ICC World Cup 2019

Royale with Cheese

I see the New Zealand coach has said sharing the trophy should be considered if something like this ever happens again. Whatever about the boundaries rule, sharing the trophy is one thing I definitely wouldn't agree with. Would either country be able to actually say they'd won the world cup if it had been shared? I don't think so.

gimli2112

I don't have any deep rooted dislike for the English but my own view is they'll just have to learn to live with a little aestrix beside their world cup winners tag, like they did in 1966.

Doodah7

gimli2112 wrote: »

I don't have any deep rooted dislike for the English but my own view is they'll just have to learn to live with a little aestrix beside their world cup winners tag, like they did in 1966.

There is no asterisk beside their name!! They won the tournament under the rules of the tournament!! Yes, an umpiring error may have given them an extra run but umpire errors happen all the time even with DRS. Furthermore do the Laws cover that a throw from the field that hits the bat for overthrows is even reviewable?

The whole principle of Umpire's Call where the 'soft' signal governs the review process is also open to debate. You could argue that an erroneous soft signal can change matches either way by giving the benefit of the doubt to the batter. How many times is the soft signal not out but going on to hit the stumps? At least once every other match.

robinph

Going on the count of boundaries is no odder than using the number of cards to split the teams in the group stages of football. And it's not that NZ didn't know that they needed to score one more than England to win before they started their super over, just like England knew that if they could get one more in the regular 50 overs they would have won at that stage, they "chose" not to though.

GDK_11

I’m English, don’t feel like there is any * for us. Hard not to feel sorry for NZ, they definitely didn’t have much luck in this game, and it has to be said they’re incredible sportsman the way they dealt with such a cruel loss (imagine the Aussies, Indians and England) if that had happened to them.

However, we will never know what would have happened. England would have played those last couple of deliveries differently and may have hit a boundary to win it.

All in all it was a brilliant game, a brilliant advert for cricket, hopefully a few more people take it up.

Finally Williamson and Morgan come across as total gents (appreciate Morgan won’t be popular here with some) but compared to some of the stuff going on in the ashes the last few years it’s good to see.

BarryD2

Doodah7 wrote: »

There is no asterisk beside their name!! They won the tournament under the rules of the tournament!! Yes, an umpiring error may have given them an extra run but umpire errors happen all the time even with DRS. Furthermore do the Laws cover that a throw from the field that hits the bat for overthrows is even reviewable?

Agree that it's done & dusted, the decision was made at the time and the trophy was awarded to England.

But it's pretty embarrassing for the ICC, overthrows are common enough and both the on field umpires and any other match officials should have been on top of this and the rules concerning same.

Stokes came back for that second run so he could retain strike, it was pretty desperate. Some say he stopped the run out (accidentally of course, that the ball was hitting the stumps), he kept the strike and Eng got an extra 1 or 5 runs depending on how you look at it.

It was a cock up.

Dr. Bre

The idea of sharing the trophy is laughable

Larbre34

Dr. Bre wrote: »

The idea of sharing the trophy is laughable

I agree, its not a solution for a final, there must be a clear winner within the rules. That said, thats not what happened on Sunday, the match should be replayed back in Lords.

Tombo2001

GDK_11 wrote: »

I’m English, don’t feel like there is any * for us. Hard not to feel sorry for NZ, they definitely didn’t have much luck in this game, and it has to be said they’re incredible sportsman the way they dealt with such a cruel loss (imagine the Aussies, Indians and England) if that had happened to them.

However, we will never know what would have happened. England would have played those last couple of deliveries differently and may have hit a boundary to win it.

All in all it was a brilliant game, a brilliant advert for cricket, hopefully a few more people take it up.

Finally Williamson and Morgan come across as total gents (appreciate Morgan won’t be popular here with some) but compared to some of the stuff going on in the ashes the last few years it’s good to see.

I would really hope this debate about the format or about a refereeing decision doesnt define the win.

The fact is that the cards just fell that way on the day, both teams were playing by the same rules - if New Zealand had hit more boundaries, they would have won. The didnt. How were they to know, England didnt set out thinking lets make sure we hit more boundaries in case its a draw.

New Zealand might also look at the fact that they only scored 3 in their final over, which was something they had much more control over.

Morgan has done this country proud and anyone whingeing about him when our own soccer, rugby, cricket and everything else teams contain players born overseas - it goes beyond hypocrisy; its racism really - as I'm fairly confident the same punters for example would have no problem with him if he'd gone on to captain Scotland or South Africa.

Blinky Plebum

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I would really hope this debate about the format or about a refereeing decision doesnt define the win.

The fact is that the cards just fell that way on the day, both teams were playing by the same rules - if New Zealand had hit more boundaries, they would have won. The didnt. How were they to know, England didnt set out thinking lets make sure we hit more boundaries in case its a draw.

New Zealand might also look at the fact that they only scored 3 in their final over, which was something they had much more control over.

Morgan has done this country proud and anyone whingeing about him when our own soccer, rugby, cricket and everything else teams contain players born overseas - it goes beyond hypocrisy; its racism really - as I'm fairly confident the same punters for example would have no problem with him if he'd gone on to captain Scotland or South Africa.

Morgan has done himself proud, he hasn't done this country proud as he has chosen not to represent this country when he had the option to.

He's had a great career, but he chose to leave the Irish set up and people are perfectly entitled not to warm to him particularlry when he was quite happy to suggest Paul Stirling should follow him and try and represent england aswell.

If Ireland is ever to do anything in cricket the idea of being open to Irish players playing for other countries has to end.How can you get the sport to grow in this country and convince the public that it's a sport this country should be interested in when it's then tolerable for our best players to up sticks when it suits them and we should be happy for them when they do it.

I have found the makeup of the rugby team (for example) over the years is embarassing I dont consider CJ Stander to be Irish in any way and would prefer if he had never played for Ireland.

Tombo2001

Blinky Plebum wrote: »

Morgan has done himself proud, he hasn't done this country proud as he has chosen not to represent this country when he had the option to.

He's had a great career, but he chose to leave the Irish set up and people are perfectly entitled not to warm to him particularlry when he was quite happy to suggest Paul Stirling should follow him and try and represent england aswell.

If Ireland is ever to do anything in cricket the idea of being open to Irish players playing for other countries has to end.How can you get the sport to grow in this country and convince the public that it's a sport this country should be interested in when it's then tolerable for our best players to up sticks when it suits them and we should be happy for them when they do it.

I have found the makeup of the rugby team (for example) over the years is embarassing I dont consider CJ Stander to be Irish in any way and would prefer if he had never played for Ireland.

I respect your point, and you are looking at it from the perspective of the sport and I appreciate that.

In contrast, what I'm referring to is the major problem people have with him captaining England per se - which is irrelevant to the sport.

Finally - no matter what way you cut it, he has been good for Irish cricket. It will raise the profile of the sport here enormously, and give a lot of credibility for Irish cricket internationally.

Doodah7

Larbre34 wrote: »

I agree, its not a solution for a final, there must be a clear winner within the rules. That said, thats not what happened on Sunday, the match should be replayed back in Lords.

Well done!! I haven't had such a laugh in ages!!

It's like saying that an offside goal won the World Cup final and the referee and his assistants made a mistake. Let's replay the match!! Are you mad?

Darc19

Blinky Plebum wrote: »

Morgan has done himself proud, he hasn't done this country proud as he has chosen not to represent this country when he had the option to.

He's had a great career, but he chose to leave the Irish set up and people are perfectly entitled not to warm to him particularlry when he was quite happy to suggest Paul Stirling should follow him and try and represent england aswell.

I simply don't understand that argument. His mother is English, when he was starting his career, Irish test cricket was almost non existent. He very clearly stated his preference for playing for England BEFORE any match he played for Ireland, but assisted Ireland in getting going on a proper test set-up.

So before he picked up a bat for Ireland, he had an agreement with the Irish team management that it was temporary, enroute to a career representing England.

You can't ask more than that.

Darc19

Darc19 wrote: »

I simply don't understand that argument. His mother is English, when he was starting his career, Irish test cricket was almost non existent. He very clearly stated his preference for playing for England BEFORE any match he played for Ireland, but assisted Ireland in getting going on a proper test set-up.

So before he picked up a bat for Ireland, he had an agreement with the Irish team management that it was temporary, enroute to a career representing England.

You can't ask more than that.

He was playing cricket at English academies from the age of about 12 as well.

My daughter is half Irish and half English. No one should tell her what “her country” is.

BarryD2

Darc19 wrote: »

I simply don't understand that argument. His mother is English, when he was starting his career, Irish test cricket was almost non existent.

I think the point is that it was perfectly reasonable for Eoin at the time to want to play for England in the 5 day test match format. He couldn't achieve that with Irish cricket, as we mainly focused and still do on the shorter formats.

But when selection for the English test panel was off the table and he switched his talents to the ODI format, he arguably should thrown his weight back behind the Irish team as that's a format we do have a reasonable record of competing in. Who knows but with his help, we might have qualified instead of Afg for this ODI World Cup just gone.

Of course, it was his personal choice and that has to be respected, even if people cast a cold eye on it.

Blinky Plebum

BarryD2 wrote: »

I think the point is that it was perfectly reasonable for Eoin at the time to want to play for England in the 5 day test match format. He couldn't achieve that with Irish cricket, as we mainly focused and still do on the shorter formats.

But when selection for the English test panel was off the table and he switched his talents to the ODI format, he arguably should thrown his weight back behind the Irish team as that's a format we do have a reasonable record of competing in. Who knows but with his help, we might have qualified instead of Afg for this ODI World Cup just gone.

Of course, it was his personal choice and that has to be respected, even if people cast a cold eye on it.

He only made a half hearted attempt to play test cricket he never really bothered trying to get back into the test team after he was dropped and so his reason of wanting to play test cricket all along as being the motivation was false, he just wanted to play for England.

StringerBell

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

Or - that’s the rules of ODI.

Yeah, but this is one thing that should be looked at tbf. It is one thing for T20 but for 50 over International, particularly world cup finals there should be a better way.

StringerBell

BarryD2 wrote: »

I think the point is that it was perfectly reasonable for Eoin at the time to want to play for England in the 5 day test match format. He couldn't achieve that with Irish cricket, as we mainly focused and still do on the shorter formats.

But when selection for the English test panel was off the table and he switched his talents to the ODI format, he arguably should thrown his weight back behind the Irish team as that's a format we do have a reasonable record of competing in. Who knows but with his help, we might have qualified instead of Afg for this ODI World Cup just gone.

Of course, it was his personal choice and that has to be respected, even if people cast a cold eye on it.

He couldn't achieve it with Ireland not as we mainly focused on the shorter formats, we could only compete in the shorter formats! There was literally no way. As for him coming back after his dropping from the Test team (cause you see that's what all top sportsmen do, they turn tail and run rather than back themselves) do you know how long he would have had to wait to play for Ireland again after that? You'd expect or want him to put his career on hold for that long and given that cricket is his livelihood expect him to hurt his earning potential so much? Seems a bit rough, the likes of Rankin I would have more of an issue with, even Ed Joyce funnily enough though he did have that touch of class back then. Rankin though? Stupidity, was never gonna nail down a place in the England team.

Larbre34

Doodah7 wrote: »

Well done!! I haven't had such a laugh in ages!!

It's like saying that an offside goal won the World Cup final and the referee and his assistants made a mistake. Let's replay the match!! Are you mad?

Good for you. No, quite sane thanks. Your football example is not exactly far fetched and in fact has happened so often in the past that we now have VAR.

I realise there many ifs, ands and buts around the circumstances of the super over and that England would have approached the final 2 balls differently had the umpires awarded the correct 5 runs rather than the erroneous 6, but it played out how it played out and now in the minds of supporters everywhere the England victory is a qualified one.

If I was some England middle-order man enjoying the week of mad celebrations I'd be worried about all that winding down and in the cold light of 4 years worth of reflection the win feeling hollow and many people in the other leading nations putting the asterisk beside it. Theres only one way to fix that.

hahashake

My take as a kiwi:

The boundaries rule is stupid (6s and 4s are equal, 4 runs taken isn't worth as much as a boundary 4 despite being more difficult, why not use wickets as a measure? etc.) and NZ were unlucky on multiple occasions (I'm including bad umpire calls as unlucky) BUT the rules were known in advance and bad luck is a part of sport. England beat us in the pool and were higher on the table so it's an easier pill to swallow than the reverse. The poster who suggested NZ were lucky to have the India pool game rained off should take note of the warmup and semi final results of NZ vs India though.

I'm sure the England team and most England fans will look at their name on the trophy and see a complete victory, and they should - any other team in the same situation would do the same. However ask any non-England fan and most will see massive asterisk by the name. That's not bitterness, that's just a fact - and the majority of those fans are from the subcontinent (obviously).

Tombo2001

hahashake wrote: »

My take as a kiwi:

The boundaries rule is stupid (6s and 4s are equal, 4 runs taken isn't worth as much as as a boundary 4 despite being more difficult, why not use wickets as a measure? etc.) and NZ were unlucky on multiple occasions (I'm including bad umpire calls as unlucky) BUT the rules were known in advance and bad luck is a part of sport. England beat us in the pool and were higher on the table so it's an easier pool to swallow than the reverse. The poster who suggested NZ were lucky to have the India pool game rained off should take note of the warmup and semi final results of NZ vs India though.

I'm sure the England team and most England fans will look at their named on the trophy and see a complete victory, and they should - any other team in the same situation would do the same. However ask any non-England fan and most will see massive asterisk by the name. That's not bitterness, that's just a fact - and the majority of those fans are from the subcontinent (obviously).

I'd agree.

Stepping back from it - take the soccer world cup - a competition that last for three years; 200 countries, thousands of games, millions of people attending games, billions of people watching games.

And at the end of it, it can be and has been decided by - not a game of soccer - but a penalty shoot out.

Is that any different?

And yet people put up with it.

As for the asterisk thing - the winner is the winner. I think - to be fair, a lot of the asterisk thing derives from the fact that the Kiwis are a popular team (in cricket!) and well liked, and Kane Williamson in particular. if it had been Australia on the receiving end, or indeed England, there wouldn't be so much talk about asterisks. There would be talk about how they had blown the opportunity.

Tombo2001

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I'd agree.

Stepping back from it - take the soccer world cup - a competition that last for three years; 200 countries, thousands of games, millions of people attending games, billions of people watching games.

And at the end of it, it can be and has been decided by - not a game of soccer - but a penalty shoot out.

Is that any different?

And yet people put up with it.

As for the asterisk thing - the winner is the winner. I think - to be fair, a lot of the asterisk thing derives from the fact that the Kiwis are a popular team (in cricket!) and well liked, and Kane Williamson in particular. if it had been Australia on the receiving end, or indeed England, there wouldn't be so much talk about asterisks. There would be talk about how they had blown the opportunity.

Yeah, a penalty shootout is different. Maybe it would be the same if they only had 5 shots each for the shootout, and if there wasn't a result, they would decide it on the team with the most shots on goal in the match or something.

Without a doubt, the rules will be looked at, and probably changed. There's no reason why they couldn't have gone to a second super over if the scores were drawn after the first.

But hey, it was still an amazing match.

Adamcp898

Well at least it wasn't decided by a "bowl-off" like they used to, I guess.

Yeah_Right

hahashake wrote: »

My take as a kiwi:

The boundaries rule is stupid (6s and 4s are equal, 4 runs taken isn't worth as much as a boundary 4 despite being more difficult, why not use wickets as a measure? etc.) and NZ were unlucky on multiple occasions (I'm including bad umpire calls as unlucky) BUT the rules were known in advance and bad luck is a part of sport. England beat us in the pool and were higher on the table so it's an easier pill to swallow than the reverse. The poster who suggested NZ were lucky to have the India pool game rained off should take note of the warmup and semi final results of NZ vs India though.

I'm sure the England team and most England fans will look at their name on the trophy and see a complete victory, and they should - any other team in the same situation would do the same. However ask any non-England fan and most will see massive asterisk by the name. That's not bitterness, that's just a fact - and the majority of those fans are from the subcontinent (obviously).

As a kiwi, I was heart broken by the loss. Before the tournament, I thought reaching the semis would be a good achievement for the kiwis. Before the final, I expected England to win and just hoped we would put in a good performance (unlike 4 years ago).

During the match I kept thinking that it wouldn't be our day. Lady luck certainly wasn't on our side. How many times did the kiwi bowlers miss the edge or get an inside edge and miss the stumps or beat the batsman completely and somehow miss the stumps?!? But as the match progressed we started to believe and then it was right there!! One hand on the trophy! And it was snatched away :mad: Absolutely sickening. I know how the Irish rugby fans felt in 2013.

I know that the rules are what they are and both teams knew them beforehand but look at the scoreboard after 50 overs:
NZ 241 for 8.
England 241 all out. ALL OUT!!!!! FFS!! :mad:

Sorry I've gotten mad again.

Guy:Incognito

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Well at least it wasn't decided by a "bowl-off" like they used to, I guess.

How can actual cricketers miss like the 3 Pakistani bowls? They weren't even that close.

https://youtu.be/mI_S_8aQTbo

Larbre34

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I know how the Irish rugby fans felt in 2013

I'd say you feel far worse to be fair, we got edged in a one-off friendly, which we took two chances to make amends for in subsequent years. If we lost a RWC final due to some sort of error by the officials, there'd be insurrection at the World Rugby HQ.

hahashake

Yeah_Right wrote: »

As a kiwi, I was heart broken by the loss. Before the tournament, I thought reaching the semis would be a good achievement for the kiwis. Before the final, I expected England to win and just hoped we would put in a good performance (unlike 4 years ago).

During the match I kept thinking that it wouldn't be our day. Lady luck certainly wasn't on our side. How many times did the kiwi bowlers miss the edge or get an inside edge and miss the stumps or beat the batsman completely and somehow miss the stumps?!? But as the match progressed we started to believe and then it was right there!! One hand on the trophy! And it was snatched away :mad: Absolutely sickening. I know how the Irish rugby fans felt in 2013.

I know that the rules are what they are and both teams knew them beforehand but look at the scoreboard after 50 overs:
NZ 241 for 8.
England 241 all out. ALL OUT!!!!! FFS!! :mad:

Sorry I've gotten mad again.

No idea why wickets aren't taken into consideration before boundaries, I'm assuming it's because the rules came from T20.

Scrabbel

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

It’s not even certain that it was a bad decision. The runners had to cross at the time the “throw or act” directed the ball towards the boundary. The act could well have been the hitting of the bat again.

No, if you read the rule in full it’s clearly referring to the act of the fielder. It uses the phrase “the act” and the only act referred to earlier in the rule is the fielder’s.

jobeenfitz

I don't know if it was feasible to replay. I definitely think England should have offered a replay. Someone one else said it would be mad, I think it would have been fair. Not sure if other teams woul have been as graceful as NZ were considering the circumstances.

It's a tainted win for England imo.

Larbre34

hahashake wrote: »

No idea why wickets aren't taken into consideration before boundaries, I'm assuming it's because the rules came from T20.

Yeah thats a whopper of a mistake really. Wickets are a crucial metric in the game generally, how they weren't rated as the next measure of scoring success to runs in OD is crazy.

Tombo2001

I really don't know why England should be offered to give a replay.

They didn't write the rules, and its completely unfair to say - after the event - well they won according to the rules, but on reflection we think the rules are a bit daft so we'll start again.

That's a complete non-starter.

I've seen far worse injustices in sport than this. Here in Ireland, the leinster final a few years back where the guy threw the ball into the net in the last minute to deny Louth their first ever Leinster title, (or first for 50 years).

The world cup where Luis Suarez caught the ball on his goalline to deny Senegal being the first African team to reach a world cup semi final.

This.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underarm_bowling_incident_of_1981

England didn't break any rules here, and they won within the rules - so why punish them.

Its bad luck on New Zealand but you cant say its unfair.

jobeenfitz

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I really don't know why England should be offered to give a replay.

They didn't write the rules, and its completely unfair to say - after the event - well they won according to the rules, but on reflection we think the rules are a bit daft so we'll start again.

That's a complete non-starter.

I've seen far worse injustices in sport than this. Here in Ireland, the leinster final a few years back where the guy threw the ball into the net in the last minute to deny Louth their first ever Leinster title, (or first for 50 years).

The world cup where Luis Suarez caught the ball on his goalline to deny Senegal being the first African team to reach a world cup semi final.

This.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underarm_bowling_incident_of_1981

England didn't break any rules here, and they won within the rules - so why punish them.

Its bad luck on New Zealand but you cant say its unfair.

Depends on how you interpret the overthrow rules. Even Umpires are in disagreement. As pointed out earlier The number 11 batsman instead Ben Stokes could have faced last two deliveries.

You may disagree with people saying it's unfair but we are entitled to our opinion.

BarryD2

Yeah_Right wrote: »

As a kiwi, I was heart broken by the loss. Before the tournament, I thought reaching the semis would be a good achievement for the kiwis. Before the final, I expected England to win and just hoped we would put in a good performance (unlike 4 years ago).

During the match I kept thinking that it wouldn't be our day. Lady luck certainly wasn't on our side. How many times did the kiwi bowlers miss the edge or get an inside edge and miss the stumps or beat the batsman completely and somehow miss the stumps?!? But as the match progressed we started to believe and then it was right there!! One hand on the trophy! And it was snatched away :mad: Absolutely sickening. I know how the Irish rugby fans felt in 2013.

I know that the rules are what they are and both teams knew them beforehand but look at the scoreboard after 50 overs:
NZ 241 for 8.
England 241 all out. ALL OUT!!!!! FFS!! :mad:

Sorry I've gotten mad again.

Yous were most likely robbed! Plain & simple. Forget about the Super Over - the terms for that were understood by both teams. The real injustice was in the final over, overthrows are common in the game and not unusual for the ball to deflect off something or somebody when it's thrown in. The only reason Stokes threw himself into the second run was to get back on strike. The umpires should have been all over that incident and taken time to figure out what was correct. There was no marginal decision to be made, it was clear on the replays available.

Beasty

Well Ben Stokes made an impression with the Kiwis

He's been nominated for a New Zealander of the Year award:pac:

mac.in

Umpire admitted having made the mistake of awarding 6 runs instead of 5 runs to England. Link here

jobeenfitz

He's admitted he's wrong, took a while but he got there. We all make mistakes. Saying he doesn't regret though. Not sure about that.

Give him a week or two.

Beasty

There were 2 umpires on the pitch and more watching from the stands. If it was a "bad" decision, they all failed to correct it. Does not matter now though. England are the champions.

jobeenfitz

Beasty wrote: »

There were 2 umpires on the pitch and more watching from the stands. If it was a "bad" decision, they all failed to correct it. Does not matter now though. England are the champions.

*

mac.in

For some, at least me, it absolutely matters to know what went wrong and what's the mistake.

BarryD2

mac.in wrote: »

Umpire admitted having made the mistake of awarding 6 runs instead of 5 runs to England. Link here

Quoting from that article: "I agree that there was a judgmental error when I see it on TV replays now. But we did not have the luxury of TV replays at the ground and I will never regret the decision I made. Beside the ICC praised me for the decision I made at that time."

What does he mean by that? Of course they had 'the luxury of TV replays' - used several times during that match and all previous matches.

Maybe he means that the umpires are limited in what decisions they can view using TV replays but clearly they are routinely used to help judge boundaries, run outs, no balls, catches, lbw and so on. Surely if they are in doubt about any decision and a TV replay will assist, they can utilise them. Issue here seems more likely that they rushed a poor decision under pressure.

StringerBell

Or you know, that they just made a mistake?

jobeenfitz

jobeenfitz wrote: »

He's admitted he's wrong, took a while but he got there. We all make mistakes. Saying he doesn't regret though. Not sure about that.

Give him a week or two.

its bizarre wording though. why shouldn't the second run count? the batsmen completed two runs and the ball went for four overthrows.

Adamcp898

Aegir wrote: »

its bizarre wording though. why shouldn't the second run count? the batsmen completed two runs and the ball went for four overthrows.

It’s presumably to cover the eventuality where a particularly unscrupulous batsman might wait to see what way the fielder throws the ball, and then adjusts the path of his run accordingly to gain an advantage.

Beasty

Adamcp898 wrote: »

It’s presumably to cover the eventuality where a particularly unscrupulous batsman might wait to see what way the fielder throws the ball, and then adjusts the path of his run accordingly to gain an advantage.

I'm pretty sure the rules accommodate that, and if the batsman does something to deliberately divert the ball the extra runs would not count. However that as always requires judgment of intent by the umpires. Not certain but it could be the "obstructing the field" law that applies, which would result in the batsman being given out

Adamcp898

Adamcp898 wrote: »

It’s presumably to cover the eventuality where a particularly unscrupulous batsman might wait to see what way the fielder throws the ball, and then adjusts the path of his run accordingly to gain an advantage.

Jason Roy was given out against South Africa for doing just that.

Adamcp898

Aegir wrote: »

Jason Roy was given out against South Africa for doing just that.

Beasty wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the rules accommodate that, and if the batsman does something to deliberately divert the ball the extra runs would not count. However that as always requires judgment of intent by the umpires. Not certain but it could be the "obstructing the field" law that applies, which would result in the batsman being given out

I was responding to the poster querying the "bizarre wording" of it.

It's a little awkward alright, but it's trying to accurately pinpoint the moment of an event in as broad yet specific terms as possible, so as to encompass as many eventualities as possible as to just how that event may occur.

Roy, as I recall, deliberately crossed the pitch in order to stop the chance of a wicket, whereas this rule is attempting to ascribe how and when runs may be counted in the event of an unintentional interference with the fielding of a ball.