World Cup semis & final, July 9-14

[yuppie]

"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.

I read it differently. But the batsman had not crossed when the ball was thrown for the second run.

Not that it matters as the scoreboard says it was 2 runs.

[sussexpob]

"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.

I read it differently. But the batsman had not crossed when the ball was thrown for the second run.

Not that it matters as the scoreboard says it was 2 runs.

The word "together" in the English language cannot be used as a subordinating conjunction, so the last part of the sentence after the last comma cannot be a dependent/subordinate clause, meaning that both clauses should be read with independent meaning, and that the latter places no meaning or requirement on the former. "Together" simply refers to all the clauses in the sentence being added together from a run perspective (Ie the total runs scored are a combination of the three factors explained; boundaries, completed runs and in progress runs that met the criteria).

If the clause was written with a subordinate conjuction as follows, it would be very different;

"and runs completed, as long as the run in progress had already crossed"
"and runs completed, as soon as the batsman have crossed.....

etc... the fact is, it doesnt say that. The crossing element is a separate clause.

So "runs completed by a batsman" have to be given a separate meaning to the crossing element defined. In lieu of any contrary evidence in the law that states the situation creates a specific definition of that, we have to assume that the normal meaning of what constitutes a run will hold, with reference to the other laws of the game, and the normal capacity to score.

What is that law? As long as the ball is live, a run can be scored. Therefore any completed run in this instance that is scored before the ball hits the boundary rope is to be counted.

Stokes completed 2 runs..... the correct award is 6 runs.

[Durhamfootman]

I've seen the highlights now

blimey!

hard to imagine so many improbable events leading up to that England win. NZ must be utterly devastated.

In many ways I'm glad I didn't get to see any of the game until after the event. When I'm at a match I can watch and enjoy any last ball scenario, but for some reason when I watch it on the telly I find the stress of it all too much to bear... I switch channels back and forth, I walk away and come back, or I knock the sound off and keep closing my eyes. I don't enjoy that sort of thing at all.

It all worked out in the end though and I'm very pleased with the way England held it all together. Well done Ben Stokes.... that ought to go some way to banish the demons of 3 years ago

[Durhamfootman]

Free sport.....learn the lessons.

who'd have thunk it?

[Durhamfootman]

and I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the despair, the hope, the trauma, and the joy of the last 10 pages of this thread

so well done to the CMS boys too

[Durhamfootman]

and thank goodness England won that, because they spent 4 years systematically destroying their test team for this moment. I would have been incandescent with fury if they'd blown it

[sussexpob]

Free sport.....learn the lessons.

who'd have thunk it?

Be interested to see how many tuned into it. Wonder if it beat the 10 odd million for the Ashes in 2005.

[sussexpob]

I read it differently.

I see Simon Taufel has also waded into the debate calling at an error of judgement on behalf of the umpires. I cant see how the rules can be read that way though, its not a thing for me. The language could be clearer maybe as many people seem to think differently.

[captaincolly]

I was at a birthday party for the latter part of the game and most of the people there are not interested in cricket but they were all watching the game and on the edge of their seats.
One guy there who does watch cricket is Scottish so was supporting NZ! He kept saying Stokes should have been given out for obstructing the field!

[sussexpob]

BBCs Dan Roan is saying on Twitter that the BBC registered a record 40 million hits on its live update page, an all time BBC site record across news and sport. Viewing figures are believed to be 5 million region on C4, peaking at a time that an epic Wimbledon final was reaching a crescendo.

Quite a strong showing. Wonder what it would have been if they didnt treble book it behind the UKs other summer sporting big days.

[captaincolly]

BBCs Dan Roan is saying on Twitter that the BBC registered a record 40 million hits on its live update page, an all time BBC site record across news and sport. Viewing figures are believed to be 5 million region on C4, peaking at a time that an epic Wimbledon final was reaching a crescendo.

Quite a strong showing. Wonder what it would have been if they didnt treble book it behind the UKs other summer sporting big days.

Yep. And it probably made no difference but why have a weekend round of County games? When I popped down to the Riverside there were more people in the sports bar than watching the Durham match.

[southwood]

"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.

I read it differently. But the batsman had not crossed when the ball was thrown for the second run.

Not that it matters as the scoreboard says it was 2 runs.

The word "together" in the English language cannot be used as a subordinating conjunction, so the last part of the sentence after the last comma cannot be a dependent/subordinate clause, meaning that both clauses should be read with independent meaning, and that the latter places no meaning or requirement on the former. "Together" simply refers to all the clauses in the sentence being added together from a run perspective (Ie the total runs scored are a combination of the three factors explained; boundaries, completed runs and in progress runs that met the criteria).

If the clause was written with a subordinate conjuction as follows, it would be very different;

"and runs completed, as long as the run in progress had already crossed"
"and runs completed, as soon as the batsman have crossed.....

etc... the fact is, it doesnt say that. The crossing element is a separate clause.

So "runs completed by a batsman" have to be given a separate meaning to the crossing element defined. In lieu of any contrary evidence in the law that states the situation creates a specific definition of that, we have to assume that the normal meaning of what constitutes a run will hold, with reference to the other laws of the game, and the normal capacity to score.

What is that law? As long as the ball is live, a run can be scored. Therefore any completed run in this instance that is scored before the ball hits the boundary rope is to be counted.

Stokes completed 2 runs..... the correct award is 6 runs.

Are you going to forward that to the MCC as custodian of the laws . They must surely clarify the way the law is being taught

[alfie]

Well this is interesting...

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id ... overthrows

While its a nice fantasy for some journos to claim this is a story to add some narrative to play out, the fact is the law as I read it is pretty clear; the boundary is added, plus any "completed runs"...... Stokes completed two runs when the ball was live in play. The run "in progress" doesnt come into the situation, they are two distinct things. Had stokes picked himself up and got half way down past Rashid for a potential 7th, then that section of the rule would come into play.

That's the way I read it...but I gather Mr Taufel , for one , disagrees. I feel there is some ambiguity in the law as written ; but in all my playing experience I've only ever seen umpires assess the situation in the light of when the overthrow actually becomes an overthrow , as it were ...and how many runs had been completed at that time.
After all , without a bunch of cameras (not available for even top grade club cricket !) how is an umpire to mark exactly when a fielder on the boundary releases a ball while simultaneously noting whether the batsmen have crossed ...bearing mind that he initially has no reason to expect an overthrow to take place ! Asking a lot of a single unarmed umpire

[sussexpob]

Are you going to forward that to the MCC as custodian of the laws . They must surely clarify the way the law is being taught

I am very doubtful that the MCC have any sort of protocol in existence for said law; the rulebook for ODIs is 121 pages long, with Appendices that explain definitions were applicable (this isnt included). There is no way an umpire knows every law in that book to the letter, down to commas/word choice etc, and no way they give specific guidance on a law. All they can really do is assess and interpret a law, and change the meaning to suit what they meant in the future. When we interpret the language, word placement, clause structure.... it gives me a very specific meaning, and to attribute another to is to take liberties with England language structure; as stated above, it would be very wrong to assume that the last clause in the sentence, as its been written, was meant to convey a dependent meaning on to the rest..... so we have to conclude they are independent.

You could say that its an error in the construction, but in order to prove such an error you would need some form of evidence to suggest it. What was the original law trying to stop, reward or punish? Assuming that the language construction is wrong, why would the laws of the game insist that a batting team are at least crossed mid-pitch when the fielder throws it, even if the run is complete when the ball is live? To me it doesnt make sense why such a niche requirement would be added?

It makes far more sense that the extra run be added having not been completed, because the reason its not completed is the fielding team. Their action stops the run being finished, and while you could say the boundary adequately covers the extra run, the whole law is designed to punish an overthrow, so if thats the case why award any runs, completed, incompleted, or not? Why not just assume the maximum number of runs is 4 for a ball that doesnt leave the field over the rope? Well, it might be a good idea, but it contradicts several laws.

You are left with a very dubious case. One that I doubt there is any guidance to exist, but not to say it wont change after this game. I just think that any changes would be made solely on the basis of a linguistically misunderstanding, and that people who think the laws requires a batsman to cross simply make a mistake in interpreting the sentence.

Its nothing really to do with cricket; is about linguistic interpretation.

[Gingerfinch]

Team of the tournament

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48987405

Warner for Roy?