The overthrow

palm 1 said:
Was just about to post this . Stokes could very well have hit that ball out of the ground if he needed to .
Click to expand...

You could just as well argue that if it was given 5 instead of 6, Stokes would not have been facing the 5th or 6th balls. No one knows what would have happened. Maybe Rashid would have smoked the 5th ball for a 6. Or maybe the set batsman getting to face the last 2 balls ended up being a bigger advantage than the extra run
 


palm 1 said:
Was just about to post this . Stokes could very well have hit that ball out of the ground if he needed to .
Click to expand...
Exactly, if it had been 4 off 2 not 3 then its pretty obvious Stokes would have been aiming for a boundary rather than knocking singles. Who knows if he just blasts it for 4, not that unlikely really.
 
cooky said:
Exactly, if it had been 4 off 2 not 3 then its pretty obvious Stokes would have been aiming for a boundary rather than knocking singles. Who knows if he just blasts it for 4, not that unlikely really.
Click to expand...

Precisely. If it’s 4 off 2 the tie is basically removed from the equation, it’s either win or lose (given how unlikely it is to score 3 off 2 at that stage)
 
tynevalleyblackcat said:
Is the correct answer and the umpires got it right.
Click to expand...

Nope, because the first part of the law makes it clear that the act must be something that the fielder did “willful act of the fielder”. There is no reference to anything the batter does in any part of the law. Therefore, act in this case is the throwing of the ball, not the deflection.
 
Last edited:
I'm not an umpire but could he argue that taufel is reading the overthrow/misfiled law. It wasn't an overthrow or misfield because it hit Stokes bat and went to the boundary. Surely an overthrow is when you throw it to the boundary?

It's strange because it's probably never happened before so theirs nothing in the rules.

Augustus Gloop 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
Click to expand...

The bat getting in the way wasn't the wilful act of the fielder. So that means it should be six because after it hit the bat the wilfulness was lost so the law doesn't apply.
 
Last edited:
Dougy16 said:
The bat getting in the way wasn't the wilful act of the fielder. So that means it should be six because after it hit the bat the wilfulness was lost so the law doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

According to your interpretation it should have been 2 runs and not 6, because the rules regarding what constitutes an overthrow talk only about what a fielder does. So if the deflection is the end of the fielder’s action, then there should be no overthrows awarded because anything that happened after the deflection is due to the batsman’s actions
 
Augustus Gloop said:
According to your interpretation it should have been 2 runs and not 6, because the rules regarding what constitutes an overthrow talk only about what a fielder does. So if the deflection is the end of the fielder’s action, then there should be no overthrows awarded because anything that happened after the deflection is due to the batsman’s actions
Click to expand...

He didn't overthrow it though that's my reading. It hit the bat then went out he didn't directly throw it out. He should have had 7 runs because he could have ran back again!
 
Dougy16 said:
He didn't overthrow it though that's my reading. It hit the bat then went out he didn't directly throw it out. He should have had 7 runs because he could have ran back again!
Click to expand...
Exactly, if owt, it was underthrown
 
brandon said:
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.
Click to expand...

No sour grapes or anything but that's incorrect . The law states that it is when the ball hits the bat ,from the throw. As Stokes and was it Rashid not crossed when the ball hit the bat ,it should only have been 5 runs .
Given the tenseness of the situation not surprised it was overlooked .
Makes no difference now and England overall were deserved winners .
 

Back
Top