Same here and I treated myself and my son to our first F1 GP this year - went to the Monaco GP. Wasn’t cheap but a memory we'll treasure for many years.
Same here and I treated myself and my son to our first F1 GP this year - went to the Monaco GP. Wasn’t cheap but a memory we'll treasure for many years.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,064
- Reaction score
- 369
- Country
Fantastic fellow xenonophobe extremist
done it in style one he will never forget I'm sure. Lucky boy.
You two ought to get a room. You could get cosy under your bed sheets....
B
Bodd
You two ought to get a room. You could get cosy under your bed sheets....
Are your pants around your ankles?
You dirty bugger
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Messages
- 6,345
- Reaction score
- 268
- Country
Sadly the Umpire appears to have made an incorrect decision ! If it is true iduring the WC final controversial incident that the batsmen had not crossed on the final 'run' at the instant the fielder threw the ball - It seems they had not done so, therefore only one run plus the boundary from the deflected overthrow should have been awarded.
From https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/boundaries
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.
Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.
I think the reference to law 18.12.2 is important (maybe not in the WC incident).
------------------------
"...If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be..."
The only 'wilful' act relates to the fielder. No mention of the batsman 'wilfuly' deflecting the thrown ball - in the WC incident the batsman was clearly not watching the ball, the deflection was accidental.
--------------------------
Just one 'wilful' example :- Recognised batsman on strike, number nine (not a recognised batsman) is at non strike end, final ball of over to recognised batsman he steers ball toward boundary fielder, the batsmen set off at very relaxed pace for the single which would place recognised batsman on strike for the coming over, but, before batsmen cross, the boundary fielder carries out a 'wilful' act, he kicks the ball into the nearby boundary marker - thus the four runs for the boundary would be credited, but the single would not count and the batsmen would have to return to their respective wicket or end which they had left - thus placing the number 9 batsman on strike for the new over.
-0-
From https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/boundaries
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.
Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.
I think the reference to law 18.12.2 is important (maybe not in the WC incident).
------------------------
"...If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be..."
The only 'wilful' act relates to the fielder. No mention of the batsman 'wilfuly' deflecting the thrown ball - in the WC incident the batsman was clearly not watching the ball, the deflection was accidental.
--------------------------
Just one 'wilful' example :- Recognised batsman on strike, number nine (not a recognised batsman) is at non strike end, final ball of over to recognised batsman he steers ball toward boundary fielder, the batsmen set off at very relaxed pace for the single which would place recognised batsman on strike for the coming over, but, before batsmen cross, the boundary fielder carries out a 'wilful' act, he kicks the ball into the nearby boundary marker - thus the four runs for the boundary would be credited, but the single would not count and the batsmen would have to return to their respective wicket or end which they had left - thus placing the number 9 batsman on strike for the new over.
-0-
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2005
- Messages
- 4,064
- Reaction score
- 369
- Country
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,784
- Reaction score
- 849
- Country
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,439
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
Looks like yourself and Ellal are correct and we win with the help of the Umpire like in 66 lol.
I will accept that, it's a good talking point until we win it again.
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Messages
- 6,345
- Reaction score
- 268
- Country
True his decision is final - but not mandated to misinterpret the rules !
'Sadly the Umpire appears to have made an incorrect decision.' Not 'cricket' is it ?
See plainly here at 45-47 secs into ICC video (and the umpire has great view - actually facing the action).
A still from 47 sec in :- The 'thrower' arrowed, the ball 'arrowed and circled' mid flight - note batsmen just crossing on '2nd run' clearly after ball thrown, note Umpire position lower left excellent view - if looking !!
-0-
'Sadly the Umpire appears to have made an incorrect decision.' Not 'cricket' is it ?
See plainly here at 45-47 secs into ICC video (and the umpire has great view - actually facing the action).
A still from 47 sec in :- The 'thrower' arrowed, the ball 'arrowed and circled' mid flight - note batsmen just crossing on '2nd run' clearly after ball thrown, note Umpire position lower left excellent view - if looking !!
-0-
Last edited:
Sadly the controversy is what will be remembered...
Was it over the line?
Was it the 'hand of god'? etc.
Still with us decades on...
A shame really because the game itself was excellent.
And the efforts of Stokes and Archer in the 'super over' was something else!
Do you reckon they are any good at taking penalties?
Sponsored Links
