The overthrow

Seen a few comments on social media (mainly kiwis and aussies) about the rule around this.

That because Stokes hadn't completed the second run as the ball was thrown it should only have been 5 runs rather than 6. Is this the case?
 


No.

It’s how many runs have been completed when the ball crosses the boundary. So in actual fact, had they ran a third before the ball crossed the rope we’d have got 7.

Or atleast that’s how I understand it.
 
No.

It’s how many runs have been completed when the ball crosses the boundary. So in actual fact, had they ran a third before the ball crossed the rope we’d have got 7.

Or atleast that’s how I understand it.
Wild stab In the dark but think that the 4 umpires at the ground who are the 4 best in the world would understand the rule better than bitter gobshites on twitter.
 
Seen a few comments on social media (mainly kiwis and aussies) about the rule around this.

That because Stokes hadn't completed the second run as the ball was thrown it should only have been 5 runs rather than 6. Is this the case?

Not quite...as I understand it England should have only been awarded 5 runs as the players hadn't crossed when the ball was thrown...

Rule 19.8: Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

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.

But who cares...we won!!! :p:p
 
Not quite...as I understand it England should have only been awarded 5 runs as the players hadn't crossed when the ball was thrown...

Rule 19.8: Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

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.

But who cares...we won!!! :p:p

They must have crossed, which actually makes sense as no way that stokes could have been that far down if he hadn't crossed. Christ he isn't that quick
 
Jusr watched it. You can't tell. As the camera pans out, it looks as if stoke has turned and is on his way back

Go to 30 seconds in on the clip and it shows a higher/wider camera angle that clearly shows they hadn't crossed for the 2nd run when the ball was thrown...

Its a crazy moment, of which there were many late on yesterday. Boult catching Stokes only to step on the boundary line is another!

Was a great moment! And was class that the other New Zealand fielder who Boult had passed the ball to indicated it was a 6.
 
Last edited:
Go to 30 seconds in on the clip and it shows a higher/wider camera angle that clearly shows they hadn't crossed for the 2nd run when the ball was thrown...



Was a great moment! And was class that the other New Zealand fielder who Boult had passed the ball to indicated it was a 6.

If it is the moment the ball is thrown then he has turned even at that 30 second mark clip when it pans out.

If it is when the lad picks the ball up then he hasnt.

My guess the rule is when the ball is thrown and as such 6 runs is the correct outcome
 
Key part of the rule is...

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.

We had completed one run. The second run was in progress when the throw back to the wicket keeper took place...but you can clearly see that Stokes & Buttler hadn't crossed at the instant of the throw, so the second run shouldn't have counted. Below clip from 43 seconds clearly shows it.
I'm more than happy that we won and I'm more than happy that the umpires got it wrong!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6WupnbUhNw
 
Key part of the rule is...

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.

We had completed one run. The second run was in progress when the throw back to the wicket keeper took place...but you can clearly see that Stokes & Buttler hadn't crossed at the instant of the throw, so the second run shouldn't have counted. Below clip from 43 seconds clearly shows it.
I'm more than happy that we won and I'm more than happy that the umpires got it wrong!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6WupnbUhNw
Well for a start it wasnt butler;)

it was a micro second difference either way. For me he had his bat down and had turned as the ball was thrown.
6 runs
 
Well for a start it wasnt butler;)

it was a micro second difference either way. For me he had his bat down and had turned as the ball was thrown.
6 runs

Haha...oops...I stand corrected :)

It's not about when he turned...it's if the 2 batsmen had crossed on the 2nd run...which they clearly didn't, so it should have been 5 runs. Anyway I can't say any more times. :lol:
 
Not quite...as I understand it England should have only been awarded 5 runs as the players hadn't crossed when the ball was thrown...

Rule 19.8: Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

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.

But who cares...we won!!! :p:p
It will be the "act" of hitting the bat that will be when rule 19.8 is enabled.

For a pure overthrow without intervention from the batsmen it would be the point at which the ball was thrown

Therefore the correct interpretation of the rule would be 6 runs to England
 
Last edited:

Back
Top