• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Should deflected overthrows off stokes bat have only been 5 runs not 6?

C

Cookie99

New member
As you can see from the laws it states the batsmen should be awarded 4 from the boundary, 1 for the completed run, but not 1 for the sixth run as the ball was thrown before the batsmen crossed for the second run?278D52B8-6F8F-44B5-89F8-691F3C88DAC5.jpeg
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
Possibly but it's pretty obscure, I'd say maybe just tighten up that law so interaction with the batsman is a bit clearer. Capping overthrows at either 4 or 5 is probably also a little overdue.
 
stephen

stephen

Well-known member
Alright, England need to hand back the trophy. Australia can take custody of it for the next 4 years as a punishment to all involved in this farce.
 
Bahnz

Bahnz

Well-known member
We'll support Australia's claim to the 2005 Ashes, if they back us for the 2019 World Cup.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Well-known member
Bahnz said:
We'll support Australia's claim to the 2005 Ashes, if they back us for the 2019 World Cup.
Click to expand...
done

I'll contact whoever our Prime Minister happens to be at this time (it could change by the time I finish typing) to ratify this
 
G

greg

Well-known member
The obvious law change is simply to disallow overthrows following a deflection off the batsman. Surprised it hasn’t been done previously.

After all basic accepted cricketing etiquette is that batsmen don’t voluntarily take extra runs after such a deflection, so why not formalise it in the laws?
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Am I missing something here? Where does it say in there that the run in progress wouldn’t count? They completed the second before the ball went to the boundary.
 
zorax

zorax

likes this
GIMH said:
Am I missing something here? Where does it say in there that the run in progress wouldn’t count? They completed the second before the ball went to the boundary.
Click to expand...
people are questioning at what point the overthrows should count from. At the moment Guptil threw the ball, they had only run one, and hadn't crossed for the second yet. If that's taken to be the starting point of the overthrows, then as per the laws England should have been awarded 1 + 4 = 5 runs.

However, the law does say 'throw or act', and that is key. If you work off the premise that the act of the ball hitting Stoke's bat is what lead to 4 overthrows, the that's the moment where the overthrows are counted from, and at that point they had already crossed on the 2nd run. So England should get 2 + 4 = 6 runs.

Personally I think the umpires got this right tbh. The act of the ball hitting his bat is what lead to 4 overthrows, not the throw. If Stokes' bat wasn't in the way, none of this would have happened.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
zorax said:
people are questioning at what point the overthrows should count from. At the moment Guptil threw the ball, they had only run one, and hadn't crossed for the second yet. If that's taken to be the starting point of the overthrows, then as per the laws England should have been awarded 1 + 4 = 5 runs.

However, the law does say 'throw or act', and that is key. If you work off the premise that the act of the ball hitting Stoke's bat is what lead to 4 overthrows, the that's the moment where the overthrows are counted from, and at that point they had already crossed on the 2nd run. So England should get 2 + 4 = 6 runs.

Personally I think the umpires got this right tbh. The act of the ball hitting his bat is what lead to 4 overthrows, not the throw. If Stokes' bat wasn't in the way, none of this would have happened.
Click to expand...
Who’s to say we would have collected the catch from Guptill then?
 
Bahnz

Bahnz

Well-known member
zorax said:
people are questioning at what point the overthrows should count from. At the moment Guptil threw the ball, they had only run one, and hadn't crossed for the second yet. If that's taken to be the starting point of the overthrows, then as per the laws England should have been awarded 1 + 4 = 5 runs.

However, the law does say 'throw or act', and that is key. If you work off the premise that the act of the ball hitting Stoke's bat is what lead to 4 overthrows, the that's the moment where the overthrows are counted from, and at that point they had already crossed on the 2nd run. So England should get 2 + 4 = 6 runs.

Personally I think the umpires got this right tbh. The act of the ball hitting his bat is what lead to 4 overthrows, not the throw. If Stokes' bat wasn't in the way, none of this would have happened.
Click to expand...
Nah, the word “act” clearly refers to the earlier part of the rule “willful act of the fielder”. It clearly wasn’t Guptill’s intention that the ball hit Stokes’ bat, so the cut off point is when Guptill released the ball. I suppose that’s to differentiate between when the ball deflects off the stumps and when something unforeseeable like last night happens. But yeah, technically it should’ve been a 5.

Again, it doesn’t mean NZ were robbed, Stokes probably would’ve approached that last ball differently if he’d known a 1 wasn’t enough for a super over, but yeah afaic it’s fairly clear.
 
Last edited:
zorax

zorax

likes this
Bahnz said:
Nah, the word “act” clearly refers to the earlier part of the rule “willful act of the fielder”. It clearly wasn’t Guptill’s intention that the ball hit Stokes’ bat, so the cut off point is when Guptill released the ball. So yeah, technically it should’ve been a 5.
Click to expand...
Yea you're right actually. I'm still catching up all on this. Reckon your interpretation is more accurate.

I'm reading some chat from other umpires now, and what they've questioned is if it was an error in judgement - i.e. did the onfield umpires think the batsman had crossed for two at the moment of the throw. The question then is if they were allowed to go up and check with the TV umpires, and if so, why they chose not to do so.

Some have asked if this should have been a dead ball. In practice batsman don't always run when the ball hits them or their bat, as a show good spirit. But can the umpires disallow a 4 in the name of maintaining the spirit of the game?

IDK. I'll wait for the MCC clarification, they usually sort all this stuff out well. But yea does seem like an onfield error atm.
 
Jezroy

Jezroy

Well-known member
Well I guess we should lawyer up and take this to the court of appeal!

PS: I don’t think that.
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Well-known member
How many years have people and commentators been saying that this rule needed to change in law because at some critical stage it would become important. I mean if there had been a deflection down to the boundary for a single off the last ball for England to tie the game would Stokes not have run under the gentleman's agreement and lost the WC? We will never know for sure...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top