Page 91 of 115 FirstFirst ... 418188899091929394101 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 1147
  1. #901
    Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Goldstone
    Posts
    42,170


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by drew View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The law refers to a 'wilful' act by a fielder with no mention of a batsman. It refers to a throw or act. In this case there was no wilful act by the fielder, ie he didn't throw it directly at the boundary, merely a throw at the wicket and at the time of the throw they hadn't crossed so only one run plus the boundary should have been awarded.
    And all of that, even if correct, only applies to runs that haven't been completed. The 2 runs had already been completed. When it talks of completed runs, it doesn't refer to the time the ball is thrown.

    You can try and twist it as much as you like but it seems all the experts are pretty much in agreement
    Except the experts who made the decision.
    Thank you Chris, you're a legend.

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #902
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      42,170


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Bodian View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I have to read and re-read legal constructions quite often
      I've had my share of this. I believe the comma in this sentence means that the timing of the throw or act is only relevant for runs that are in progress (not for completed runs):
      "and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act"

      Not that I think it would have had a material impact on the result - I think in fact that if Stokes had had to actually hit one of the last two balls out of the ground he would have found a way of doing so.
      It would have taken some effort to hit the next ball out of the ground from the non-strikers end.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #903

      1 Not allowed!
      Fair cop, the World Cup should be given to NZ
    • #904
      Members
      Join Date
      May 2012
      Location
      Cumbria
      Posts
      2,530


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I've had my share of this. I believe the comma in this sentence means that the timing of the throw or act is only relevant for runs that are in progress (not for completed runs):
      "and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act"

      It would have taken some effort to hit the next ball out of the ground from the non-strikers end.
      First point - I agree that the timing of the throw is only relevant for runs that are in progress. I think where we differ is that your view is that the 'instant of the throw' is when the ball reached the boundary, whereas my interpretation is that it means when it left the fielder's hand?

      Second point - yes, missed that!
    • #905
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      42,170


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Bodian View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      First point - I agree that the timing of the throw is only relevant for runs that are in progress.
      In which case, that's the end of it. It was 2 runs completed.

      I think where we differ is that your view is that the 'instant of the throw' is when the ball reached the boundary, whereas my interpretation is that it means when it left the fielder's hand?
      Oh no, of course the instant of the throw is when it leaves the fielders hand. What I don't think is clear is what act means, as I think it could be interpreted as any act influencing where the ball goes, whereas others are saying it specifically means a 'wilful act', and there was no wilful act in this scenario. But all of that is irrelevant anyway, because of the first point.

      Those interpreting it as a mistake are looking at whether the batsmen crossed when the ball was thrown. It doesn't matter. They already get all completed runs (of which there were 2) before we look at the timing of the throw. In legal terms, the comma clearly split the two different events (completed runs, as well as runs in progress where they have already crossed at the instant of the throw).
      Last edited by Triggaaar; 15-07-2019 at 20:44.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #906
      Drew drew's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2006
      Location
      Burgess Hill
      Posts
      16,220


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      In which case, that's the end of it. It was 2 runs completed.

      Oh no, of course the instant of the throw is when it leaves the fielders hand. What I don't think is clear is what act means, as I think it could be interpreted as any act influencing where the ball goes, whereas others are saying it specifically means a 'wilful act', and there was no wilful act in this scenario. But all of that is irrelevant anyway, because of the first point.

      Those interpreting it as a mistake are looking at whether the batsmen crossed when the ball was thrown. It doesn't matter. They already get all completed runs (of which there were 2) before we look at the timing of the throw. In legal terms, the comma clearly split the two different events (completed runs, as well as runs in progress where they have already crossed at the instant of the throw).
      The Act is reference to the wilful act of a fielder, as per the heading for rule 19.8. Not sure how you're interpreting the bit about 2 runs. They had completed one run when the ball was thrown. They had not crossed so they had not completed two runs. Had they crossed at the time of the throw then most of the last part of this thread would be irrelevant!

      How can you interpret this any other way

      and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had

      already crossed at the instant of the throw or act
    • #907
      Members
      Join Date
      Apr 2012
      Location
      El Dorado Hills, California
      Posts
      281


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Willow View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Quite an assumption! If he had been capable of that he would have won the game outright.
      Not necessarily as he knew 2 would tie the game, reducing the chances of getting out from a bigger hit...

      What a great game.


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    • #908
      Members
      Join Date
      May 2012
      Location
      Cumbria
      Posts
      2,530


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      In which case, that's the end of it. It was 2 runs completed.

      Oh no, of course the instant of the throw is when it leaves the fielders hand. What I don't think is clear is what act means, as I think it could be interpreted as any act influencing where the ball goes, whereas others are saying it specifically means a 'wilful act', and there was no wilful act in this scenario. But all of that is irrelevant anyway, because of the first point.

      Those interpreting it as a mistake are looking at whether the batsmen crossed when the ball was thrown. It doesn't matter. They already get all completed runs (of which there were 2) before we look at the timing of the throw. In legal terms, the comma clearly split the two different events (completed runs, as well as runs in progress where they have already crossed at the instant of the throw).
      I'm struggling with understanding your interpretation then. Can you describe a scenario to fit, because I can't think of one - whereas what did pan out fits exactly. That is - there was one completed run, and one run in progress at the instant of the throw (but they hadn't crossed). If you are saying that the second run was actually completed, then what then could possibly constitute a 'run in progress'?
    • #909
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      42,170


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by drew View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Not sure how you're interpreting the bit about 2 runs. They had completed one run when the ball was thrown. They had not crossed so they had not completed two runs.
      Yes, when the ball was thrown they had not yet completed two runs - but they don't have to have completed them at that point. The ball was still in play and they can keep running until it's not in play (although etiquette would say they stop running if they accidentally hit it again, and they did stop).

      and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act
      That is two separate points. 1) The runs completed by the batsmen when the ball goes dead (in this case, two). Plus 2) Any run in progress if they had crossed when the ball was thrown (in this case, zero). 2 + 0 = 2.

      You're trying to apply the clause for incomplete runs to the runs that were already complete. That clause comes after the comma, and does not apply to completed runs.

      That's my understanding of how it would work in law. You wouldn't use a comma to separate parts of the sentence that are essential to the meaning. So if the clause "at the instant of the throw" was to apply to completed runs, then you would have to remove the comma. The comma means that the 'instant of the throw' does not apply to completed runs.
      Last edited by Triggaaar; 15-07-2019 at 22:47.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #910
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      42,170


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Bodian View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Can you describe a scenario to fit, because I can't think of one - whereas what did pan out fits exactly. That is - there was one completed run, and one run in progress at the instant of the throw (but they hadn't crossed). If you are saying that the second run was actually completed, then what then could possibly constitute a 'run in progress'?
      Yes. Batsmen hit the ball and start running for 1 run (which they're never going to get with a direct hit). Fielding team sees the chance of a run-out and launch the ball at the stumps. The throw is taken before the batsmen have crossed. It misses, whizzing past the stumps, the batsmen finish their run, then go for a second, and then a third. While they're running the third, the ball (which is being chased) beats the fielder and hits the boundary rope. The batsmen get 4 runs for the boundary, 2 runs for runs completed, and they don't get the 3rd run as it was still in progress, and obviously it had been thrown before they started the run, let along crossed.

      Has anyone got some youtube clips of an example like mine here, where the umpires have said 'oh no, you only get the 4 for the boundary, and zero for the running'?
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •