Don’t think that is correct

Leaving aside the fact the umpires gave 6 so that’s what it is the relevant rules to me seem to be 20 and 18.9.

20 provides that the ball is dead as soon as it crosses the boundary.

18.9 says batsmen will be credited for any runs shores before the ball becomes dead.

The key point seems therefore to me to be whether they had crossed for the second before the ball crossed the boundary. If so then 6 was correct.

Posted By: Jim on July 15th 2019 at 13:54:21

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.