Controversy: Did New Zealand Lose the World Cup Final Because of the Umpires?

In an attempt to complete the second run and keep England’s hopes alive to win the World Cup final, Ben Stokes made a huge dive to get back in the crease while completing the second run in the final over of the chase.

The throw from Martin Guptill from the deep mid-wicket was a good one but luck intervened and the ball hit Stokes’ extended bat and was inadvertently sent to the boundary.

After much contemplation from the umpires, Kumar Dharmasena signalled 6 runs in favor of England. But was that the right decision? The law of the game disagrees.

Five Runs or Six?

With the margins so tight – each run mattered in the game and England just might have been given an extra run.

According to Law 19.8, pertaining to “Overthrow or wilful act of fielder”, the second run shouldn’t have been included which meant that 5 points should have been awarded to England; 4 overthrows and 1 run which was completed by the batsmen.

The law states as following:

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.

Reviewing the footage, we can clearly see that when the ball was released from Guptill’s hands, Ben Stokes and Adil Rashid had not crossed yet. (at 00:45 timestamp).

Still image of the moment when the ball was released from Guptill’s hands.

Keeping the aforementioned law in mind, the extra run shouldn’t have been awarded to England.

Simon Taufel, one of the most experienced former umpire, in an interview, confirmed that England shouldn’t have been awarded an extra run due to the very reason that the batsmen did not cross yet.

Sources claim that the International Cricket Council (ICC) has been approached regarding this matter by media sources and other journalists to clarify the decision made by the on-field umpires.


    • Check 00:45. The throw was launched by Guptill and the players hadn’t crossed either.

    • Have you read the law? I don’t think so. Because, if you had then you would know that they didn’t cross by any margin. It was simply an error in judgment.

      • Simon Taufel, one of the most successful umpires in the history of the game, has claimed that England were in fact given an extra run. Don’t think either of us is more qualified than him to form an opinion on the matter.

        • Agreed. The news was reported without personal bias or opinion. Don’t think there should be any ambiguity. The news itself is correct since the law is exactly what is stated in the above article. Good job, ProPakistani and the author of this article.

        • Why u people r explaining it to me, I already understand the law and agree with the article, I was referring to that FM guy comment, all of you have downvoted me for nothing I was with u already on that one

  • It was just poor umpiring how ridiculous the umpires were unaware of the laws n not even bothered about to consult that

  • But the run was completed by the batsmen, so the time of throw is irrelevant
    runs for penalties awarded to either side (0)
    and the allowance for the boundary (4)
    and the runs completed by the batsmen (2)
    together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act (0)

    0 + 4 + 2 + 0 = 6

    • if the rules meant what the article is suggesting they would read:

      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 at the instant of the throw or act, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed.

  • England had to win. They were playing with 13 players. 2 of them were on field umpires


  • >