ICC responds to overthrow controversy in the final

14
ICC respnds to overthrow controversy in the final

Ever since England won their first World Cup on Sunday, many people have asked the rules set by International Cricket Council (ICC) and its explanation by the on-field umpires. A major argument occurred due to the perceived misinterpretation of rules by the on-field umpires, which resulted in them granting England one extra run. ICC for the first time has responded to the overthrow controversy. Responding to the topic, an ICC spokesperson said it was against the rule to “comment on any conclusions (made by the umpires)”.

The spokesperson also added that on-field umpires take conclusions based on their clarification of the instructions placed in the ICC rule book.

“The umpires take conclusions on the field with their version of the rules and we don’t comment on any decisions as a matter of policy,” an ICC spokesperson was mentioned as a proverb by forxsports.com.au.

The biggest argument surrounding England’s achievement came to everyone’s notice when the previous umpire Simon Taufel claimed that England was presented one-run extra after the ball had bounced off diving Ben Stokes’ bat.

ICC respnds to overthrow controversy in the final

Taufel, a five-time champion of ICC’s Umpire of the Year Award, had said that on-field umpires had made a “clear mistake” when they awarded England six runs instead of five.

Taufel was referring to ICC’s Law 19.8 which clearly states that batsmen are presented one-run extra only if the batsmen have crossed when the fielder releases the ball.

England batsmen Ben and Adil had not overlapped when Martin Guptill threw the ball and therefore should have only been given five runs, comprising four overthrows.

But on-field umpires Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus has given England six runs on the third-last delivery and also brought Ben Stokes on the strike which assisted them to tie the match in the regulation 50 overs.

England was confirmed the winners on the basis of their superior boundary count after 102 overs of play couldn’t disperse the two teams.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here