Quote Originally Posted by insider View Post
He dived into his crease the ball was deflected for 4.
They did not run for a 3rd out of sportsmanship.
The umpire had no other decision to make other than to signal a 4 plus the 2 completed runs.
The test is whether they had crossed when the ball was thrown, which they clearly had not.

It's obviously a pretty obscure part of the rules so I can well see how the umpire got it wrong, but he did get it wrong. They should have had the four runs from the overthrow, plus the runs completed (1); plus the run in progress if the batters had crossed when the ball was thrown. So 5.

But these things happen. The final ball would have played out differently had Stokes needed to hit a boundary and who is to say whether he would have managed it?