Ben Stokes accidentally diverted Martin Guptill’s throw to the third man boundary as he attempted to scamper back for a second run in the last of England’s initial 50 overs at Lord’s, with the umpires awarding six runs as a result
England should only have been awarded five overthrows and not six in a dramatic and controversial moment towards the end of the World Cup final, according to an interpretation of the Laws of the game.
Ben Stokes accidentally diverted Martin Guptill’s throw to the third man boundary as he attempted to scamper back for a second run in the last of England’s initial 50 overs at Lord’s, with the umpires awarding six runs as a result.
The host nation ended up tying the game before emerging victorious on a boundary countback following another tie in a super over.
According to Law 19.8, relating to “overthrow or wilful act of fielder”, the batsman must have crossed prior to Guptill’s throw being released for two initial runs to be added to the four overthrows.
Video replays show that Stokes and his batting partner at the time, Adil Rashid, had not crossed at the moment the New Zealand fielder let go of the ball.
That would mean both that England should only have been awarded five runs by onfield umpires Marais Erasmus and Kumar Dharmasena, and that Ben Stokes would not have been on strike for the next delivery.
The ball deflected off Ben Stokes' bat as he dived for the crease
The Law states: “If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the willful 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.”
Former leading umpire Simon Taufel told The Age and Sydney Morning Herald: "There was a judgment error on the overthrow.
"The judgment error was the timing of when the fielder threw the ball. The act of the overthrow starts when the fielder releases the ball. That's the act.
"It becomes an overthrow from the instant of the throw.
"They did not cross on their second run, at the instant of the throw. So given that scenario, five runs should have been the correct allocation of runs, and Ben Stokes should have been at the non-striker's end for the next delivery."
The ICC have yet to comment on the matter, while The Cricketer has requested comment from MCC.
Our coverage of the ICC Cricket World Cup 2019 is brought to you in association with Cricket 19, the official video game of the Ashes. Order your copy now at Amazon.co.uk
Posted by Andy on 16/07/2019 at 18:48
First, Malcolm Pye, no, that is not correct. The confusion arises because of use of the word "act" in the law. This specifically refers to the deliberate act by the fielder, which will usually be a throw but could also be deliberate inaction. Occasionally it is in the interests of the fielding team to keep a weak batter on strike, or prevent a strong one from keeping strike at the end of an over. So if they are taking an easy single, the law prevents the fielder from just allowing, or even helping, the ball over the rope. What you are saying is a red herring and 5 should have been the correct decision. Incidentally, it has also been said that Stokes could have just got the final full toss for 4 if he'd needed to, but if course he wouldn't have been on strike if 5 had been given. Second, Ramsey Caffull, that's a bit rich given England were bowled out in 50 overs while NZ only lost 9 wickets even if you include the super over. Frankly England were immensely lucky, in the whole tournament actually, and for me need to prove their mighty talk by winning in style next time.
Posted by David Beere on 16/07/2019 at 16:45
I fail to see why Stokes would not have been on strike. (Even if only one run awarded plus the four overthrows) .
Posted by Richard Vaughton on 16/07/2019 at 14:05
"Did World Cup final umpires get crucial overthrow ruling wrong?" Pity about SM's response. He just might have noted 'other' umpiring errors over past few weeks. It is a pity that an ex-international umpire is missing the limelight. He did manage not to comment on Jason Roy's dismissal in the semi, and I must have missed all his all-too- clever comments about other umpiring errors in earlier rounds that might even affected who actually played in the final. Or did he refrain from doing so.
Posted by Ramsay Caffull on 16/07/2019 at 13:43
Aside from the controversy about the overthrow which reached the boundary off Stokes bat, surely England won the 'super' over and therefore the match because they scored 15 - 0 in their over and New Zealand scored 15 - 1. The fact that New Zealand lost a wicket negates the strange 'regulation' based on the number of boundaries scored in the 50 overs.
Posted by Malcolm Pye on 16/07/2019 at 07:01
Surely the overthrow occurred when the ball was " overthrown " ie when it hit Stokes bat , not when fielder first threw the ball . The act was again when the ball hit Stokes bat . In which case , the batsmen had crossed at such occurrences and six runs was the correct decision .
Posted by Billy on 16/07/2019 at 06:51
Lets have a re-match !!! NZ didn't deserve to lose (neither did England). Also this might be the only thing England will win for a very very long time. Under brexit it will be disaster after disaster
Posted by Jc on 15/07/2019 at 18:27
Congratulations England, world champions! Greatest cricket I've ever had the privilege to watch...
Welcome to www.thecricketer.com - the online home of the world’s oldest cricket magazine. Breaking news, interviews, opinion and cricket goodness from every corner of our beautiful sport, from village green to national arena.