Law 19.8 favours the NZ

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.

 

How long before this becomes known as a sour win

If it were the Aussies, rather than the Kiwis, we'd never (by which I mean, literally never) hear the end of it.

As is, it'll be fine.  

I love the Australians, but they are inveterate whingers. They're still rabbiting on about Bodyline. 

as i recall they had crossed at least once but probably 2ce when the throw came.  and it wasnt b4 the accidental contact an overthrow

mutters i think is intepretting crossing as the line rather than the pair

no that's not right Wang. This section "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." refers to batsmen "crossing" in the same way as the rule relating to the number of valid runs in the event of a run out.  It relates to the two batsmen passing each other on the strip in the act of running.  In the match they crossed once then turned and were on their way back but had not crossed on the second run when the ball was thrown and then hit Stokes' bat and trundled on for 4 over throws. They arrived in their creases and the umps gave them the two they ran and the four o/throws.  On my reading of that law he should have given them the first whole run and not the second plus the four overthrows.

I read elsewhere that thy should have been given 5 not 6 because they ad not crossed each other for the second run before the fielder threw the ball. But then I looked at this and realised that didn't matter.

Image result for england world cup champagne

 

 

"This section "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." refers to batsmen "crossing" in the same way as the rule relating to the number of valid runs in the event of a run out. "

 

Runs completed in the case of a run out only count those where the batsmen have both crossed the crease - not each other in the middle of the wicket.  Otherwise NZ would actually be world champions 

heh

 

Ashley "King of Spain" Giles put it well:

Asked whether it mattered to him, Giles said: "Not really. We are world champions; we have got the trophy and we intend to keep it."

 

"which end the new batsman goes in when there's been a catch and the batsmen ran"

 

better?

It is crossed each other not crossed the crease but anyway it should have definitely been 5 (unless I am overlooking something) but there were still 2 balls left after then. Difficult to say definitively whether England would have done anything differently if they know they needed a boundary/ one more run.

Unfortunately it is an umpire error. Would have been less focus if it happened on the 3rd ball of the innings rather than the 3rd last.

What Diablo said.  And:

 

New Zealand batsman Henry Nicholls brushed off the decision as part of the sport.

"It doesn't mean anything to us now. It's the game; things happen," he told BBC Radio 5 Live.

"Sometimes you get the rub of the green. England had a great tournament, they have been the dominant team for the last four years so they deserve to win it."

Agreed Mutters. The NZ response has been so admirable.

Interestingly enough the Aussie response has been the opposite despite them not being involved. Reading some of the comments on the Sydney Morning Herald are hilarious.