BensGrandad
New member
That is my view that it was a freak that could never have been foreseen.
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
That is my view that it was a freak that could never have been foreseen.
Yes, sorry. But they started it
lawros left foot
Glory hunting since 1969
I was talking to a New Zealander lady this morning, she was of the opinion that these things happen in sport. She was disappointed that they lost, but was quite philosophical about the whole thing.
And, like me, she wished either team could have beaten the Aussies like that, but, did say it wouldn't have happened, cos the convicts would have cheated to get the win.
And, like me, she wished either team could have beaten the Aussies like that, but, did say it wouldn't have happened, cos the convicts would have cheated to get the win.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,586
A bowling penalty shoot out ?
Two nominated batsman on each team. Everyone else bowls one ball alternating five times.
If the scores are level after five balls it goes to sudden death.
If still level after ten it goes to the team who have the batsman with the biggest willy.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 23,586
Century up 101 pages.
The thread has a reserve day.
Interesting that you've removed the comma. Miss-quoting the rule isn't going to actually change it.
Which is irrelevant, as already explained.
The ball being dead is implicit in most of the rules. 'Completed runs' is a common term in the rules, and unless stated otherwise, it means completed before the ball is dead.
That's a handy question, as it re-enforces my point. Before the rule about overthrows is the rule "Runs scored from boundaries". It says that (except for the circumstances we're discussing) "the batting side shall be awarded whichever is the greater of
the allowance for the boundary
the runs completed by the batsmen together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant the boundary is scored."
Note that in this rule, they have not used the comma. That is because both completed runs AND runs in progress are limited the instant the boundary is scored.
The very next rule says almost the same thing (in that particular sentence), but adds the comma. Why would they add a comma? Because the timing of the throw only applies to runs in progress, it does not apply to completed runs.
I feel it's appropriate to add my victory dance at this point:
Agreed - they're not commenting, so they're not saying it was correct or incorrect. I didn't claim they were saying it was correct. Why are you saying 'Fourthly', as if it in any way backs up your argument?
Last edited:
Keep up at the back. Although you can tell from reading posts here that the 'act' is not clearly described (whether it's a wilful act, or the act creating the overthrow (ie hitting the bat), it doesn't matter either way, it's still 2 + 4.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,287
Don’t get the need for anyone to compare these things - it cannot be and shouldn’t be compared to anything... Muxh like the whole club v country tosh - they’re 2 completely separate things!
drew
Drew
Are you telling us you were fishing all along? If not, your post doesn't make sense.Excellent performance Trig. No sign of wavering or leaving the debate. A double century of pages looks on the cards albeit in a Boycott style..
I salute your stubborness and agree with you..
Century up 101 pages.
99. Two have been deducted.
It's a curse. Obviously many a better man would shrug and walk away.
In my defence, I a) find it interesting, b) am disappointed not to see those in the press make any effort to understand the wording of the rule, and c) owe it to the gods to teach.
PS - thanks
These are from the MCC's e-learning for umpires and others. The top one is the main slide, the other two are the transcript of the video referred to.
MCC clearly state that completed runs means 'all runs completed BEFORE the instance of the throw', and that the run in progress means the one taking place AT the instance of the throw.
The interpretation by MCC for umpires is clearly "The runs scored before the fielder released the ball are counted, as well as the runs awarded for the boundary". Nothing whatsoever about a 'completed run' being after the fielder released the ball. If we are arguing purely about the 'throw' - then it should have been five runs, wherever the comma is placed. If we are arguing about the 'act' being the hitting of Stokes' bat - then that is a nonsense as 'act' is referring back to the only other mention of 'act' in the law, which is a wilful act by the fielder.
Not sure we can really argue this much more either way. MCC set the laws, and this is their guidance.
MCC clearly state that completed runs means 'all runs completed BEFORE the instance of the throw', and that the run in progress means the one taking place AT the instance of the throw.
The interpretation by MCC for umpires is clearly "The runs scored before the fielder released the ball are counted, as well as the runs awarded for the boundary". Nothing whatsoever about a 'completed run' being after the fielder released the ball. If we are arguing purely about the 'throw' - then it should have been five runs, wherever the comma is placed. If we are arguing about the 'act' being the hitting of Stokes' bat - then that is a nonsense as 'act' is referring back to the only other mention of 'act' in the law, which is a wilful act by the fielder.
Not sure we can really argue this much more either way. MCC set the laws, and this is their guidance.
I’m sure we can.
It's a shame they don't have the same rules in their rule book.
According to the slides you've shown, it would be 5 runs. Not 'wherever the comma is placed', but because the rules are different to the ones in the book.
One of two things have happened:
a) They've intended for it to be only the runs that were completed before the throw (plus the run in progress etc etc), but they've got someone who failed at English to write it up.
b) They intended for it to be completed runs before the ball hit the boundary, but they got someone who failed at English to translate the rules for the e-learning guides.
Yep. They're amateurs.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
We can't. The on-field umpires made their decision which stands and a member of The MCC Laws sub-committee disagreed with it.
As arguably the doyen of cricketing newspapers The Times this morning didn't either and merely reported MCC Laws sub-committee member Taufel's remarks and stated they've approached The MCC for further comment, I'm more interested in the response now, if any, of The Marleybone Cricket Club to The Times of London and others for clarification on a matter of the laws of the game than the continuing postulation on here.
The fact you state, that the sub committee member has asked the MCC to state what the law means, is proof of ambiguity. The postulation continues.