It’s the last over the final of the Cricket World Cup of 2019.
Ben Stokes has just hit a six over midwicket, so England need 9 runs from three balls. Difficult but achievable.
Trent Boult runs into bowl, his face strained with concentrated effort. Stokes opens his body and resembles a southpaw baseball striker; which is just as well because the ball is hurtling, on the full, towards his off-stump.
Swinging hard, across the line, Stokes heaves the ball to Martin Guptill at deep midwicket.
Despite going almost directly to the fielder, Stokes has – somewhat incredibly – turned by the time Guptill fields the ball and is heading back for a second run to retain the strike.
But it’s tight. Oh, so tight.
So, as he scampers towards the keeper’s end, with big powerful strides – and as the ball converges on the same target – Stokes dives with bat extended in his left hand.
He couldn’t have timed it better if he tried.
Searching ball connects with stretching bat and it speeds at pace – at terminal velocity if you are cheering for New Zealand – toward the now unprotected boundary at third man.
To his credit, Stokes immediately puts his hands up in abject apology. But, surely, in his heart, he is singing.
Instead of scoring two runs, England are credited with 6. Instead of requiring 7 runs from the last two balls of the tournament, they now need just 3.
As we now know, England only scored two and the World Cup Final of 2019 was sent into a thrilling Super Over which England ultimately won.
Doubtless Kiwis and neutral fans alike will bristle at the last sentence because England tied the Super Over and were awarded the match, and the Cup, because they scored more boundaries in the primary contest. That’s a controversy in itself, about which others will surely write, tweet and bleat.
England won the World Cup. (Photo by Gareth Copley-IDI/IDI via Getty Images)
But back to that critical moment when the deflection from Stokes’ bat essentially gave England four bonus runs which proved crucial to the outcome of the World Cup Final.
What do the Laws of Cricket say?
Let’s start with Law 18, which deals with “Scoring Runs”.
Barring penalty runs, Law 18.1 says that runs are scored “so often as the batsman, any time while the ball is in play, have crossed and made good their ground from end to end” or when a boundary is scored.
For our purposes, the critical issue is whether the ball was “in play” after it hit Stokes’ bat as he dived to make his ground.
That takes us to Law 20 which regulates the question of when the ball is “dead”. Law 20.1 sets out eight circumstances where the ball becomes dead:
• When the ball is finally settled in the hands of the wicketkeeper or bowler;
• When a boundary is scored;
• When a batsman is dismissed;
• When the ball becomes trapped in the batsman’s equipment or clothing;
• When the ball becomes trapped in the clothing of the Umpire;
• When the ball is fielded by a Player returning to the field without permission;
• When the ball hits an unused protective helmet; and
• When (perhaps obviously) when the game is concluded.
Clearly none of the circumstances cited in Law 20.1 apply to the situation where the ball hits the batsman, or their equipment, and is deflected to the boundary
Importantly, the Laws also include a catch-all provision, in Law 20.1.2, which states that the ball shall be considered dead “when it is clear to the bowler’s end umpire that the fielding side and both batsman at the wicket have ceased to regard it as in play.”
Unfortunately, for New Zealand, it would not have been clear to the Umpires that the batsman ceased to regard the ball to be in play after it hit Stokes’ bat and commenced its epic journey to the boundary.
But here’s the devilish doosra.
Had Stokes declared that he considered the ball dead once it hit his bat, could the Umpires have invoked Law 20.1.2 to declare the ball dead and disallow the additional four runs?
Perhaps.
Should Stokes have made that declaration? There is a custom, after all, that batsmen will not run when a ball, thrown at the stumps, instead deflects off the batsman.
Perhaps.
Would you in the same circumstances?
Who knows?
Let me be clear: I am not saying that Stokes cheated. As was the case with the infamous underarm infamy, Stokes – and England – adhered to the rules of the game by accepting the additional four runs.
But did they adhere to the spirit?
Ultimately, it’s easy to adhere to personal or group values when doing so doesn’t come at any cost. Values are only truly tested when adhering to them might cost you something.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
The controversy notwithstanding, I think England deserved to celebrate. They played some great cricket and are entitled to celebrate their triumph. And in 1999 - when Australia tied with South Africa to proceed to the WC Final - the Aussie players were certainly celebrating! As was I...!
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Thanks Cari, it's a fair cop! My thoughts on the spirit of cricket are clearly aspirational and are unlikely to ever be realised. I am not accusing Ben Stokes of being a bad sport. What I am describing, I think, is a exalted state of sportsmanship, which only really exists in my dreams. (Although I do recall Pat Rafter once conceding a ball was in - when the linesman called it out - on match point.) My mindset in this instance, was based on the convention that the batsman do not run in these circumstances when the ball is deflected into open field and stops short of the boundary. I pose the rhetorical question; why is the convention not observed when the ball is deflected to the boundary? In my article, I identify one of the Laws which could be used in the circumstances. It is actually a fascinating question, what Stokes would have done - in the extreme circumstances of trying to win a World Cup in the final over - had the ball not been deflected all the way to the boundary. Would the batsman have run, despite the convention not to? Would his teammates have beat the crap out of him had he not run and England lost on the final ball? We will never know. But's it's a fascinating thing to contemplate.
ego
Guest
He will be apologizing for that deflection with that happiness everytime he poses with the world cup. Gentlemen apparently.. In a way even New Zealand finds their way into the list of countries England stole from. The kohinoor to the world cup. Great show.. character stays the same. Further the way they celebrated.. as they have really won.. the so called gurus of the game, absolutely hilarious.
Cari
Roar Rookie
All these comments are opinions made after the game was over and made by the benefit of watching the replays and studying the rule book. I’m perfectly happy about that, after all each one of us has a right to express their thoughts. What I have a problem with is those who introduce sportsmanship into the discussion by saying Stokes could have refused to accept the extra runs. Really!! I have never heard that batsmen could forfeit their runs when the umpire has awarded them. I was always taught that right or wrongly the umpire’s decision is final. If there is such a rule I would be glad if someone would point it out to me. Lastly if Stokes had that sudden attack of sportsmanship can you imagine the reception he would get returning to the changing room? Would he be congratulated on an outstanding display of sportsmanship or would his teammates go absolutely ballistic?
HR
Roar Rookie
A minefield indeed. But you're right that it's something that's worth having a good think about.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Thanks Cari, I recognise the distinction. I wrote an article on sledging too: https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/09/25/headbutting-the-line-the-law-of-sledging/ I advocated that a rule should be developed where clever Oscar Wilde-esque sledging was encouraged whereas stupidly inane sledging, which would make you blush if you said it in front of your mother, was banned. But more, seriously, I argued that certain topics should simply be off-limits, such as anything to do with the players' friends and family and anything to do with race, religion or sexual orientation. Cheers,
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Agreed Bayman. The point about the boundary count-back, which I had not picked up on before, is that NZ played one less match than Eng in the group stage because their game against India was washed out. I would love to see the stat for average boundaries per match and see whether Eng still "won".
Bayman
Roar Rookie
Well, Peter, if the correct ‘five’ runs had been awarded instead of the six, the result would have been completely different with a super over not required…but now it’s all ifs, buts and maybes…..
Cari
Roar Rookie
I was talking about sportsmanship whereas the sandpaper episode was cheating on the field of play which is far different. Australia also acknowledged that sledging had got out of hand and called for it to change. Indecently I’m not a fan of the ‘Barmy Army’ either, I don’t find them funny their just a collection beer soaked prats.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Good point, the question of whether the batsmen have crossed should come up regardless of whether there is a deflection. And four overthrows certainly arent as rare as hen’s teeth. Yet the issue never comes up.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
I agree, although what struck me is that 19.8 should come up quite regularly. Like all of us, I've seen many overthrows in my cricketing life, and some have gone to the boundary. I don't recall any prior focus on the instant the fielder threw the ball. The other interesting point in all this, about which I have seen no commentary, is whether Stokes would have been run out if the the ball evaded his magical bat. I think he definitely would have been out with a direct hit and may have still been out if the keeper did some quick work. He was still some distance from safety when the ball hit his bat.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Absolutely Peter. I was just reflecting on the fact that while there was a lot of bad luck plus an umpiring error, there was a tiny moment of opportunity for NZ to change their own fate. But it’s doubtful any team would have been on top of that rule.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Thanks Dave. Ultimately, the Umpires should know the rules. Surely.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Wow! Really? If that is true, my estimation of Ben Stokes has just gone from my toes to above my head. It might explain what the Umpires were talking about for so long. That said, I just read the article on SMH and the source appears to be Jimmy Anderson who thinks he heard Michael Vaughan say something: "I think, talking to Michael Vaughan who saw him after the game, Ben Stokes actually went to the umpires and said, 'Can you take that four runs off. We don't want it'. It doesn't seem 100% reliable, particularly given that Stokes, himself, is quoted only as saying he apologised to the Kiwis and has not been directly quoted saying he asked the Umpires to remove the runs.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
You're absolutely right, HR! In addition, the umpire would also have to adjudicate - as they do now - whether the batsman altered their path or a moved a limb to make contact with the returning ball to render a run-out moot. My goodness, what a mine field!
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
I doubt think there’s any question about England adhering to the spirit. It’s even been reported that Stokes asked if the four runs could be discounted at the time. But you do point out an interesting gap in the rules. The rule about overthrows (19.8) is also defective insofar as it doesn’t address the situation where a ball deflects off a batsman. The umpires apparently didn’t even know how to apply 19.8 properly (I.e. the part about not counting any runs when the batsmen haven’t crossed). So a long shot to expect them to have been immersed in the intricacies I’d the wording of 20.1.2. But I’ll say once again, NZ could have helped themselves if they had known 19.8, which is pretty clear. If they had pointed out that it was only 5 runs when the umpires spent a couple of minutes before confirming it was 6, the umpires would surely have had to concede it was 5.
HR
Roar Rookie
Though it would also mean that an umpire would have to adjudicate on something like Buttler's run-out of Smith - if the ball touched his trousers as it went through his legs, that rule would mean that the ball was dead when it hit the stumps. A couple of hours thinking about the rule could probably come up with something reasonable to cover these eventualities, but there are a few edge cases that need to be considered.
badmanners
Roar Rookie
I've just read an article where it said that Stokes asked the umpires to "take the runs off" when the incident happened. Surely that matches the rule 20.1.2 quoted above where both the batsmen and fielding team considers the ball dead? "If" it happened as such then the umpires are clearly at fault.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Ken, that's an outstanding point and one I had not contemplated! Whilst slightly different, it reminds me of the time I was in a school match. I was backing up at the non-striker's end and my team mate smashed the ball back down the wicket. The bowler stuck his right leg out to stop the ball and the ball deflected from his leg and took out middle stump. And I was left standing there like an idiot a couple of steps down the wicket! What made a mortifying moment worse was the sound of my team mates raucously laughing from the sidelines! But back to your point, I still support the notion of amending the dead ball rule to render the ball dead if a throw hits the batsman or their equipment. The result would be that both runs and freak run-outs would be banished.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Haha. No of course not re '99; it's a natural reaction to focus on your team's achievement when they are the winner, easier to be more objective when you are a neutral.