In theory you're correct because the team batting second know how aggressive they need to be. However, that's all part of being the captain and winning the toss. You sacrifice knowing what total you have to chase because you think the pitch and your team are more suited to setting the total.
I'd rather the England batsman had kept their nerve when needing 3 off two deliveries and then people wouldn't be having these debates.
Stokes should have only got 5 runs for the overthrow, I'd be more pissed off about that if I was a Kiwi
No he shouldn’t. They’d completed two runs, then four for the overthrow. Six was correct. But then to be fair - four umpires, an official scorer and a match referee might have figured it out between them if you were right don’t you think?
You would have thought so, but they didn't. See law 19.8: Overthrow or wilful act of fielder If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side and the allowance for the boundary and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act. They were nowhere near having crossed at the point of the throw, so the second run shouldn't have counted
Not really that straightforward as the law is very ambiguous as it states that the batsmen have to have crossed at the throw or act. Does that mean when the ball is thrown in or does it mean act as in when it deflected off the batsman? Besides that rule is for straightforward overthrows and doesn't specifically cover deflections off the batsmen.
I know the law but in this instance the ‘act’ was apparently deemed to be the deflection rather than the initial throw, the throw from deep would not have gone to the boundary so they were perfectly correct to interpret it as two completed runs in my view - I suppose it’s ambiguous mind.
In "theory" then, if they were running the third and it went for overthrows, then they could have scored 7 off a single ball.... Has *that* ever happened?
According to a former umpire in this mornings Grauniad, they hadn’t crossed when the ball was thrown, 2nd run shouldn’t count. But I’m at risk of suddenly being an expert on something I knew nowt about when I woke up this morning.
Would a 6 off a no ball count as 7 ? Genuinely have no idea. That must have happened at some stage in the entire history of cricket though
I’m sure someone scored a four off a no ball and five was added to the score in the game . Unless it was the Gorlovka kicking in .