• 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?

L

Lillian Thomson

Well-known member
weldone said:
Is the rule ambiguous? At least the MCC interpretation isn't. Is there any need to change the rule just for making it less ambiguous? I tend not to think so. Eager to hear why many in this thread are calling for changing this rule.
Click to expand...
No one is calling for a change in that part of the current rule, just saying the umpires got it wrong. The actual change would involve not awarding overthrows if the ball strikes the batsman. In the situation that prevailed logically England would have had two runs and the game carries on.
 
B

BSM

Well-known member
Would Rashid definitely have been on strike in the case of a 5 being awarded instead of a 6? If so, that would even seem a bit bizarre to me, and I would have been salty about it, as the point when the ball hits Stokes he has completed two runs and is on strike for the next ball.

We all know Rashid would have just plonked the ball into some unusual area of the ground for 4 anyway.
 
Victor Ian

Victor Ian

Well-known member
Cricket is about more than skill and rules. Luck is a rather large factor at times. Even if the ball travelled faster and hit the stumps to run Stokes out, it was England's day. They were going to win this no matter what transpired. I thought the first ball of that innings was telling. Out LBW. But the umpire erred on the side of caution rather than put his finger up. England's day. They won it with their bowling. A much underrated unit.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Well-known member
weldone said:
Can that result in some fielders targeting the batsmen with their throws?
Click to expand...
weldone said:
injuring the batsman

(not saying even 1% of fielders may take the approach; but some dick can)
Click to expand...
That's a bit disturbing you think that would be a possibility

Did you think people want to do that and the only reason people don't is because they're worried the ball will go for overthrows?
 
D

Daemon

Well-known member
TheJediBrah said:
That's a bit disturbing you think that would be a possibility

Did you think people want to do that and the only reason people don't is because they're worried the ball will go for overthrows?
Click to expand...
Never know with nasty people like Starc playing the game.

That Pollard incidents is one of the rare times I’ve seen a cricketer actively try and injure someone. Should’ve copped a ban for it actually.
 
Athlai

Athlai

Not Terrible
Deflected overthrows probably shouldn't exist at all. Assuming it comes into contact with the stumps/umpire/batsman. Makes sense for misfielding but once it hits something or someone (that isn't a fielder) it should probably be a dead ball (though if batsman have crossed then they should be able to complete the run unless run out).
 
V

vandem

Well-known member
Athlai said:
Deflected overthrows probably shouldn't exist at all. Assuming it comes into contact with the stumps/umpire/batsman. Makes sense for misfielding but once it hits something or someone (that isn't a fielder) it should probably be a dead ball (though if batsman have crossed then they should be able to complete the run unless run out).
Click to expand...
Martin Crowe was a vocal campiagner for dead ball after hitting the stumps, thought it encouraged shying at the stumps which was exciting for the spectators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top