ICC comments on ovethrow controversy of World Cup final

ICC comments on ovethrow controversy of World Cup final

England, who have often cited a humiliating defeat by New Zealand at the 2015 World Cup as the catalyst for their climb to the top of the one-day worldwide rankings, finally have a World Cup win to go with their three losing appearances in the 1979, 1987 and 1992 finals.

Chasing 241 runs set by New Zealand, Ben Stokes remained unbeaten on 84 runs to take the game to the tie-breaker on a hard Lord's wicket. The dynamic all-rounder also starred in the Super Over helping the host posts 15 runs before the Black Caps put up the exact score as England took away the trophy on the Super Over boundary count. Stokes was 12 when his family moved to England after his father took up a rugby league coaching contract in Cumbria.

After consultation with Marais Erasmus and the rest of his umpiring colleagues, Kumar Dharmasena signalled six runs for the incident, meaning that England - who by then seemed to be drifting out of contention needing nine runs from three balls - were suddenly right back in the hunt towards their World Cup glory needing three more from two. "The judgment error was the timing of when the fielder threw the ball", Taufel said. Now part of the MCC's laws sub-committee that makes the rules governing cricket, Taufel told The Age and Sydney Morning Herald that England should have been awarded five runs, not six.

The act of the overthrow starts when the fielder releases the ball.

But, England won the World Cup because they scored more boundaries than New Zealand over the course of the match.

"That's the act. It becomes an overthrow from the instant of the throw". "It's a clear mistake.it's an error of judgment", Taufel told foxsports.com.au.

More news: Biden unveils plan to strengthen ObamaCare
More news: Vodafone Australia admits to misleading customers
More news: Amazon Alexa Is Coming To Windows 10 Lock Screen With 19H2

The footage of the incident clearly shows that when Guptill released the ball, Stokes and Rashid had not crossed over for the second run.

Replays showed that Stokes and non-striker Adil Rashid had not crossed at the time of the throw.

At the instant of the throw by the fielder (at the moment, the ball left the fielder's hand), the batsmen had not crossed for the second run.

"Unfortunately, that's the game we play, and that sort of thing happens from time to time".

There is potential scope for ambiguity in the wording of the law, given that it references throw or "act", which may pertain to the moment the ball deflected off Stokes' bat.

Though Taufel admitted the umpires' call "influenced the game", he said it would be unfair on both the teams and the umpires to say it decided the outcome of the match.

Related Articles