The ICC have refused to be drawn into the furore surrounding the overthrows rule and whether England were incorrectly awarded an extra run in the World Cup final.
In a match shrouded in drama, England scored six from the third-last ball, when a throw from Martin Guptill rebounded off a diving Ben Stokes’ bat to the boundary.
It helped them tie the match, before a super over was also tied and England were handed the trophy over New Zealand on a boundary countback.
The umpires awarded six as Stokes and Adil Rashid were returning for their second run when the overthrow was made.
However it has since emerged that under Law 19.8, extra runs are only awarded if the batsmen have crossed when the ball is thrown, which was not the case on Sunday.
It means that England should only have received five runs off the delivery, leaving them with four to win off two balls.
Crucially, it also would have seen No.10 Rashid on strike for the next ball, rather than the in-form Ben Stokes.
However when contacted by AAP, the ICC said they would not be drawn into the issue.
“The umpires take decisions on the field with their interpretation of the rules and we don’t comment on any decisions as a matter of policy,” a spokesperson said.
Play was stopped for more than a minute following the ball, as the umpires met mid-pitch.
Former five-time ICC umpire of the year and member of the MCC laws sub-committee, Simon Taufel has also since admitted the on-field officials got it wrong.
“It’s a clear mistake … it’s an error of judgment,” Taufel told Fox Sports.
Meanwhile, New Zealand captain Kane Williamson deflected calls after the match for the overthrows rule to change.
While it is an unwritten rule in cricket to not run after a deflection from a runner, there is nothing in the laws to safeguard extra runs from being awarded when the ball goes to the boundary.
As such, umpires Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus had no choice but to signal the four.
“The rule has been there for a long time,” Williamson said.
“I don’t think anything like that’s happened (before) where you now question it.
“There were so many other bits and pieces to that game that were so important.”