ICC has responded that they do not comment on on-field interpretations of Rules and Regulations by Umpires.
If New Zealand had problem, then they should have consulted the Umpires which they didnt. Umpires might have discussed within themselves or consulted Third Umpire.
Exactly, NZ should have appealed, its like Strokes obstructed the throw towards stumps with his bat (may be not intentionally) but still it was obstruction
But Ben Stokes did not change his running line or looked towards throw. If there were runs, he would not have taken them by running. But it was bad luck for NZ that ball went to boundary.
Unintentional obstruction cannot be penalised.
NZ could have appealed for 5 runs instead of 6. But that is also subject to Umpire's interpretation.
I'm referring to no of fours... how the hell, they can decide champions based on no of fours... they could have added one more super over.. if not, both Eng & NZ shuld be joint winners
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;
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.
There
is some potential for ambiguity in the law, because "act" could be
interpreted as the moment the ball deflected off Stokes' bat. However,
there is no reference to the batsman's actions elsewhere in the law.
So Umpire interpreted the law as the moment when ball hit the Bat of Ben Stokes, not when Fielder threw the Ball.
It is upto sportsmanship. Ben stokes raised his hands and did not run after ball got deflected Thats his sportsmanship.. If NZ players had managed to stop the ball before boundary, there would have been no extra runs. It went to 4 and NZ players did not complain, that is there sportsmanship.
@Nagendra ; Regarding more boundaries scored, Rules were made clear to NZ batsman before the start of super over that they will need to surpass the score.
I read the things you posted. The throw or act is up to interpretation of course. Secondly we are not saying if the rules were made clear to NZ batters beforehand or not. We are just asking the question if this boundary thing is a correct way to separate teams. To me less wicket lost more logical. For WC final they could have also made the team ahead in group table win. Similar rule was there for the semi final. Had the second day been washed out India would have progressed to the final.
If there was a Super Over in Semi-Finals, what would have been the Rules in the case of both teams scoring same Runs ? Boundaries of course !!! Same as in the Final Match.
The rules were same for both semi-final and Final.
We cannot compare Rain affected rules of semi-final with Superover of Final !!
Comments
What does the law say?
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:
There is some potential for ambiguity in the law, because "act" could be interpreted as the moment the ball deflected off Stokes' bat. However, there is no reference to the batsman's actions elsewhere in the law.
So Umpire interpreted the law as the moment when ball hit the Bat of Ben Stokes, not when Fielder threw the Ball.
Secondly we are not saying if the rules were made clear to NZ batters beforehand or not. We are just asking the question if this boundary thing is a correct way to separate teams. To me less wicket lost more logical. For WC final they could have also made the team ahead in group table win. Similar rule was there for the semi final. Had the second day been washed out India would have progressed to the final.