire

As are the umpires that made the decision in this game.

I can't cite any examples as it is a rather rare occurrence, and normally happens where the outcome is clear cut or where scrutiny is avoided because the event hasn't occurred at a crucial juncture in a match.

It's so rare that we don't yet (others will have discussed this online etc) have a single example to hand. That suggests that it's not actually an accepted interpretation at all, because it's just never discussed, and barely ever happens.

 

[Weststander]

Just been listening to the final hour on TMS. Absolutely superb from Aggers and co. He almost lost his voice at the end!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00076y4

I listened to them for a bit post match. Phil Tufnell stood out as charming, intelligent, and yet still a great laugh. Especially when Alec Stewart and a Kiwi (Jeremy Coney?) started bickering a little about the rules, Tufnell stepped in with wit.

The commentary on the winning moment gives goosebumps.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

The real point is that, across the acres available at Lords, that the fielder managed to pick out Stokes’ bat at 100 yards.

Providence? Yes...will I take it? ...yes. Was it in the rules that something that flukey would EVER happen? No.

Edit: but it is now.

 

[BensGrandad]

What amazes me is that at the time it happened nobody mentioned that it should have been 5 runs not 6 being either commentators or pundits who one would assume are fully aware of the rules,.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Today was magnificent.

I am a Primary School teacher, and the excitement amongst a huge proportion of the kids was tangible. So many had watched, so many had been inspired and sucked in.

To them, all these arguments are irrelevant. England won the World Cup, they witnessed it, and they will never forget it. And 'our' man bowled the super over.

I hope that this match will give cricket a massive shot in the arm, and on the evidence from my day at work today, it will.

 

[Triggaaar]

To them, all these arguments are irrelevant. England won the World Cup, they witnessed it, and they will never forget it. And 'our' man bowled the super over.

It was the same for all of us until the Aussies got involved.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It was the same for all of us until the Aussies got involved.

Ooh, harsh...

 

[drew]

Today was magnificent.

I am a Primary School teacher, and the excitement amongst a huge proportion of the kids was tangible. So many had watched, so many had been inspired and sucked in.

To them, all these arguments are irrelevant. England won the World Cup, they witnessed it, and they will never forget it. And 'our' man bowled the super over.

I hope that this match will give cricket a massive shot in the arm, and on the evidence from my day at work today, it will.

Luckily, there's no football at the moment to distract them!

 

[Mackenzie]

It may well have been 5 but the final two balls may have been bowled differently and different strokes played given the difference in chasing 3 or 4.

It could have meant everything, it could have meant nothing. What is true was England had the rub of the green yesterday and for that I’m truly thankful.

 

[LANGDON SEAGULL]

Same here - loads of kids asked me about the cricket who have never mentioned it before. This has made a significant difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[drew]

When struggling with your argument, resort to insults. Good plan.
I disagree. It's certainly not clear, but regardless, there's another, much more important, point that goes against you anyway:

"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 [5]."

The second part of that is what you're discussing (whether they had crossed at the instant...). The first part is 'runs completed by the batsmen'. That first part does not include the caveat of 'at the instant of the throw or act'.

The ball is dead when the ball hits the boundary. At that point, the batsmen had completed 2 runs. You add those, plus any runs that were in progress if they had already crossed etc etc. If it was intended to only include runs that were completed before the throw (which would be ludicrous), then it would not separate the completed runs from the runs in progress, as it has.

The law refers to a 'wilful' act by a fielder with no mention of a batsman. It refers to a throw or act. In this case there was no wilful act by the fielder, ie he didn't throw it directly at the boundary, merely a throw at the wicket and at the time of the throw they hadn't crossed so only one run plus the boundary should have been awarded.

You can try and twist it as much as you like but it seems all the experts are pretty much in agreement.

But again, it doesn't matter. The umpires made a mistake and that's it. There have been plenty of cases when officials have got it wrong. 2010, England should have gone in 2-2 with Germany in the World Cup, Koeman should have been sent off at Wembley etc etc.

End result is England won.

 

[Bodian]

The law starts out by clearly stipulating "willful act". It subsequently uses the word "act" without using "willful", but it clearly in the phrasing is referring back to the original statement that opens the law. From the MCC Law 19 "Boundaries" (https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/boundaries):

19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

If the boundary [1] results from an overthrow [2] or from the wilful act [3] of a fielder [4], 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 [5].

Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.

[1] - The law is only activated in the event of a boundary.

[2] - The law is activated in the event of overthrows; or

[3] - The law is activated in the event of a willful act.

[4] - In situation [3], it is only activated if the willful act was by a fielder.

[5] - This text is only considered once the law has been activated. As such, the reference to an "act" here is blatantly referring to the willful act I've cited at [3], as no other act can trigger the rule.


It is therefore blindingly obvious that the ball deflecting from Stokes' bat is completely irrelevant for the purposes of this law.

More importantly still, in this instance the references to an "act" are irrelevant, as we are dealing with the subset of the the law that deals with "overthrows" and "throws". In the instance we saw on the weekend, the law is more simply read as follows:

I have to read and re-read legal constructions quite often, and have indeed actually been involved in drawing up the wording of some regulations and legislation. I agree entirely with your explanation of this.

Not that I think it would have had a material impact on the result - I think in fact that if Stokes had had to actually hit one of the last two balls out of the ground he would have found a way of doing so.

 

[Willow]

Not that I think it would have had a material impact on the result - I think in fact that if Stokes had had to actually hit one of the last two balls out of the ground he would have found a way of doing so.

Quite an assumption! If he had been capable of that he would have won the game outright.