Cricket World Cup 2019 - England World Champions!!!

[MillionMilesAway]

I don't think 'the act' relates to the throw in this case. It looks to me like it means EITHER the moment immediately after the throw is made (i.e. when the ball is released) OR, and this didn't happen here, after the moment of the 'wilful act' which is the bit no-one is sure of. I'm guessing it might mean a fielder deflecting/kicking the ball (or perhaps wilfully impeding the batsman, hence why there is mention of penalty runs in there) and then the ball continues for boundary overthrow, in which case the moment the last fielder touched it would be the point the umpires check for legitimate runs. I guess we'll need to see why that clause is in there. The ICC might have inserted it at some point to cover something that happened in another game or it might be a legacy piece that no-one is quite sure of.

However as you say, it is irrelevant for the result because the umpire's decision is final ...

2.12 Umpire’s decision
An umpire may alter any decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire’s decision, once made, is final.

I'm sure 'wilful act' is meant, as you say, to allow for such things as kicking the ball at the stumps.
Penalty runs = the one I can think of is the ball striking a helmet or cap on the ground gives 5 runs.

There will be a statement at some point, I expect.

 

[levets]

According to a well respected umpire it should have been 5 runs as the batsmen had not crossed for the second run when the ball hit Stokes bat.

Can not understand that as they would have got 2 runs even if the ball was not deflected, so why do you discount the second run?

Exactly my point. They ran 2, Stokes was always getting back. It was 4 overthrows. They HAD crossed when the ball hit Stokes’ bat. The Aussie is causing mischief. His argument is they hadn’t crossed when Guptill threw it.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

According to a well respected umpire it should have been 5 runs as the batsmen had not crossed for the second run when the ball hit Stokes bat.

Can not understand that as they would have got 2 runs even if the ball was not deflected, so why do you discount the second run?

To me, that's the most curious point about Taufel's comments. Discounting the second seems perverse!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Exactly my point. They ran 2, Stokes was always getting back. It was 4 overthrows. They HAD crossed when the ball hit Stokes’ bat. The Aussie is causing mischief. His argument is they hadn’t crossed when Guptill threw it.

That Taufel added the comment about it being ambiguous was pretty fair, I thought, and that in turn means his comments were his opinion, and what he'd have given.

 

[ancoats]

so so so many if's and but's about the super over and the tie score the thing is england are world champions ???

first thing first WELL PLAYED ENGLAND AND FULLY DESERVE WIN

right am holding my hands up and saying i was wrong, did not fancy england even after the sloppy group games when we finished 3rd and having to beat india and new zealand to get into the semi finals never held any hopes for winning the whole thing ????

but am still in shock it had me gripped for the last 3 hours of the game ? could not keep turning it over anymore for the F1 and tennis it was the cricket having taken a hold and you had the feeling something special was going to happen and boy did it, still can not get my head around the final moments and the 15 runs from 5 ball to take it to a super over in the first place, just about everything was happening from boult over stepping to give england 6 runs to stokes hitting the throw for 4 ?? it was all over for england the ball before and i nearly turn it off but, i dropped the remote on the floor and could not be arsed to pick it up hahahah

so many hero's and stokes will be the talk of the summer and just like ian botham's in 1981 will stay with you for ever

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

I'm sure 'wilful act' is meant, as you say, to allow for such things as kicking the ball at the stumps.
Penalty runs = the one I can think of is the ball striking a helmet or cap on the ground gives 5 runs.

There will be a statement at some point, I expect.

Just reading a bit more and I agree wilful act sounds like it is to cover kicking/deflecting the ball as when there is any attempt to obstruct the batsman (including by verbal means) even though that is also a 5 run penalty (plus a dead ball with runs scored still counting), the uncompleted run is counted regardless of whether they crossed or not.

Is it any wonder umpires make mistakes! ;)

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

Of course he is, just like the Chilean miners, the Thai kids that were trapped in the cave etc....

:-)

And that bloke who abducted Shannon Matthews

 

[Claytop]

If we'd have need more than 1 to tie off the final ball Stokes would have smashed the full toss out of the ground. So any chat about whether it should have been 5 or 6 seems pointless.

 

[M18CTID]

Exactly my point. They ran 2, Stokes was always getting back. It was 4 overthrows. They HAD crossed when the ball hit Stokes’ bat. The Aussie is causing mischief. His argument is they hadn’t crossed when Guptill threw it.

I remember being at Old Trafford for a test match against Pakistan back in 2001. Michael Vaughan reached his century with a 6 that included 4 overthrows. I don't seem to recall any furore back then over whether he should've only gotten 5 runs, but then I've no idea where he was on the pitch during his second run as the throw came in. However, I have to agree that this seems to be a case of mischief making because I've never seen this issue raised at any point in the past when players get 4 overthrows and surely Stokes isn't the only player to not have crossed during his second run when these instances occur.

As for the match, I'm still trying to take it all in. We were dead and buried on 2 or 3 occasions and I'm still trying to work out how we managed to dig it out. I've said it before and no doubt this will be a controversial comment on a football forum, but for me there's no greater sport on the planet. That might sound odd when I've only attended a fraction of cricket matches compared to football matches and I'm about to embark on my 30th consecutive season as a City season ticket holder, but while nothing will ever top following City home and away, I don't think football would be half the sport it is without the passion the fans bring to the table and all the tribalism that goes with it. Strip all that down though and cricket wins out for me. Sure, you can get boring passages of play but you can say the same about football. Every ball in cricket is a game in itself and when things do start to happen, it can be utterly fascinating just as we witnessed yesterday.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Just reading a bit more and I agree wilful act sounds like it is to cover kicking/deflecting the ball as when there is any attempt to obstruct the batsman (including by verbal means) even though that is also a 5 run penalty (plus a dead ball with runs scored still counting), the uncompleted run is counted regardless of whether they crossed or not.

Is it any wonder umpires make mistakes! ;)

Yeah, couldn't have told you what penalty verbal 'obstruction' would bring!