yuppie wrote:"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 wrote:Free sport.....learn the lessons.
Durhamfootman wrote:sussexpob wrote:Free sport.....learn the lessons.
who'd have thunk it?
yuppie wrote:I read it differently.
sussexpob wrote: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.
sussexpob wrote:yuppie wrote:"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.
sussexpob wrote:
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.
southwood wrote: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
Return to Live Cricket Matches
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests