I don't really agree with that

the rule's unclear; the causative "act" was the hitting of Stokes' bat, not the throwing of the ball ....

Posted By: paulg on July 15th 2019 at 12:30:37

Message Thread

It appears that England should not have won the world cup (Other Sports) - ghostof barry butler, Jul 15, 12:10:33
- Don’t think that is correct (Other Sports) - Jim, Jul 15, 13:54:21
  - thats the point, at the point when the ball was thrown (Other Sports) - ghostof barry butler, Jul 15, 13:57:26
    - See 19.7.3 I think it all hinges on whether you regard it as (Other Sports) - Jim, Jul 15, 14:14:27
      - Sorry that’s wrong about 19.7.3 so ignore it. (Other Sports) - Jim, Jul 15, 14:20:10
    - But they had when it hit Stokes which surely is the incident not (Other Sports) - Jim, Jul 15, 14:08:24
      - No (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 14:29:16
        
        Did he not wilfully dive? (Other Sports) - grays, Jul 15, 15:25:51
        
        wilful act of a fielder (eg throws it over the boundary) (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 15:32:00
        
        But, if the relevant act was the ball hitting the batsman, this rule isn't relevant (Other Sports) - SimonOTBC, Jul 15, 15:42:16
        
        On reflection I think you are probably right, they just thought they crossed but (Other Sports) - Jim, Jul 15, 16:39:46
        
        I'd be devastated if I was a kiwi. (n/m) (Other Sports) - protheroe fitzgibbon, Jul 15, 16:58:37
        
        I'd be more upset by the silly rule re boundaries (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 17:05:23
        
        I wouldn't,the rule applied to both sides and both sides knew the rule. (n/m) (Other Sports) - protheroe fitzgibbon, Jul 15, 17:12:30
        
        so what? It's a silly rule (n/m) (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 17:27:36
        
        How else do you decide a game like that? You could have a bowl out perhaps (Other Sports) - protheroe fitzgibbon, Jul 15, 17:38:39
        
        I agree completely (n/m) (Other Sports) - SimonOTBC, Jul 15, 16:48:02
- Congratulations New Zealand (Other Sports) - SCC 28, Jul 15, 13:15:25
  - They would have been (n/m) (Other Sports) - Higher Wrather, Jul 15, 13:16:54
- 100% 6 (Other Sports) - grays, Jul 15, 12:50:13
- Hope you haven't taken to moaning ...;) (n/m) (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 12:31:20
  - just checked (Other Sports) - ghostof barry butler, Jul 15, 12:36:51
    - my opinion is a fact (n/m) (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 12:53:31
- I don't really agree with that (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 12:30:37
  - No - rule is clear (Other Sports) - Tricky Hawes, Jul 15, 13:00:12
    - But it didn’t result from that it resulted from hitting Stokes (Other Sports) - Jim, Jul 15, 13:56:44
      - And there was an “incident” before that with the ball striking Stokes so it’s (Other Sports) - Jim, Jul 15, 14:16:55
    - yes, you're right (n/m) (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 13:14:12
- Pretty sure we should have been awarded a boundary earlier in our innings (Other Sports) - Dog, Jul 15, 12:25:44
- I think we would have won anyway (n/m) (Other Sports) - SimonOTBC, Jul 15, 12:24:04
- Because they hadn’t crossed when the ball was thrown? (n/m) (Other Sports) - SimonOTBC, Jul 15, 12:17:59
  - thats the reason (n/m) (Other Sports) - ghostof barry butler, Jul 15, 12:21:11
- but then Stokes would have gone for a boundary off last ball if needed more (n/m) (Other Sports) - Gazzaman, Jul 15, 12:15:20
  - Might not have been on strike though (Other Sports) - duke of york, Jul 15, 12:18:44

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.