Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to
Six or five runs for Ben Stokes? Overthrow controversy in last over of World Cup final
One of the biggest turning points of the World Cup final humdinger between England and New Zealand was the overthrow on the fourth ball of the final over bowled by Trent Boult.
Needing nine runs from three balls to win their first-ever men’s World Cup crown, England were handed an unlikely lifeline when a Martin Guptill throw bounced off Ben Stokes and raced to the third man boundary. The English all-rounder, who had played the ball to deep midwicket and had dived to complete a second run, had not made any deliberate contact with the ball and despite his repeated apology to the New Zealand players, the overthrow runs were bound to be counted.
Related: Ben Stokes sorry for outrageous fluke on day of redemption
The only question was whether five or six runs should be added to the England total and after considerable deliberations with his colleague, umpire Kumar Dharmasena signaled a six – four runs for overthrow and two runs the players ran.
Social media and experts have been divided over whether the hosts should have been awarded five runs or six, although neither of the captains – Eoin Morgan of England and Kane Williamson of New Zealand – commented on it during the post-match press conference.
Read: Even in heart-breaking loss, Williamson shows why he is best cricket has to offer
Here is what rule 19.8 in ICC’s Handbook says:
A look at the television replays show that Stokes and non-striker Adil Rashid had not crossed for the second run when Guptill released the ball from the mid-wicket fence while the former was still short of his crease when the ball hit his bat and went to the boundary.
There is no clarity on what exactly is the definition of ‘act’ in the above mentioned rule and it is unclear whether the instance of the ball hitting Stokes bat can be termed as one.
However, from the final decision taken by the two on-field umpires, that seems to be the case for now.
But unless the International Cricket Council officially clarifies what exactly was discussed in the middle, jury would be out on the interpretation of that rule.
'Clear mistake'
Former ICC umpire, and widely regarded as one of the best to have officiated the game, Simon Taufel has added his weight to the argument that Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus got their call wrong: “They (England) should have been awarded five runs, not six,” Taufel is quoted as saying by foxsports.com.au. “It’s a clear mistake … it’s an error of judgment. In the heat of what was going on, they thought there was a good chance the batsmen had crossed at the instant of the throw. Obviously TV replays showed otherwise.”
The interpretation ambiguity is dealt with MCC’s handbook as explained in the tweet below:
Taufel also added that it was “unfair on England, New Zealand and the umpires involved” to say that one call decided the outcome of the match.
This article was originally published in Scroll.In and has been reproduced with permission.
Comments (44) Closed
That was indeed a crucial and penetrating turning point in favor of the English team during the fourth ball of the last over of the Grand Final of the 2019 World Cup Cricket Tourney at the famous and historic global crucket headquarters in Lords Cricket Stadium, London, England.
very unfortunate for New Zealand. however rule is rule and as a sprotsman sprit it should not be made contraversial.
“They (England) should have been awarded five runs, not six,” Taufel...
Umpire Taufel is so right, hence:
The World cup winners are NZ not ENG!
Time for Review for the reversal of the decision!
We could have had our greatest minds writing a script for the most exciting and tense finish to the CWC and it wouldn't have come near this. If this were written it would have been dismissed as fantasy.
It is all the part of the game. Overthrow was allowed and obstruction should be taken compared to as an obstruction from the wickets as well, which is allowed it the batsman was not run out already.
i think luck is with England a dropped catch six runs and this overthrow six runs help them but you cannot take any thing they played brillantly and kiwis are outstanding but luck is not wih them
Regardless of 5 or 6 runs controversy, England won the World cup with the help of 7 players who belonged to the rest of the world and not England!
I personally think when fielder's ball hits and deflects then all scores that batsmen run are counted. In this case of deflection, only first score that batsmen run should have been counted (whether it was intended or un intended deflection). However, only this decision was not the only bad decision. It is hard to believe that the WC-2019 Final have had few more controversial umpiring decisions. Having said that, the record books shall always read that "WC 2019 Cricket Champion was England"!!!
Test
Why ICC choose incompetent umpire like Dharmasena to officiate all important final? He was making mistakes from very beginning of the match. Batsmen were in extra pressure whether he made any blunder. Clearly it was 5 runs, not 6. They should consult 3rd umpire or even match referee before giving such all important judgement. How could Erasmuss give Taylor LBW as the ball hit him above knee and hawk-eye said "wicket missing"? You cannot give out a batsman in final unless you are 100% sure.
From a spirit of the law perspective, 6 runs is CORRECT.
It is to prevent counting of the run players run BECAUSE of the overthrow and the ball crosses the boundary, THAT run is of course not counted
Batsmen here were NOT running because of the overthrow.
Six runs it is
Although i m not a huge fan of cricket but last night watched the final with brother , supported kiwis and ended up in disappointment that they could not lift up the cup. Sad.
It wasn't a NZ day for sure as they clearly were at receiving end. What a shame. Jason Roy was out on first ball but was given not out. Taylor was unfairly given out, one runs given additional due to this over through which in fact was due to deflection of batsman and final nail in coffin was when score were level in super over and they decided it on count of boundaries, a pathetic ICC rules book, need change. I would say its not that Eng won, but its NZ that lost due to ICC. Must penalise the poor umpires and third umpire should have power to recall when replays show otherwise.
NewZealand lost against ICC not England.
Losing a thrilling match is fine and fair. But bat deflected overthrow is a real bad luck and then on top of that it was incorrectly interpreted ... double whammy.
Heart break for NZ.
England cheat to win
I believe ICC truly needs to revisit the rules:
1) If the scores are tied, the team that lost "less wickets" in getting to the score should win.
2) If the scores are tied at the end of super over, there should be a "second" super over.
Deciding the World Cup on the basis of "boundary differential" alone makes no sense at all.
There were a number of incorrect decisions by umpire Dharmasena, requiring reviews to be corrected, at least 3 in addition to this one. Poor umpiring in the final.
The argument for five runs is very convincing, and NZ have every reason to feel cheated, but ultimately, you can't take anything away from England. Going into the game, they were probably a little more deserving of the trophy - especially after their dismantling of Australia in the semis.
Both teams were excellent ambassadors for the sport - they played without any childish controversies, they didn't wear any pointlessly illegal military attire, their fans didn't pollute the games with any hatred, and neither team at any point tried manipulating run rates or did anything else to bring the game into disrepute. Both were, in my opinion, equally worthy finalists.
@Dr. Salaria, Aamir Ahmad, thank you for stating the obvious !
Just imagine if it was Bangladesh in place of New Zealand and such ICC rules!! There would have been riots...bomb blasts... curfew....bandh against the ICC rules. They still think India won 2015 World Cup against them by fluke when they lost the match by more than 100 runs....just because Rohit Sharma seemed to caught out from a no ball which is still debatable. Indian and Pakistani cricket crowd are more matured than them as they would blame their own team for any 100+ run loss.
I notice clause 19.8 of the rules is being applied to argue whether five or six runs should be scored. 19.8 applies to Overthrow or fulfill act of fielder. In this case the act was neither of these. So should the boundary be scored for the batsman at all? Should it not be only two runs, or even one? Stokes' bat came into contact with the ball much before the second run was completed.
As above
We all should advocate through social media the winner of the World Cup Cricket 19 Final to be reversed in New Zealand favour who were rightly the true winner due to their hard work and spirited display of the game, but unfortunately costed them the game due to bad umpiring in the Final. Ever since the ICC is controlled by the Indians, cricket is no longer becoming a gentleman game. The world should take notice and protest over these cruel & unjustified laws laid down by the ICC, otherwise the game of cricket will loose its interest in the years to come.
I fully incline to endorse this view and it was a controversial score. Had this not to have taken place certainly NZ would have been the winner without resorting to the decision based on super over,
Every LBW given by an Umpire must be automatically checked by TV umpire.
The TV umpire must have the authority to intervene without request because he is in a better position to immediately check any potential error of judgment.
@Hadi,
Nope, you cannot hit a boundary and run also to get extra runs. That is never done and should not be allowed also. It can either be 2 runs or 5 runs.
Moreover Stokes should have been on non striker end after being awarded 5 runs
@HashBrown®, Bcz they are not Indian or pakistanl.
@Googlie, Yes absolutely.
ALL bad decisions , rule needs to be changed on few front,
1 RR disqualification of Pakistan was the most radiculus thing I have ever seen in any of the sport including NFL ,FIFA.
2 the super over shouldn't be limited to just one , at least 5 overs, mathematically and statistically one super over ,will always produce a Biased outcome.
So unfair to New Zealand,For they are the worthy WINNERS,or maker it a JOINT winners,that would have been fair judgements.According to the rules it was 5 run NOT six,and for that reason it was New Zealand the World Champions.
Don't forget that he is an Australian and none of the Australians say anything about Jason Roy's dismissal as if Finch should have asked him to carry on while they all new if was miles away from anything let alone bat/gloves.
Noe body talks about 4 legbyes added to NZ total when one of their batter got it deflected in an attempt to take evasive action to a bouncer?
Lastly, though NZ played better or England inflicted damage on themselves to make things way more close than what it should have been - NZ didn't deserved to be in the knockout stage at all but luck got them into the final.
@Dr. Salaria, Aamir Ahmad, what words of wisdom and so much info and details that nobody else in the world would know thank ya doctore, the wise oracle
@Googlie, then newzealand should be considered as winners and the rightful winner of the cwc need to abide as per the rules as mentioned by Simon Taufel
Chill out guys! Mistake happens and in the end we all accept it. It may have happened in world cup final as well but judges (umpire on field) decided what they thought was right. So move on and accept England they are world champ. Remember fortune favours the brave and England were brave enough to tKe match to the point from where they won. They fought really well the entire match. Well done England and Newzealand.
Kane Williamson and Roger Federer share a birthday: 8th August. Just saying. The fault is in our stars..........
England should have gotten no extra runs. The rule mentioned here says that in order to get extra runs, fielder should have overthrown the ball or the fielder should have deliberately thrown the ball out.
But none of it happened. The fielder was on the mark.
The thing is that it was an English batsman who pushed the ball out. And of course English white men can’t do anything deliberately. After all, after sucking India dry for several centuries, they are the ones that look like innocent ones and we actually are willing to take the blame for their atrocities.
And the fact that the batsman was apologizing was even further proof of his hidden mischief. If he hadn’t done anything on purpose, why apologize?
If there was a Pakistani batsman, he would have been charged for a deliberate act and would have been given out. Just like Inzi was given.
Well we all know that it was England WC before it started but in this particular play I think on field decision was right if there was a five runs Ben Stokes should be at non striking end but he was trying to make his ground at striking end and 2 run had been completed before ball crossed the boundary.
team that only got to finals due to controversy won it also in similar manner. We did not get the real champion in this world cup.
from India how many feel than world cup shud be returned to newzeland and consolation ice cream should be given to england
Based on ICC rules, it shuld be 5 runs Bec the over throw happened before the 2nd run completion. It's on field umpire's fault. Shuld hv waited and used 3rd umpire's help before giving runs.
Hard luck for NZ. Well played.
In all fairness, the Cup should have been shared between the two countries, each keeping it for two years.
“Using boundaries to win is an art perfected by the British since 1947”