No - rule is clear
"If boundary results from overthrow or wilful act of a fielder"
- clearly in this case, it's the former
"together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act."
- the distinction there is re whether it was an overthrow - in which case it's the instant of the throw - or a wilful act by a fielder, in which case it's the instant of the act.
So in this case it's the instant of the throw that matters. There was no 'act'.
Posted By: Tricky Hawes on July 15th 2019 at 13:00:12
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
- so what? It's a silly rule (n/m) (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 17:27:36
- 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
- I'd be more upset by the silly rule re boundaries (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 17:05:23
- I agree completely (n/m) (Other Sports) - SimonOTBC, Jul 15, 16:48:02
- I'd be devastated if I was a kiwi. (n/m) (Other Sports) - protheroe fitzgibbon, Jul 15, 16:58:37
- On reflection I think you are probably right, they just thought they crossed but (Other Sports) - Jim, Jul 15, 16:39:46
- But, if the relevant act was the ball hitting the batsman, this rule isn't relevant (Other Sports) - SimonOTBC, Jul 15, 15:42:16
- wilful act of a fielder (eg throws it over the boundary) (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 15:32:00
- Did he not wilfully dive? (Other Sports) - grays, Jul 15, 15:25:51
- No (Other Sports) - paulg, Jul 15, 14:29:16
- See 19.7.3 I think it all hinges on whether you regard it as (Other Sports) - Jim, Jul 15, 14:14:27
- thats the point, at the point when the ball was thrown (Other Sports) - ghostof barry butler, Jul 15, 13:57:26
- 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
- just checked (Other Sports) - ghostof barry butler, Jul 15, 12:36:51
- 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
- But it didn’t result from that it resulted from hitting Stokes (Other Sports) - Jim, Jul 15, 13:56:44
- No - rule is clear (Other Sports) - Tricky Hawes, Jul 15, 13:00:12
- 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
- Don’t think that is correct (Other Sports) - Jim, Jul 15, 13:54:21
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.