82,667
edits
Overthrow or wilful act of fielder - Laws of Cricket: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Overthrow or wilful act of fielder - Laws of Cricket (view source)
Revision as of 13:58, 15 July 2019
, 15 July 2019no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The wilful act in question — also as it happens, a throw — is Martin Guptill’s from deep midwicket. The ball’s deflection by Ben Stokes’ bat from what was obviously its true path to obliterate the wicket is certainly not a “throw”, much less a “wilful act of a fielder” — it has no cricketing significance at all, in fact — so the question is where were the batsmen at the time Guptill let the ball go. | The wilful act in question — also as it happens, a throw — is Martin Guptill’s from deep midwicket. The ball’s deflection by Ben Stokes’ bat from what was obviously its true path to obliterate the wicket is certainly not a “throw”, much less a “wilful act of a fielder” — it has no cricketing significance at all, in fact — so the question is where were the batsmen at the time Guptill let the ball go. | ||
[[File:Uncrossed2.png|thumb|left]]And at that point, they had not crossed, as this picture demonstrates. Now there is a kicker, because, having only scored one run, Stokes and Rashid should have been sent back to where they started that run, with Stokes at the non-striker’s end. | [[File:Uncrossed2.png|thumb|left]]And at that point, they had not crossed, as this picture demonstrates. Now there is a kicker, because, having only scored one run, Stokes and Rashid should have been sent back to where they started that run, with Stokes at the non-striker’s end: | ||
:{{lordsprov|18.12.2}} If, while a run is in progress, the ball becomes dead for any reason other than the dismissal of a batsman, the batsmen shall return to the wickets they had left, but only if they had not already crossed in running when the ball became dead. ... | |||
So Adil Rashid should have been required to face the final two balls, and obliged to score four runs to win. | |||
And here is where the [[Path-dependent|path dependency]] of Cricket comes in to illustrate why we can’t undo history: We know (with a fair amount of confidence) that Stokes would only score three off those final two balls, because that is what he did do. But we don’t know what Adil Rashid would have done: while he might be a tail-end batsman who has just arrived at the crease, but he was denied the ability to show that he was going to smear the ball over cow corner for six match-winning runs. | |||
And this is why cricket is such a good {{t|metaphor}} for life. The record remains: well played England; worthy world champions. | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||