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.
Except the experts who made the decision.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand *** Official Match Thread ***
- Thread starter Sussex Nomad
- Start date
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.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
Fair cop, the World Cup should be given to NZ
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!
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).
Last edited:
drew
Drew
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
Cesar Chavez
Active member
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
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'?
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).
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:
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'?
drew
Drew
You are making things up as you go along. The rule is quite clear. They had not crossed when the ball was thrown so that run shouldn't have counted. There was only one complete run when the ball was thrown in. Everyone else on this thread realizes this except you! Where does this particular rule mention they can keep on running?
Read the specific rule again and work your way through it.
19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder
If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be
any runs for penalties awarded to either side
and the allowance for the boundary
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.
Alternatively, you could just be
For completed runs (runs that have finished when the ball hits the ropes) they don't have to cross before the ball is thrown. The rule doesn't say that. Only runs that are in progress.
Sure, but it doesn't say anything about runs that are completed before the ball is thrown.
Well that doesn't seem to be the case, as a couple of people have said they agree with me.
Seriously? Batsmen keep running when there are overthrows. That's what happens in cricket. The law doesn't need to say they're allowed to keep running.
I understand what it says. I don't think you do.
I agree that it is clear. It is clear that the instant of the throw applies to runs that are in progress. It does not apply to completed runs.
Tell me why they put a comma in the rule?
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
The assumption appears to be that the umpires on the field didn't know the rule properly and made a mistake, not that they knew the rule and interrupted it the same as you have and applied it consistently as they have in other matches. No one else seems to have made a proper statement on it other than an Aussie, and they can hardly be trusted now can they!
#teamtrig
It's all semantics anyway. There were numerous instances where New Zealand could have got a couple more runs and vice versa (some of the wide decisions v Archer were a joke).
It came down to holding the nerve, and for me both teams did. Amazingly.
But we won. Everyone knew that it was on that last ball and that's what was played for. We won.
Suck it up Australia (as they seem to be the ones complaining most, quell surprise). We're going to STUFF you in the Ashes anyway boys! [emoji23][emoji967]
It's all semantics anyway. There were numerous instances where New Zealand could have got a couple more runs and vice versa (some of the wide decisions v Archer were a joke).
It came down to holding the nerve, and for me both teams did. Amazingly.
But we won. Everyone knew that it was on that last ball and that's what was played for. We won.
Suck it up Australia (as they seem to be the ones complaining most, quell surprise). We're going to STUFF you in the Ashes anyway boys! [emoji23][emoji967]
drew
Drew
They might still keep running because they might not know whether the overthrow will reach the boundary and therefore count as 4. However, are you sure the umpire still only counts the runs completed (and the one in progress if crossed) at the time the ball was thrown?
eg. Ball heads out to the boundary and the batsmen run three runs but not yet crossed for the fourth before it is thrown in by a fielder. A miss field allows the ball to trundle towards the opposite boundary whilst the batsmen complete that fourth run and then run another two. After they cross for the second, the ball is thrown in before it gets to the boundary and they stop. So, 6 runs in total.
Similar scenario but this time when the ball is thrown in the second time, it is miss fielded again and goes out to the boundary. At the time of the second throw, they have completed a total of five and have crossed for the sixth but as it heads towards the boundary they run another 2. Under the rules, they will only get 6 runs as the final two were run after the throw which led to the boundary.
Not sure where the confusion is here. If they haven't crossed before throw is taken that results in a boundary it is 4 runs. If they have completed 1 run and went for second but had not crossed at instant of throw, is 5 runs. If they had crossed at instant of throw is 6 runs. Doesn't matter if they complete another run or two.
Well until they're asked, we don't know.
It's possible that the ICC would want the rule to be interpreted as the Aussie has. But if they do, they should perhaps get someone who understands English to write it. You don't put a comma in the rule to set off parts of the sentence that are essential to the meaning.
The confusion is that some of you think completed runs are still limited by when the ball is thrown, despite the fact that the rule doesn't say that.
The only thing I'm really confident about is how the rule should be interpreted from an English language point of view.
I don't know how umpires usually interpret the rule. We do know that Taufel thinks it should be 1 run, and that the umpires on the field (let's not pretend they've never witnessed an overthrow before) thought it should be 2. We also know that no commentator (including many ex-captains) thought it was wrong at the time.
I think you mean 7.
Surely some fans can find plenty of examples to show how many runs umpires give?
Don't tell 'em your name Pike!