There isn't any ambiguity in the law, the confusion has been caused by people who don't know the game.
The change proposed is that the ball becomes dead if it hits the batsman, and possibly also the stumps if the batsman is home. You with your A (starred mark you) English shouldn't have a problem distinguishing that, but obviously standards have dropped since O level days.
You are still wrong. Which bit of the law do you find ambiguous?
P.S. I know nowt about rugby which is why I don't try and lecture people who do about the laws of the game.
I don't have a subscription and I can read the bulk of that article perfectly fine.
Here you go, none of this is behind any paywall.
Enjoy 1 complimentary article
CRICKET
Overthrow law to be reviewed after World Cup final controversy
exclusive
You must be logged on to see external links
, Elizabeth Ammon
July 20 2019, 12:01am, The Times
The ball deflected off Stokes’s bat for four additional runs, though England should have been awarded only one of the two they ranACTION IMAGES VIA REUTERS/PETER CZIBORRA
Share
MCC is planning to review the controversial Law 19 relating to overthrows that played a huge part in England’s thrilling World Cup final win over New Zealand at Lord’s last Sunday.
England were erroneously given an extra run in the final over of their dramatic run chase, when the umpires Marais Erasmus and Kumar Dharmasena awarded six runs instead of five after failing to spot that Ben Stokes and Adil Rashid had not crossed for a second run before the fielder’s throw, which went for four overthrows. This ultimately enabled Eoin Morgan’s side to tie the match before winning the World Cup in a Super Over.
Stokes and Rashid had not crossed when the ball was thrown, meaning they should have been given five, rather than six, runs
The former umpire, Simon Taufel, was the first to spot the error, which he described as “a clear mistake” in an interview several hours after the final but there is considerable sympathy for the umpires, who are being asked to look in two different directions at the same time. Law 19.8 relating to overthrows states that “if a boundary results from an overthrow” the runs scored shall be “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”. One first-class umpire told
The Times that it was “a bad Law” and needed to be clarified.
Television replays clearly showed that Stokes and Rashid had not crossed for a second run when Martin Guptill threw the ball in from the boundary, so England should have been awarded only a single in addition to the four overthrows given as a result of the deflection from the Durham all- rounder’s bat as he dived to make his ground, which would have left them needing four runs from the final two balls to win the World Cup. New Zealand accepted the umpiring mistake with great magnanimity, but were in effect punished twice by the error, as had England been awarded five runs instead of six, Rashid would have been on strike for the penultimate delivery of the innings rather than Stokes, thus reducing the home side’s chances of reaching their opponents’ total of 241.
Although this was a freak occurrence, there is feeling at MCC that overthrows are worth looking at when they next review the Laws of the game, which is the responsibility of the MCC Laws sub-committee. As guardians of the game, MCC periodically reviews the Laws, although there is no fixed timetable for the next review. The most recent change to the Laws came last November when Law 41.7 was amended to permit umpires to show greater leniency to bowlers delivering beamers.
We can have £20 on it if you like. Do a bit of proper research before you accept that.