The overthrow

nz joe said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they had crossed when the ball hit the bat.

When the ball was thrown they hadn’t.

4 from 2 with Rashid on strike...... we’ll never know how it would’ve panned out. Therefore, it’s largely irrelevant.
 


nz joe said:
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 .
Click to expand...
He was diving to make the crease when the ball hit the bat so they’d definitely crossed by that point.
 
Wow - we have benefitted from a bit of ‘injustice’ and the officials making a ‘mistake’ - after all the years of shite we have put up with, - Frank Lampard’s ‘goal’, the ‘hand of God’, Sol Campbell’s disallowed goal to name but 3.

I know it is a different sport but I don’t care.

We won - end of - and I am basking in every replay I can find. If you feel robbed - we know exactly how you feel - you will get over it, or not, just like we have had to on plenty of occasions.
 
nz joe said:
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 .
Click to expand...

How could they not have crossed when it hit the bat? Stokes was heading towards the stumps (they had definitely crossed by then).

Where they got it wrong, possibly, is thinking the two had crossed for the second run when the ball was released by the fielder.
 
dangermows said:
How could they not have crossed when it hit the bat? Stokes was heading towards the stumps (they had definitely crossed by then).

Where they got it wrong, possibly, is thinking the two had crossed for the second run when the ball was released by the fielder.
Click to expand...

But that's only when the ball is overthrown to the boundary. It wasn't overthrown it was underthrown and hit stokes bat then went to the boundary.
 
Dougy16 said:
But that's only when the ball is overthrown to the boundary. It wasn't overthrown it was underthrown and hit stokes bat then went to the boundary.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Underthrows

The debate isn't even about what you're bringing up as that bit is cut and dry man.

It's about when the batsmen crossed.
 
Last edited:
Dougy16 said:
The law says if the ball was overthrown to the boundary. It wasn't it wouldn't have reached the boundary.
Click to expand...

Until its gathered, regardless of it hitting someone, it's still all part of the throw, which ended up as an overthrow.

What happened was an overthrow.

That's the rules.

Edit. If it hit stokes' bat and then didn't reach the boundary isn't the ball still alive? So all the fielders could stop and the batsmen run several runs. It doesn't need to hit the rope to be an overthrow.
 
Last edited:
Bob Fleming said:
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.
Click to expand...
The appropriate response England, World Champions
 
nz joe said:
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 .
Click to expand...
nah they had crossed when it hit the bat, for the 2nd run. Basically nobody has got any clue :lol:
 
dangermows said:
Until its gathered, regardless of it hitting someone, it's still all part of the throw, which ended up as an overthrow.

What happened was an overthrow.

That's the rules.

Edit. If it hit stokes' bat and then didn't reach the boundary isn't the ball still alive? So all the fielders could stop and the batsmen run several runs. It doesn't need to hit the rope to be an overthrow.
Click to expand...

This Edit comment is the key. If it hadn't hit the boundary (and Stokes hadn't run anymore) it would have been 2 runs, not 1. We completed 2 runs. We then got 4 runs as an overthrow.
 
dangermows said:
Until its gathered, regardless of it hitting someone, it's still all part of the throw, which ended up as an overthrow.

What happened was an overthrow.

That's the rules.

Edit. If it hit stokes' bat and then didn't reach the boundary isn't the ball still alive? So all the fielders could stop and the batsmen run several runs. It doesn't need to hit the rope to be an overthrow.
Click to expand...

The ball was still alive anyway. It's just a gentleman's agreement that says you don't run in that scenario.
 

Back
Top