It was one of the craziest moments of the Cricket World Cup Final and in the aftermath, it’s only grown to be more bizarre.
Chasing 241, England needed nine runs to win from the final three deliveries when they received an all-time stroke of luck.
A Ben Stokes slog to deep midwicket for two became six after a miraculous ricochet from the resulting Martin Guptill throw off the all-rounder’s bat saw the ball race to the boundary.
The incident helped force a super over, which when the teams were tied once again, saw England prevail via a countback on boundaries scored.
However, some have questioned whether the home side was awarded one more overthrow then it should have been.
Law 19.8 reads, “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“.
Critically, just as Guptill let go of the ball, the two English batsmen had not crossed for the second run.
This would indicate England should have been awarded five runs rather than six.
The ICC has yet to comment on the matter.
HR
Roar Rookie
You're an odd combination of astonishingly petty and wildly optimistic.
HR
Roar Rookie
That's fair enough - the rule isn't explicit, and the 'unwritten rule' is for the batsman not to run on a deflection, so the way it currently works isn't really satisfactory (the batting side won't seek to score any runs, but might get four once in a while). I guess one option would be to declare the ball dead once it strikes the batsman or his equipment, except in the case where the batsman is given out obstructing the field.
Peter Warrington
Guest
except..... Rashid would have been on strike...
Peter Warrington
Guest
i am with David on this. I don't consider it an overthrow. nor a wilful act (that's for fielders deliberately scoring a boundary to keep someone on strike.) they applied the wrong rule i reckon because they don't have a rule for this situation - and such a rule would have to cover any runs scored in this situation, not just boundaries. further evidence they don't have a rule IMHO
Peter Warrington
Guest
agree it wasn't an overthrow
Peter Warrington
Guest
to be honest i wouldn't consider this situation "overthrows". it was a deflection. the ball didn't even make it to the stumps.
Nick
Guest
Small matter of the trigger for gun law changes being an incident in their own country? Why didnt Aus laws change after the US cafeteria massacre of 23 in 1991?
AREH
Roar Guru
I like this; you just have the boundary automatically added to the total; not the additional runs taken
taylorman
Roar Guru
Gee thats hard, Neesham and Guptill you mean? On Guptill, the hit looked good enough for an easy two so i thought Guptill must have laboured at some point, but being the hitter for two required he was always going to be the target of the field, and I thought, obviously in hindsight, Neesham could have stood his ground behind the keeper and let the keeper think he was getting Guptill out, then scarpered to the other end in all the fuss. Neesham will have known Guptill was going to struggle based on his own running.
Ad-O
Guest
Nice try but the law clearly states its the "...wilful act of the fielder".
Ad-O
Guest
Yeah, nah. I'll give you the rugby jibe, but you just gave a lesson in how to be wrong at everything in less than 200 words. Well done.
Gee
Roar Rookie
They can keep their PM. She is wonderfully woke but a bit late with gun laws, unlike our boring white guys.
Gee
Roar Rookie
The wide was called and Santner not playing a shot or Boult at least not trying to run the bye off the keeper were shockers.
HR
Roar Rookie
The wide in the super-over wouldn't matter if NZ had been awarded the victory at the conclusion of England's innings, so it's not really relevant.
HR
Roar Rookie
I would disagree - it's a long bow to draw that this was not an overthrow. And if it's considered to be an overthrow, the 'willful act' part of the law is irrelevant to the interpretation, and the batsmen have to have "already crossed at the instant of the throw", which they clearly had not done.
Winnie the Pooh (Emperor of China)
Guest
It makes up for all the cheating the All Blacks get away with. Too bad, too sad BYE BYE! Now it's up to the Wallabies to get back Bledisloe and the World Cup to really rub salt in the Kiwi's wounds.
HR
Roar Rookie
Where do you get that idea from? There's no reference to extenuating circumstances for a deflection anywhere in Law 19.8. The time of the throw was the relevant time. Unless you're claiming that Guptill hitting Stokes' bat was a 'willful act', which is absurd.
HR
Roar Rookie
It was six runs.
Kevin
Guest
Can I also query ( may be wrong ) but the catch that was walked over the boundary , what was that 6 and not 4 ?
taylorman
Roar Guru
Well to be fair kiwis dont think they were in any shape or form ‘the best side at this tournament’ so I dont think we feel robbed in the ...’better team lost’ kind of way as much as say oz woyld had they been NZ in this result. (As opposed to the 1995 and 07 world rugby cups for example...you heard a lot of moaning from those). If we are moaning about anything its just the rotten luck of getting six runs off not even a boundary hit at such a crucial time...everything else is explainable. Not ideal, but explainable. But that stroke of luck...only the Gods can explain that one...one for the books. :-)