In a game that has been dubbed as one for the ages, England narrowly ‘beat’ New Zealand to clinch their maiden World Cup. New Zealand contained England to 241, the same amount of runs they had scored in their innings. Which meant that for the first time ever, a super-over result was to decide the World Cup winner. And in yet another first-time event, both England and New Zealand could score 15 runs in their allotted six-balls. Thus, the boundary count was taken into account, and that’s where England edged out the kiwis 26-17 and clinched the coveted World Cup trophy.
The game ended with very close margins and drew a lot of attention to the rulings. The match did have its fair share of close-calls and decisions going either way. Fans criticized the boundary count ruling which, many believe, unfairly hurt New Zealand. One of the most debated topics, though, was the overthrow from Martin Guptill, which considerably eased England’s equation.
Umpire Mistake In Final Over
Trent Boult was bowling the final over. He had only conceded a six in his 3 deliveries so far. The equation for England was 9 runs from 3 balls. Ben Stokes was on strike, with Adil Rashid partnering him.
For his fourth ball, Boult bowled a full-toss. Stokes managed to club it over deep mid-wicket, a shot that was certain to fetch 2 runs. And just when he dived at his crease to complete the second of it, the throw Guptill had made deflected off his bat. Stokes immediately put his hands up to acknowledge it wasn’t intentional.
But by then, the ball had already found its way to the boundary, beating Colin de Grandhomme to the race. Umpire Kumar Dharmasena didn’t take much time to make his mind and awarded England 2 runs and 4 extras from the overthrow. The equation came down to 3 runs from 2 balls, of which England managed 2 to take the game to the super over.
However, a deeper dive into the situation has brought up some flaws in the umpiring. TV replays showed that at the time of Guptill’s throw, the batsmen hadn’t crossed each other for the run. Furthermore, it wasn’t a complete run, and Adil Rashid should’ve faced the penultimate delivery. The ICC’s ruling clearly states the protocol in the case of an overthrow.
The law 19.8 pertaining to Overthrow or wilful act of fielder reads:
If an overthrow or a willful act of a fielder results in a boundary, then:
— any runs for penalties awarded to either side
— and the allowance for the boundary
— Runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.
Simon Taufel On The Umpiring Error
Former international umpire Simon Taufel offered his insights on the issue. “It’s a clear mistake … it’s an error of judgment. They should have given five runs, not six. The general consensus at the moment was that the batsmen had crossed at the time of the throw. TV replays, however, showed otherwise,” Simon Taufel said while speaking to foxsports.com.au on Monday.
The backlash couldn’t have come at a worse time. The ICC has already received enough criticism for its umpiring and decision making. Fans and the cricketing fraternity seriously hope the ICC looks into the matter and comes up with a solution sooner than later.