Cricket World cup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qccfc

Apparently the batsman must have crossed at the time the ball left the fielders hand, and they hadn't. A overthrow starts when it leaves the bowlers hand.

Its not a rule i was aware of, i would have thought that as Stoke completed 2 runs on the deflection, and another 4 followed it would be the 6 runs.

[bold] Its also difficult for the umpire to judge that at that moment. [/bold]

---

[/QUOTE]

In such an unusual scenario and in such a crucial play he could easily have gone upstairs to check and nobody would have blamed him.

In such an unusual scenario and in such a crucial play he could easily have gone upstairs to check and nobody would have blamed him.[/QUOTE]

The third umpire is watching all the time, and they were all clearly talking for a long time after the issue. I would imagine that all 3 umpires and the players were unaware of the exact ruling on this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacAdder

In such an unusual scenario and in such a crucial play he could easily have gone upstairs to check and nobody would have blamed him.

---

How often does this happen? These are the best 3 officials in the world, it isn't a conspiracy theory. There's no guarantee Stokes doesn't take England home if they need one more to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by insider

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick

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?

---

They would have needed 4 off 2 balls and 3 for the tie instead of 3 and 2.

They played the last 2 balls a sure singles with run outs going for 2s. The mentality would have been different maybe a bigger shot needed, but it still could have gone either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick

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?

---

No, if they got 5, Stokes would still have pushed the ball into the leg side to get 1 run. Obviously getting 5 or 6 made NO impact whatsoever on his shot selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optimistic Nick

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?

---

The point being it would have been Rashid on strike and not Stokes as they had only completed one run. It was a huge error by the umpires. It should have been four wanted off two with Rashid to face and not three off two with Stokes facing. They should have been aware of the rules and checked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

No, if they got 5, Stokes would still have pushed the ball into the leg side to get 1 run. Obviously getting 5 or 6 made NO impact whatsoever on his shot selection.

---

Stokes wouldn't have been on strike if it was 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

No, if they got 5, Stokes would still have pushed the ball into the leg side to get 1 run. Obviously getting 5 or 6 made NO impact whatsoever on his shot selection.

---

But he wouldnt have been on strike?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qccfc

Stokes wouldn't have been on strike if it was 5.

---

They'd have played tip and run with Stokes needing 2 to draw off the last. Who's to say what would have happened?

If you go through their innings, I'm sure you can find a no ball that NZ bowled that didn't get called, a wide that was harshly given or not given. These things happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

They'd have played tip and run with Stokes needing 2 to draw off the last. Who's to say what would have happened?

If you go through their innings, I'm sure you can find a no ball that NZ bowled that didn't get called, a wide that was harshly given or not given. These things happen.

---

Or Boult could have clean bowled him leaving Stokes stranded at the wrong end for the final ball. We will never know but the Umpires messed up and the Kiwis to their eternal credit didn’t complain.It was a fantastic game with great sportsmanship from both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pearcey3

Or Boult could have clean bowled him leaving Stokes stranded at the wrong end for the final ball. We will never know but the Umpires messed up and the Kiwis to their eternal credit didn’t complain.It was a fantastic game with great sportsmanship from both sides.

---

We won't. Who's to say what could have happened? Chris Gayle got caught the ball after a massive no ball vs Australia in the world cup. It should have been a free hit, and he could have got them to victory. Umpires rarely calling front foot no balls is a bigger issue in fairness. The Kiwis have taken it well, the Australian and Indian media, not so much. Wonder why that is? :hehe:

I don't think they did mess up. The run didn't come from the throw, it came from the act of hitting Stokes. The rule states the run counts if the the batsmen had crossed at the time of the throw or act. That's my take on it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qccfc

Stokes wouldn't have been on strike if it was 5.

---

I think he would have been on strike because the umpire would have signalled 1 short. You cant alter the fact that the ball reached the boundary, or the fact that they ran 2, so in order to award 5 runs hed have to signal 1 short and leave the batsmen where they are.

Haven't read this entire thread but just wanted to say, same as a lot of you I have a passing interest in a lot of sports - cricket is nowhere near my favourite and up until yesterday I did no more than keep an eye on the scores from this world cup, but that was the most dramatic, incredible end to a sporting event I've ever seen.

I genuinely still can't stop thinking about it today. Stokes having the entire world cup on his shoulders, dragging them through, that catch that turned into a six, the 2 that turned into a six, that super over. The pressure on Stokes whilst they were dropping like around him. Absolutely unreal. Sport is utterly amazing and I feel for people who don't experience the highs and dramas of it. And I say that as someone who didn't really care if England won or not

Not a massive Cricket fan, 5 day test matches bore the hell out of me, though saying that the shorter games are good ( in whatever form they take )

I often Watch my younger daughter play, she plays for the girls county team and its a decent standard

This World cup has been great to follow, of course the final few overs was great, I am up In Liverpool for the Netball World Cup and caught the last few overs in the bar of Jury Inn which is directly opposite the M&S arena where the Netball is being played, of course to improve the experience the hotel is full of Australians and Kiwi's ( inc both the netball teams ) the Bar was a great place, the Australians and Kiwi's cheering on NZ ( anything to beat the POMS ) when We won, it was good to give it back to them

Now got to beat them in the Netball aswell :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue matt

Not a massive Cricket fan, 5 day test matches bore the hell out of me, though saying that the shorter games are good ( in whatever form they take )

I often Watch my younger daughter play, she plays for the girls county team and its a decent standard

This World cup has been great to follow, of course the final few overs was great, I am up In Liverpool for the Netball World Cup and caught the last few overs in the bar of Jury Inn which is directly opposite the M&S arena where the Netball is being played, of course to improve the experience the hotel is full of Australians and Kiwi's ( inc both the netball teams ) the Bar was a great place, the Australians and Kiwi's cheering on NZ ( anything to beat the POMS ) when We won, it was good to give it back to them

Now got to beat them in the Netball aswell :thumbup:

---

2 of my daughters played for Wales ... one at Hockey, the other Netball. It was fun watching them excel at these minority sports but as a family we all got more out of their brother playing county football.