Page 85 of 115 FirstFirst ... 35758283848586878895 ... LastLast
Results 841 to 850 of 1147
  1. #841
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    34,923


    0 Not allowed!
    and what about a 'relay' throw where it goes to a 2nd or even 3rd fielder before making it to the wicket (if at all)?

    This is a minefield.

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #842
      ESU Zimmer Crew
      Join Date
      Apr 2014
      Location
      Queen's Park is my garden
      Posts
      11,680


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      No, that is clearly not what the rule says. The rule does not say 'the act of throwing the ball'. If it just meant when the fielder releases the ball, it would say:
      'together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw'.
      It wouldn't add the clause 'or act'.

      The throw from the outfield was not an over-throw. It was a good throw. If the collecting fielder had then made a mess of catching it, and it had bounced off them, that would be the 'act' that caused the ball to go to the boundary.

      You can't just pretend the rule doesn't say 'or act', and you can't just pretend 'or act' somehow means the act of throwing the ball, when it clearly doesn't.
      The 'act', as referred to by the law, is the 'willful act of a fielder'. This doesn't apply here as that would refer to something like kicking the ball over the boundary. In this case all we are concerned with is the act of the overthrow itself. Or, simply removing the word 'act' itself, the overthrow.

      If this crosses the boundary then the additional runs at the wicket are calculated on the basis of runs completed (at the 'instant of throw') and, crucially, any additional runs are added on the basis that 'they had already crossed at the instant of the throw'.

      When the ball was thrown they hadn't crossed. As such only one additional run could be awarded and Rashid would have returned to the striker's end.

      It's a great talking point and the head hurt (as a cricket geek) it has caused me means that I'll leave the BREXIT thread alone for a while......

      Still, England worthy winners. The cricket they have played over the last four years and throughout this tournament means it is most deserved.
      Last edited by Brighton Lines; 15-07-2019 at 14:29.
      Quote Originally Posted by sydney View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Was that when we took Bejams....?
    • #843
      ESU Zimmer Crew
      Join Date
      Apr 2014
      Location
      Queen's Park is my garden
      Posts
      11,680


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Titanic View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      and what about a 'relay' throw where it goes to a 2nd or even 3rd fielder before making it to the wicket (if at all)?

      This is a minefield.
      As long as the ball is in play any runs are credited to the batsman.
      Quote Originally Posted by sydney View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Was that when we took Bejams....?
    • #844
      Super Moderator
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Posts
      34,923


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Brighton Lines View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      As long as the ball is in play any runs are credited to the batsman.
      but surely the ball was still 'in play' after it hit Stokes bat??
    • #845
      Resident pedant Triggaaar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2005
      Location
      Goldstone
      Posts
      42,086


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Brighton Lines View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The 'act', as referred to by the law, is the 'willful act of a fielder'.
      We know it wasn't an overthrow, as it only went to the boundary because it hit Ben's bat. So all you're saying there, is that the clause '7 Overthrow or willful act of fielder' doesn't apply in this case at all.
      Thank you Chris, you're a legend.
    • #846
      The voice of reason. hans kraay fan club's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2005
      Location
      Chandlers Ford
      Posts
      54,176


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Brighton Lines View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The 'act', as referred to by the law, is the 'willful act of a fielder'. This doesn't apply here as that would refer to something like kicking the ball over the boundary. In this case all we are concerned with is the act of the overthrow itself. Or, simply removing the word 'act' itself, the overthrow.

      If this crosses the boundary then the additional runs at the wicket are calculated on the basis of runs completed and, crucially, any additional runs are added on the basis that 'they had already crossed at the instant of the throw'.

      When the ball was thrown they hadn't crossed. As such only one additional run could be awarded and Rashid would have returned to the striker's end.

      It's a great talking point and the head hurt (as a cricket geek) it has caused me means that I'll leave the BREXIT thread alone for a while......

      Still, England worthy winners. The cricket they have played over the last four years and throughout this tournament means it is most deserved.
      With all respect to Taufel - a great umpire, who really ought to know better than anyone, how this law should be interpreted - I honestly think he is wrong.
      The above post is simply my opinion. I am not bullying you, should it differ from your own.
    • #847

      0 Not allowed!
      The fact this thread is still going on is testament to what a classic final that was.

      So many talking points, controversy, what if moments. It will be interesting to see how the Kiwis feel about it in one year, 10 years, 30 years and whether any bitterness will creep in, especially if they change the deciding rule from "most boundaries hit" to "least wickets lost".
      "Still a long way short of a batting bonus point "
    • #848
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Didcot
      Posts
      1,546


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      This game didn't see the world's first super-over, there have been plenty of them, and the rules are simple, clear and obvious. If it's a tie after the super-over, the winner is decided by the number of boundaries in the game. There is then a clear and obvious winner.

      Would you care to highlight all the times in the past that you've said this method of deciding the game isn't fair?
      I'm not aware of any ODI ever being decided in this fashion, let alone a World Cup Final. My point is the tie should be decided by a progressive action, not a regressive one. As others have said, you may as well toss a coin as go by the number of boundaries scored.
    • #849
      The voice of reason. hans kraay fan club's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2005
      Location
      Chandlers Ford
      Posts
      54,176


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Pavilionaire View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The fact this thread is still going on is testament to what a classic final that was.

      So many talking points, controversy, what if moments. It will be interesting to see how the Kiwis feel about it in one year, 10 years, 30 years and whether any bitterness will creep in, especially if they change the deciding rule from "most boundaries hit" to "least wickets lost".
      As stated previously, though, had the rule been wickets lost, that would probably still have ended as a tie, so you'd still need another tie-breaker.

      The suggestion that it should have gone back to either the team that finished higher in the group stage table (my preference) or the head to head result between the two sides, seems entirely equitable, and far less contrived.
      The above post is simply my opinion. I am not bullying you, should it differ from your own.
    • #850

      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Triggaaar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      We know it wasn't an overthrow, as it only went to the boundary because it hit Ben's bat. So all you're saying there, is that the clause '7 Overthrow or willful act of fielder' doesn't apply in this case at all.
      It's just a matter of time before the reverse of the the Stokes incident occurs, whereby decisive overthrows are inadvertently prevented from going to the boundary by the batsman's bat.
      "Still a long way short of a batting bonus point "

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
  •