| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six 12:45 - Jul 15 with 1968 views | SWGF |
...when the ball his Stokes' bat.
Apparently the additional runs are added to whatever runs had been completed, or more crucially, if the batsmen had *crossed* at the time when the thrower releases the ball.
"Law 19.8, pertaining to “overthrow or wilful act of fielder”, means that England’s second on-field run should not have counted because Stokes and Adil Rashid, his batting partner, had not crossed when the Guptill released his throw towards the stumps.
The relevant law states that if the boundary results from an overthrow or the wilful act of the scorer then runs should be given for: penalties awarded to either side, the allowance for the boundary, and the runs complete by the batsmen, together with the run in progress but only if they had already crossed at the instance of the throw or act."
Replay next week? |  |
| |  |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 12:46 - Jul 15 with 1926 views | Reuser_is_God |
Oh well. |  |
| |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 12:46 - Jul 15 with 1921 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
Nothing to see here. |  |
| |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 12:48 - Jul 15 with 1910 views | Ftnfwest |
In any event, he hit it twice so should have been given out for that? Not that i care! |  | | |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 12:49 - Jul 15 with 1889 views | Reuser_is_God |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 12:48 - Jul 15 by Ftnfwest |
In any event, he hit it twice so should have been given out for that? Not that i care! |
No, because the second 'hit' wasn't intentional. | |
| |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 12:51 - Jul 15 with 1883 views | Ftnfwest |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 12:49 - Jul 15 by Reuser_is_God |
No, because the second 'hit' wasn't intentional. |
sounds good to me | | | |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 12:54 - Jul 15 with 1861 views | WarkTheWarkITFC |
While you're at it, the ball hadn't crossed the line in 1966 either.
Now, just need to find something wrong with 2003 ... |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 13:04 - Jul 15 with 1801 views | Guthrum |
Cricket: I'm still coming down from yesterday by Guthrum 15 Jul 2019 13:02If they're going to play that sort of game, it is by no means impossible the Rashid - a decent striker of the ball - may then have put the ball over the boundary and won the game outright, rather than an exhausted Stokes only being able to find (effectively) a couple of singles at the cost of two run-outs.
|  |
| |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 13:19 - Jul 15 with 1723 views | christiand |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 12:46 - Jul 15 by Ryorry |
Already been done - see SteveM's thread p2! 
Even if correct, the extra run was cancelled out by the incorrect "wide" called by the ump for Archer's first ball of the super-over - replay showed the ball actually hit the line. [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 12:49]
|
Aren't the blue lines used as a guide for the umpires rather than it's the law of the game? [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 14:27]
| |
| |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 13:25 - Jul 15 with 1708 views | Guthrum |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 13:19 - Jul 15 by christiand |
Aren't the blue lines used as a guide for the umpires rather than it's the law of the game? [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 14:27]
|
Correct. Furthermore, wides are much more tightly judged in ODI and T20 cricket (particularly down the leg side and on height) than Test Matches. | |
| |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 13:50 - Jul 15 with 1641 views | Ftnfwest |
Having read up on this at lunchtime apparently the key words here are '..or act'. In other words although they hadn't crossed before the throw, they had by the time of the 'act' which was the accidental contact with Stokes bat...m'lud. | | | |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 14:09 - Jul 15 with 1564 views | Guthrum |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 13:50 - Jul 15 by Ftnfwest |
Having read up on this at lunchtime apparently the key words here are '..or act'. In other words although they hadn't crossed before the throw, they had by the time of the 'act' which was the accidental contact with Stokes bat...m'lud. |
Except that, earlier in the rule, it refers to '... the wilful act of a fielder ...' (my emphasis), with that seemingly being the 'act' referred to, thus not the deflection off Stokes' bat. [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 14:11]
| |
| |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 14:15 - Jul 15 with 1538 views | Ftnfwest |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 14:09 - Jul 15 by Guthrum |
Except that, earlier in the rule, it refers to '... the wilful act of a fielder ...' (my emphasis), with that seemingly being the 'act' referred to, thus not the deflection off Stokes' bat. [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 14:11]
|
i'd love to have seen them all sit down just afterwards on the outfield with the book open discussing it! | | | |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 14:28 - Jul 15 with 1499 views | christiand |
| Oh, while we're on a cricket theme, it should have been five runs not six on 13:58 - Jul 15 by Ryorry |
Just went on what I was told on another thread! |
That's my general approach too Ryorry!! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
