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.”
Rob
Guest
It should have been awarded as 5 runs not 6. I actually thought they had made a boo boo when i saw the highlights of the game. Not sure how the umpires and match officials actual got it wrong as the batsmen had clear not even been close to crossing when the throw comes in. You can't take it off England now. Deciding the match by most boundaries is double dumb. Should just revert to who finished higher in qualifying games IMO.
Gee
Roar Rookie
It will be interesting to see if those umpires will be side lined in the future. Darrell Hair was canned for making the correct call on Murali and due to political pressure was black banned. These two bumblers make a crucial mistake in the WC final but seeing how NZ will not throw a tantrum they will probably get away with it.
James
Guest
Would have won NZ the game if everything else had played out. But another way of looking at it is the batsman would have known they had to get 4 off 2 not 3 which means they would have been looking more for a hit in the air to the boundary to clear it more than looking for a 2 or a single. The batsman would have played differently, they could have been clean bowled or got a six.
Wayne Stringer
Guest
Stupid situation. Any ball that hits a player's bat or helmet accidently from a throw should become dead.
Peter Warrington
Guest
Ffs does everyone in the Uk say salty as if it’s an actual thing?
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Can’t agree with that. If they had scored it as a five we go to hypotheticals. Clearly it would have been harder for England to win but we don’t know. It’s not a case where you can revisit the total after the game. The umps made a decision on the field that it was six runs, an error like a bad lbw decision that can’t be changed. But unlike an lbw decision when you have no DRS challenges left, NZ would probably have got the decision overturned on the spot if they’d known the rule and pointed it out to the umpire at the time.
Peter Warrington
Guest
You must be that other dude using salty on here all the time?
Peter Warrington
Guest
The throw was right at the stumps
Peter Warrington
Guest
In which there is no answer to how many runs would be awarded if Stokes has opted to run an additional 2 off this deflection And in which overthrow is not defined
Peter Warrington
Guest
The use of the word overthrow rather than throw doesn’t support that line, I reckon
Peter Warrington
Guest
Except the word is in the law, so need to be defined, either in the law, or by case law In my day we would never have described what happened as overthrows I doubt any of the commentators used that word to describe it. Smith doesn’t in the main feed.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Sadly yes.
Paul
Roar Guru
I don't think the ICC is covering it's ears Jeff, I think it's more like "treating the problem with ignore" as a teacher used to say. This is a pretty standard tactic in business and obviously works in most cases. I suspect people like you and I who want more from the ICC, know we're not going to get it and our perceptions have already been formed about where they stand in relation to the cricketing public. Most other people probably won't care, until they screw something else up, which WILL happen.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes but inaction means there's no accountability. ICC could have said a mistake was made, it happens, and we will address all matters that arose from this match going forward. That way they protect the game, including the Umpires credibility, and fix things going forward. By saying or doing nothing?
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes well they'd be criticizing their own. We've had World rugby examples where all it has managed to do is be seen as 'throwing their own under a bus'. If the ICC came out and said they made an error, their names would be highlighted (and currently I don't know or care who they were) , they'd be marginalised by fans, and the final would forever be referenced by their failings. By leaving it as ' people make mistakes' as a public assumption by hook or by crook the issue goes more quietly away. Jouberts Oz vs Scotland decision labelled incorrect by World rugby had one half saying they hung him out to dry, the other saying good that they front when one of their own is wrong. No one wins, except it probably lead to Jouberts earlier exit from the game at that level.
Censored Often
Roar Rookie
Best of three final.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I don't doubt at all that's what the ICC wants. Unfortunately the thrill of the contest and the memorable circumstances of the super over will be forever linked with the controversy associated with it. For the ICC to think otherwise by covering its ears, won't change that and just further reinforces the perception in the minds of many that the ICC has its priorities wrong and is disengaged from crickets supporter base.
Censored Often
Roar Rookie
"People" should refer to the MCC Laws of Cricket.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I doubt that it does. I just want the ICC/ICC umpires to provide an explanation of how they interpreted the law. I think that is an obligation they have which they can't brush aside and so I disagree that is appropriate for the ICC to remain silent.
Paul
Roar Guru
and keep the issue festering like a plague sore? the final was the best advertisement for cricket the games had since those epic Australia/South Africa games in '99. The faster this game slips into memory as "the best ODI game ever played", WITHOUT the associated controversy, the happier the ICC will be