Bah, didn't realise Archer was a United fan...
Those lot make more claims than fucking ISIS.
Bah, didn't realise Archer was a United fan...
Both batsmen made it back to the crease... 2 runs. The extra 4 is because of the stupidity of Guptill trying to run Stokes out. 6 awarded is correct surely.More confuscation within the laws of the game. Makes me think that FICKFUFA have been writing the laws of cricket. Two runs for the batsman and four for the overthrows. Why the need to add some microscopic mullarkey where none is needed.
Bah, didn't realise Archer was a United fan...
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.and don't need to - England won anyway !!!
'Wilful act of fielder' includes Stokes' accidental contact therefore the instant of the act was after the batsmen crossed.
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.Both batsmen made it back to the crease... 2 runs. The extra 4 is because of the stupidity of Guptill trying to run Stokes out. 6 awarded is correct surely.
They had crossed when it hit Stokes' bat. The argument is that they hadn't crossed when Guptill threw the ball that resulted in the overthrows. It's all irrelevant now anyway (which is obviously very easy for us to say!)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?
Yes if we could have got a few more runs early on in our innings we would have nothing to debate, but the way it actually panned out was the stuff of dreams.They had crossed when it hit Stokes' bat. The argument is that they hadn't crossed when Guptill threw the ball that resulted in the overthrows. It's all irrelevant now anyway (which is obviously very easy for us to say!)
Indeed. Money well spent, no matter how much it cost.Yes if we could have got a few more runs early on in our innings we would have nothing to debate, but the way it actually panned out was the stuff of dreams.
Those lucky enough to have been at Lords must be completely drained today.
Bah, didn't realise Archer was a United fan...
Would it? I'm sure NZ and Boult would have preferred to be bowling the penultimate ball at Rashid (a new batsman and tail ender) than Stokes, who is a batsman and well set. Equally England would have been desperate to have Stokes on strike. It's egregious to argue otherwise.
Of course, Rashid might have hit a boundary to win the match. We'll never know.