The overthrow

[pavarotti1980]

Breaking the law, breaking the law!

Me aussie mates were very quick to be pointing this apparent misinterpretation to me on whatsapp this morning. As bitter as the Kiwis. Sod it. We won.

Who would have thought it. Australians not understanding the law properly. Thats how they got into their country in the first place isnt it?

 

[leecoo]

if we were only given 5 instead of the 6 at the time, I doubt Stokes would look to place the last ball like he did. Cause and effect

 

[David M]

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!!!

The last paragraph isn't clear tbf. 'The act', only occurs once the ball has hit Stokes. Prior to that, it's just a throw towards the stumps so it doesn't make sense to 'rewind' the scenario to an instance that occurred before 'the act' started. My guess is that there's another rule that covers the scenario that occured.

Edit: Aye, what pav said.

 

[Dadsarmy73]

Who gives a toss....we won the World Cup man!

 

[Hulkenburger]

Regardless of whether it should have been 5 or 6 (it seems like either could be interpreted as correct), it didn't cost them the game in isolation. That daft review and ducking the last ball had just as much of an impact.

 

[dafunk2]

https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/news/world-cup-final-umpires-made-mistake-in-awarding-england-six-runs-not-five-simon-taufel-2231407.html

 

[Steak Pie]

Just checked the scorebook, still says 6.

 

[pavarotti1980]

https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/news/world-cup-final-umpires-made-mistake-in-awarding-england-six-runs-not-five-simon-taufel-2231407.html

Weirdly they have managed to include the rule but not included the full wording which states "act". The act was hitting Stokes bat and not the time at which the fielder threw the ball

 

[stephen cartwright]

England World Champions

 

[TheRey]

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.

Dharmasena one of the best umpires in the world is a laughable claim, mind

 

[cooky]

Dharmasena one of the best umpires in the world is a laughable claim, mind

How he continues to get the top gigs is beyond me, laughably bad.

 

[smoker]

Seen a few comments on social media (mainly kiwis and aussies)

Surprised the convicts didn't think he should be out obstructing the field.

We're going to hear these sour grapes for years...and his country of birth, and Archer's country of birth etc

 

[chunksafc]

I have just been on the BBC and ICB Web Sites and can confirm despite some whinging Aussies on Social Media it still says we are WORLD CHAMPIONS

 

[TheRey]

How he continues to get the top gigs is beyond me, laughably bad.

The cricketing equivalent of Mark Clattenburg.

 

[JohnSmithUK]

The cricketing equivalent of Mark Clattenburg.

Harsh on Clattenburg.

 

[My Boy Harry]

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?

Tell them to look at the images of England holding the World Cup

 

[Chappers]

Also seem a bit strange the aussies twisting on. If we had 2 bastard cheating twats in our team, I'd be keeping my head down

 

[Augustus Gloop]

The last paragraph isn't clear tbf. 'The act', only occurs once the ball has hit Stokes. Prior to that, it's just a throw towards the stumps so it doesn't make sense to 'rewind' the scenario to an instance that occurred before 'the act' started. My guess is that there's another rule that covers the scenario that occured.

Edit: Aye, what pav said.

I'd have to disagree there. Although the last line of the law does not state what constitutes an 'act', the first line makes it clear that the 'act' in question is something that a fielder did.. "the wilful act of a fielder". This phrasing is meant to cover situations such as a fielder kicking the ball or in any other way causing the ball to go for overthrows. The act of a batsman (inadvertently) getting in the way and causing a deflection is not a wilful act of a fielder. Therefore, the relevant act here is the fielder releasing the ball. It was the wrong call. It should have been 5, and Rashid on strike.

But it's all immaterial. The scorecard says 6. It was a fantastic game. And England are deserved winners, even if NZ didn't deserve to lose.

Congratulations to yall

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

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.

Simon Taufel is the one raising to be fair. He's not really a gobshite.

Who would have thought it. Australians not understanding the law properly. Thats how they got into their country in the first place isnt it?

Dharmasena one of the best umpires in the world is a laughable claim, mind

He's really bad. Aleem Dar should have partnered Erasmus for me.

 

[palm 1]

if we were only given 5 instead of the 6 at the time, I doubt Stokes would look to place the last ball like he did. Cause and effect

Was just about to post this . Stokes could very well have hit that ball out of the ground if he needed to .