World Cup 2019: The Greatest Ever Finish to a World Cup Match?

 

World Cup 2019

The Greatest Ever Finish to a World Cup Match?

July 15^th 2019

 

In these days of instant gratification, it was inevitable that cricket would pass from the idea that a tie is a perfectly respectable result in a cricket match, to the cricketing equivalent of the penalty shootout, to a somewhat random arrangement.

In the past, matches with the scores falling level in one-day matches have been settled by such expedients as “fewer wickets lost”, then “score at 30 overs” and, if still level, “score at 20 overs”, “score at 10 overs”, … On any of those systems England would have lost and, rightly, rued their luck. Instead, the ICC chose that, if the scores were level, regardless of wickets lost, there should be a super-over. And, if scores were still level, for some bizarre reason that only the ICC understands, instead of sharing the trophy, or having a second super-over, there would be a count of fours and sixes. Between Jonny Bairstow, Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler there were already more boundaries than the entire Black Caps team could manage.

And then, with Kane Williamson and his team showing a dignity in defeat that a few would do well to imitate, started the whining… but not, from the eastern side of the Tasman Sea.

It all started from the incident on the fourth ball of the final over. England needed nine to win from three balls. Stokes had just hit the previous ball for six and leathered the ball towards the Mid-wicket boundary. In came the throw and, as Ben Stokes dived to make his ground, the ball carroomed off his bat and went for four overthrows. That much is not in doubt.

Should Ben Stokes have been out “Obstructing the Field”? No! His action was involuntary and, although he potentially stopped the throw from running him out, it was no more an intentional act than when a throw hits the stumps and goes for overthrows.

The umpires conferred and awarded six runs.

After the match, people studied the rules and decided that the umpires had given one run too many: the throw had been made from the boundary BEFORE the batsmen had crossed, so only five runs should have accrued.

Simon Taufel said that the umpires had:

“made a tragic error”

Human error is part and parcel of the game and always has been. Is giving a run too many, by error, more tragic than an umpire giving the batsman out to a more than dubious LBW or catch, knowing that the batsman has no review available?

Here, things get complicated. The exact wording of the law is:

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;

·        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.

Most people read "if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw" and, after repeated replays showed that the batsmen had not crossed, made the assumption that only 5 runs should accrue. QED: New Zealand were cheated of victory.

However, the last two words are critical “or act”. The umpires interpreted this as meaning that the act involved was the ball inadvertently hitting the bat. This clearly happened *AFTER* the batsmen had crossed and would lead to six runs accruing.

The law is ambiguous. Both interpretations are valid.

There has been pressure on the ICC to intervene and change the result of the match. However, there is already precedent for the ICC to declare that the decision of the on-field umpires is final and that match results do not get changed after the event. Sensibly, the ICC has stated that it does not comment on on-field decisions.

Should the law be changed, as other critics suggested? Well, it exists to discourage fielders from risking taking a free, wild throw at the stumps with no one backing up. Without the law, any throw that passed the stumps would automatically stop the batsmen from running, even if it was made with no serious intent of a runout and to stop them obtaining legitimate additional runs on the throw.

It is a difficult one and, on another occasion, it is the fielding side that may be penalised as, if the ball were automatically to go dead on passing the stumps, the fielding side would lose the chance of executing a runout because the batsmen have decided to go for a risky run on an overthrow.

There is no perfect law in these cases.

It is all rather sad that such an extraordinary finish should be contaminated by such a toxic debate.

All in all, it was not a great game, as such, because the pitch was rather tricky and did not encourage flowing stroke-play. That, though, contributed to the tension and to the great finish.

New Zealand did what they have done so successfully so often through the tournament: they ground out a score and defended it through skilful bowling and whole-hearted fielding. Only once have New Zealand scored more than 250 in their eleven matches. Only once have New Zealand conceded 300. While England had five batsmen who scored more than 300 runs in the tournament and two who passed 500, New Zealand relied totally on Kane Williamson and Ross Taylor for runs: no other Black Cap reached 200. While England had five batsmen who scored a century – seven in total, plus Ben Stokes’ three scores of 80+ and another of 79 – New Zealand could boast just Kane Williamson’s two tons. Yet New Zealand won matches thanks to an attack that suffocated batsmen: four New Zealand bowlers took at least 14 wickets, more than any other team.

England, in contrast found themselves in the situation in which they had been undone previously: chasing a modest score on a pitch that did not encourage attacking batsmen. What was different was that, just when it looked as if yet another World Cup Final would end in disappointment, Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler kept England just close enough to battle through to the super over.

Make no mistake. England were worthy winners, battling through their nightmare scenario to win.

But New Zealand would, too, have been worthy winners.

Never has a World Cup match produced such an extraordinary finish. And, glory be, it was shown on free-to-air television. For the first time in England since 2005, you did not need an expensive subscription to watch international cricket. That may, indeed, be the greatest success of the 2019 World Cup.