Cricket World Cup 2019 - England World Champions!!!

Yes it might, hopefully the ICC will clarify. To me it reads as 'wilful act of a fielder' so not relevant to anyone else in my interpretation. Some of us are wondering (in later posts) whether it is a clause to cover things like deflecting the ball or kicking the ball rather than something that comes specifically from a throw. So for instance a throw comes in, another fielder tries to deflect the ball onto the stumps with his/her foot and it then runs for four 'overthrows'. The 'timing' point will be the second person, not the first.

It seems clear cut to me. The clause differentiates between overthrows and wilful acts by the fielder. The "act" in the final sentence can only apply to "wilful acts by the fielder". Yesterday there clearly wasn't a "wiful act by the fielder" so only the reference to overthrows is relevant ie whether the batsmen had crossed when the ball was thrown.
 
I think it is right to discuss it to prevent it re-occurring. The umpires should probably have known the rule on this, in my opinion, but with it being a rare occurrence it is good to revisit it as a reminder. I knew the boundary had to be counted and added to the completed runs, but didn't know about the throw-before-crossing rule. It's one of the great things about cricket, learning small anomalies like this, but I agree, quite why that rule is there is odd.

However, the fact is that the umpires decision on the pitch is final. If the players don't query it at the time, they lose their case. Williamson has been absolutely class in his responses so far. He has said it was one of those things and I'm pretty sure he'll say that you can't just dock a run off England now because you don't know if England would have then hit the next ball for four and won it anyway.

i can't find anywhere an explanation or reason as to why you only count the runs before the return throw. Why is it there? What purpose does it serve?
 
Just watching the highlights now. Didn't really notice yesterday (too caught up in the moment, I guess), but Ian Smith on commentary. Wow. Talk about impartial. Not.

There is an integrity in the Cricket media, that you will find in no other sport. They educate their fans and are happy
to applaud the game, no matter who is playing.
 
i can't find anywhere an explanation or reason as to why you only count the runs before the return throw. Why is it there? What purpose does it serve?
I suppose the rule is there to prevent the batting team from getting too big an advantage from the lucky deflection otherwise it becomes more beneficial than a traditional overthrow because the backing up fielder is disadvantaged too.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Shane Warne, " England didn't really beat New Zealand and New Zealand were the better side" . When will TV companies learn not to put bitter Australians on as pundits.

i think england was the better team just, that bit that won the world cup

am 1 of england biggest critics at times and the ECB are clueless and our game is based around the english summers with swing bowlers and that's it, nothing really is done about the winters tours and the last away ashes was one of the worst, but this win will paper over the cracks and jofra archer will be the new poster boy,
 
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.
Me and a mate skipped school to go on the Monday as it was free entry.........

Fun times
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.