The overthrow that fetched six runs
I eagerly followed this event which concluded last Sunday with a flourish. However, I would like to make the following observations.
1. As there were no reserve days for the league matches, Sri Lanka lost two potential points which may have prevented us from securing a place in the semi-finals. England is notorious for its inclement weather and as they have sufficient resources (grounds, etc.) there should have been reserve days for the league matches. If necessary, two matches could have been played on a single day as was done over week-ends.
2. The final result although extremely exciting for the spectators, was a disaster for the losing side. As ICC umpire Simon Taufel has pointed out, only five runs should have been awarded and not six runs for the overthrow in the final over. The relevant law states that at the time of throwing the ball by a fielder which results in an overthrow, the two batsmen should have crossed each other for a run to be awarded. It was clear from TV replays, that it was not so; in which case Stokes would have been at the bowling end for the rest of the over.
3. Instead of counting boundaries, a second super over should have been bowled.
4. Considering these important facts, England should be gracious enough to share the World Cup with New Zealand, as, after all, cricket is considered to be a gentleman’s game, invented by the English!
Professor Sanath P. Lamabadusuriya
Sanath
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis based on Simon Taufel's observations. I would agree with your conclusion of sharing the World Cup. No one has suggested the World Cup was rigged for an England victory. As the events unfolded so rapidly human error played a huge part. Even if the England team does not have the sportsmanship to share the Cup the ICC must have the power to inquire into the disastrous events and if necessary force the winners to do the honorable thing.
Being an avid follower of cricket over a lifetime I have no confidence in the world body that controls cricket. They would prefer to take the path of least resistance. When a BBC reporter questioned an ICC official he said "no comment".
Out of this tragic saga New Zealand have emerged the winners for their great sportsmanship in the way they have accepted the result. Sadly there is a serious lack of sportsmanship in the game now. The gentlemanly conduct which we have associated with cricket in the past has been eroded by the money that has poured into the game. Winning is all that matters now.
WG Grace will turn in his grave as he watches how it's done now.
As A Sri Lankan I would say we must be careful criticising others when our own house is not in order. Speaking with lovers of cricket in my homeland I am told corruption, nepotism and political interference have brought SLankan cricket to its knees. I hope we find a way out of this mire to be winners of this prestigious World Cup once again. I do hope this will happen in my lifetime .
Allocating a reserve day is an important issue as the points given for abandoned games skewed the final outcome. Rain happens in every cricket playing country although more so in Britain. This again is an issue that should be discussed by the cricket authorities of the countries that take part in this great tournament. Does the ICC invite all cricketing countries after the tournament for a meeting to discuss issues to avoid mishaps and to improve the game in the future? Or are they just happy to carry on regardless?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe result was reached by consideration of the rules by the umpires. My own view is that manner in which the winner is decided in case of a tie shouid be reviewed. After such a grueling series of matches and a final of 50 overs each, if two sides remain tied, the fairest conclusion is that they are equal and shouid share the trophy. To decide through extra over(s) or boundaries or numbers of wickets lost would all be unfair. On this occasion, England has won and there is no case for changing the result and sharing the trophy retrospectively. The case is for a review of how a tie shouid be handled in future games.
ReplyDeleteI was watching the play in Channel 4 for a while,until it changed to Motor racing.I had no other alternative,but to listen to Radio 5 commentary.It was a sad incident that NewZealand lost the World cup as a result of umpiring mistake.I am sure Rohini too would have felt the same.
ReplyDeleteSriLankan cricket is haunted with a corrupted bunch selectors,who are influenced by very badly corrupted politicians.
Sumathi,
ReplyDeleteDown under we had excellent coverage of the World Cup. I stayed up through the night to watch the play from start to finish, and all I can say is - I was ‘gutted’ at the end of it .
There were so many mishaps which unfortunately led to the final decision .
My heart bled for those gentlemen cricketers whose faces at the end showed just how devastated they were. The shot of Martin Guptill’s face at the end still haunts me, and
Boult returning home said it’ll take him years to get over it.
One feels for these guys who have been travelling away from home for so long and given their best.
Our guys in the blog have analyzed the technicalities of the series with which I agree.
Lastly, I must say - I also felt for Jason Roy who was dismissed in error at Birmingham- the poor chap got fined for his protests !
If we as mere spectators feel this way, how much more hurtful it has to be for the players !
Thank you all for your comments. If the ICC has a backbone,it is not too late to change the result to a tie. If that is done I do not think England will have the spunk to protest. I sent my letter to Tim Chambers, who is a paediatrician in Bristol (an external examiner at the local MD exam several times and a regular participant at our College annual sessions).He is an ardent cricket lover, a member of the MCC and Gloucestershire Cricket Club. He agreed with me that the trophy should have been shared, for the reasons quoted by me.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, Avishka Fernando was indeed a revelation. I have known his mother who is a nurse at Nawaloka Hospital, even before Avishka was born. His mother is keen on introducing him to me . I will be meeting him next week and as he is only 21 years,I will try to guide him along.
Sanath
Thank you,Lama.
ReplyDeleteI was never a cricketer in my life,even though my Secondary school
played cricket reasonably well during those days.I have learn the rules and regulations of international cricket over the years.SriLankan team needs good bowlers and at least 6 first class batsmen in order to be on top of the game.I am sure Avishka will lead the Sri Lankan team in years to come.We,all domiciles love to see Sr Lankans doing well."Blood is thicker than water".As for Rohini's comment,I would like to point out the that Kiwis opening batsman,Martin Guptil did not perform well all throughout of the game.Sri Lanka had the chance of beating South Africa and the Kiwis and qualifying for the semi-final.
Yes, Guptill had no luck with the willow this time round, and we were sadly deprived of the spectacle of some years back. No one has been more frustrated by this than Guptill himself. However he did show his brilliance in running Dhony out and that great catch off Steve Smith both of which contributed to NZ getting into the finals.
DeleteSumathi, needless to say I am no cricketer myself !! and would not have dared get into this conversation with the experts if not for your reference to my feelings- being in this little corner on the planet ! Thanks for remembering me !
Who are you ?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do enjoy watching cricket, and have been trying to explain the rules to my American friends for years (unsuccessfully!) I was unable to watch this entire match. I suppose it is time to review the rules for future World Cup events, but don't hold your breath!
ReplyDeleteI thought that Sunday was the "Perfect Storm" of sports, a marathon Wimbledon men's final, the Cricket World Cup final and Formula One racing, all in the UK! Enough to drive sports fans over the edge! Rohini, my sympathies!
But, does anyone remember the crucial match that the Sri Lankan team lost many years ago in the West Indies, playing in the dark and rain? Was it a semi final or World Cup Final? ( I don't remember!) Maybe we should have protested then?
Hi,Srianne,Nice to see you back with your valuable contributions.
ReplyDeleteIt was World cup final that Sri-Lanka lost to Windies.I am sure there were shortcomings in selecting the bowlers by then captain Sanath Jayasuriya.Murali wanted to bowl,but Sanath refrained from giving him the chance.Windies hammered Sanath's bowling.At the next World club final,it was against India.Our openers could not progress against the brilliant bowling by the Indian,seamers and the spinners.Buneshwara Kumar was brilliant in his fast and accurate bowling.
Me voici enfin!
Hi,Rohini,
ReplyDeleteYour name will not be forgotten and will carry on unto death.Our clinical group was unique;one male with six females?.Daya Undu joined later.
Thank you for your kind words Sumathi. You must have felt very special amongst six lovely girls ! all with surnames starting with S with just one starting with T- Thiravium. You have a good memory.
DeleteThank you very much friends for your valuable comments. Srianee there are so many short comings in the current ICC rules. I sincerely hope that after this rude awakening, the bigwigs at the top will wake up from their deep slumber and modify the defective rules as highlighted in the social media.If the Americans played serious cricket with the huge cash involved these would have been rectified long ago. e.g. size of cricket grounds which vary a lot and the DRS system.
ReplyDeleteSumathi ,in the Caribbean we lost to the Australians in the final after play was extended to a second day because of bad light. Adam Gilchrist scored a century. Malinga took four wickets in four balls against South Africa, although we lost that match.
Sanath, I appreciated your analysis. Even with my miniscule awareness of the nitty gritties of the game,I often wondered about the inequalities of the sizes of the playing fields, but experts around me didn’t seem to think it relevent !
ReplyDeleteI am glad to see it mentioned for the first time by you- and now more than ever, if
numbers of boundaries are to matter so much, the sizes of the playing fields should do too. Thank you for your post, and thanks to Lucky for posting it.
I maintain my position that the result has to be accepted. The umpiring error referred to in awarding 6 runs may be true but this is not the first time when such errors occurred not only in cricket, but in other sports as well. I would love to hear from colleagues of any instance where the final result was challenged and overturned as a result of such an error. The way I see it, the biggest lesson we take from this is to do with how we deal with a Tie situation. I am of the opinion that in such instances, the fairest outcome is to declare the two teams as Joint winners. Even in Football, I never approved of the system of penalty kicks. In cricket, playing another game to decide the winner is not logistically feasible, though not impossible. Even then, what happens in the event of a tie in the second match? Play a third? This obsession with the need for an outright winner is unnecessary. If two Teams are equally good, why not share the Trophy?
ReplyDeleteHaving said all this. I did sign a petition sent to the ICC to declare NZ and England as joint winners but sadly, it got only 10 votes!
Lastly, I am not keen on supporting innuendos that the ICC would have behaved differently if England were the aggrieved party.
Mahen, I agree wholeheartedly with your first and last paragraphs.
ReplyDeleteAna too signed the above petition on my behalf as I could not be available, even though he didn’t believe anything would change. The outcome was as expected, but we thought we’ll support it.
Thanks Rohini. People get very emotional about these things!
DeleteFinally, I would like to say that England won the Cup and New Zealand won the World !
ReplyDeleteFair comment. Well said!
DeleteBrilliantly said Sanath !
ReplyDeleteDear,Speedy,
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear that you had only 10 responses.I have done the same thing as Ana(Rohini's hubby)did.It is a pity that people keep their feelings to themselves and fail to express to the outside world.Hope to see more responses in future events!
I can see howthe umpires made their famous error in awarding 6 runs. The batsmen ran one (1), then ran another (2) and then the ball went to the boundary after hitting Stoke's bat when he was divingfo the crease. They did complete 2 runs BUT in the case of an overthrow, the batsmen MUST crossover at the POINT of the fielder throwing the ball which subsequently went to the boundary. The second run they scored was legitimate but AFTER the ball was thrown and therefore cannot count for the total overthrows.(IF THE BALL DID NOT GO TO THE BOUNDARY AND WAS FIELDED AND SENT SO THAT THE BATSMEN COULD NOT GO FOR A THIRD RUN, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED 2 RUNS. THE POINT IS THAT AFTER AN OVERTHROW, ONLY 4 RUNS MAXIMUM CAN BE SCORED. They should have got 5 because one run was cored BEFORE the overthrow)
ReplyDeleteIf you are still confused, think of ordinary situation where a batsmen runs 3 runs thinking that the ball would not reach the boundary. Once the ball reaches the boundary, the player gets only 4 runs, NOT 4+3. Guptil's overthrow should have therefore counted as 4 and the batsmen awarded 5 because he did run a normal run before the overthrow. In the heat of the moment, the umpires counted the 2 runs he ran and awarded those plus the 4 on the overthrow.
There is no doubt in my mind that it should have been 5, not 6. BUT, we cannot therefore conclude that NZ should have won as what happened after that was influenced by the fact that England got the 6 runs (rather than 5). How England would have reacted if they got only 5 runs will always remain conjecture.
So what is the solution? I am not aware of an appeals procedure within ICC rules for such a situation. I remain convinced that the trophy should have been jointly to England and New Zealand.
More than three weeks later, this is Zita, an amateur in the knowledge of the game of cricket but would like to add my tuppence worth as I did feel that the New Zealanders did get a bad deal. And even now a review is not too late. We use the name of 'Cricket' as synonymous with 'fair play' when we say 'that is not cricket' to indicate something that's unfair. So let's hope that even as late as this there will be a review of the result. Zita
ReplyDeleteAs per standing rules England were the victors but the rules need revision. To decide on a winner on the basis of number of boundaries scored in the event of a tie is plain crazy, but that is what is stated in the rule book! Needs to be revised.
ReplyDelete