82,510
edits
Overthrow or wilful act of fielder - Laws of Cricket: Difference between revisions
Overthrow or wilful act of fielder - Laws of Cricket (view source)
Revision as of 16:12, 15 July 2019
, 15 July 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[File:Six.png|thumb|left|Six! I mean, ah, five!]] With haste which might transpire to be unseemly, Umpire Dharmasena held ''six'' fingers up to the scorers: ''four'' representing runs for the boundary overthrow; ''two'' for the runs the outfield batsmen completed. | [[File:Six.png|thumb|left|Six! I mean, ah, five!]] With haste which might transpire to be unseemly, Umpire Dharmasena held ''six'' fingers up to the scorers: ''four'' representing runs for the boundary overthrow; ''two'' for the runs the outfield batsmen completed. | ||
Yet, a quick look at Law {{lordsprov|19.8}} tells a different story: where the boundary results from “an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder”, the runs scored shall be (a) any [[applicable]] penalties (''wides or no-balls: here, none''); (b) the allowance for the boundary (''four''); (c) completed runs ( | Yet, a quick look at Law {{lordsprov|19.8}} tells a different story: where the boundary results from “an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder”, the runs scored shall be (a) any [[applicable]] penalties (''wides or no-balls: here, none''); (b) the allowance for the boundary (''four''); (c) completed runs (''one''); ''together with the run in progress if they had already crossed '''at the instant of the throw or act'''.'' | ||
The wilful act in question is Martin Guptill’s throw from deep midwicket, whence Ben Stokes had flukily shanked the ball. The ball’s subsequent deflection by Stokes’ bat from what was obviously its true path to obliterate the wicket leaving the England hero tragically, but undoubtedly, short of his ground is not a “throw”, much less a “wilful act of a fielder” — it has no cricketing significance at all, in fact — so is irrelevant to the question of whether the batsmen had crossed. The only question is where were they were in relation to each other at the time Guptill let fly his spear of burning gold on its true path towards Stokes’ wicket. | The wilful act in question is Martin Guptill’s throw from deep midwicket, whence Ben Stokes had flukily shanked the ball. The ball’s subsequent deflection by Stokes’ bat from what was obviously its true path to obliterate the wicket leaving the England hero tragically, but undoubtedly, short of his ground is not a “throw”, much less a “wilful act of a fielder” — it has no cricketing significance at all, in fact — so is irrelevant to the question of whether the batsmen had crossed. The only question is where were they were in relation to each other at the time Guptill let fly his spear of burning gold on its true path towards Stokes’ wicket. | ||