TheRemainsOfTheDave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Mar 2017
- Messages
- 6,491
Thanks for that - I agree, wilful act isn't in play here.My friend who is an umpire in the Birmingham League says "Wilfull act" or "act" means if the fielder deliberately throws the ball out of play to reduce the number of runs scored (e.g. the batsmen have already run 5 runs and the fielder throws the ball out of play to try and reduce the runs scored from the delivery). It does not apply in this case..
All that counts here is overthrows, and an overthrow is called if the ball goes over the boundary, no matter how it gets there; retrospectively applied to the point when the fielder threw the ball.
My friend would give 5 runs if he could see the players hadn't crossed, 6 otherwise. That said the speed at which professional players run makes it difficult to judge if they had crossed from the scoring umpires perspective. The other umpire had a much better view and should have given him a signal to say if he thought the players hadn't crossed the moment the ball was thrown.
So both umpires made a mistake but it happens and mistakes can't be delt with retrospectively. As my friend says if the mistake is not promptly corrected on the field the decision stands.
He also says the West Indian umpire was a bit keen on giving wides so another umpire would probably have knocked a few runs off the NZ total.
Also, I think you mean Kumar Dharmasena was the one giving wides against England but not for England for similar deliveries, but he's a Sri Lankan of course. The wide he gave in Archer's super over was dead on the guide line but the batter had already edged to off side (so much that his back foot was outside the line of off stump) so he got that one wrong in my opinion. He was poor in the semi-final too, but that's how it goes with umpires.