What's The Correct Call?

[sherb]

In today's Ryobi Cup match, Tassie were on 8/239 and needed three runs to win.

Clive Rose, legend, promptly slapped Ryan Harris over point for six to complete the win.

But I can't remember - does the six count or does only the number of runs required to win (3 in this instance) count?

The CA site has the Tasmanian score as 8/245 - so they have counted the full six. But cricinfo has the score as 8/242, counting only the three runs.

Does anyone know?

*Might go for a bit of a wander through the laws of the game to try to find the answer.

 

[ag6858]

It counts as the full six when a boundary has been hit.
Theoretically, if they ran three, however, before the ball crosses the boundary rope, it would only count for three as the match is over once they finish the third run.
Also, if someone did run two, when only one is required, only the one would count.

 

[Wallaby]

It counts as the full six when a boundary has been hit.
Theoretically, if they ran three, however, before the ball crosses the boundary rope, it would only count for three as the match is over once they finish the third run.
Also, if someone did run two, when only one is required, only the one would count.

I must admit I'm not 100% sure about this. I think the boundary would count in this case.* I remember as a kid reading a story about a 'Batsman who hit the ball so high, they ran 2 before it was caught, so his score went from 97 to 99' - obviously wrong, but it confused the hell out of me.

* CBF-ed reading the Laws of Cricket. It's far more fun to pontificate as if I am an Authority On The Game.

There was a famous (well, - a little bit famous) case many years ago, before a no-ball automatically added a run - back then, a no-ball only scored a run if the batsman failed to score off the delivery. David Gower was bowling (England were going to lose), NZ needed one run to win. and as a joke Gower deliberately threw the ball at the batsman - who hit it for 4. The argument was whether the match was over as soon as Gower threw the ball at the Bowler's end, or whether the boundary counted. Much discussion in Wisden and the like, I remember.
It was a pretty easy match to find on Cricinfo (Gower didn't bowl much) - it looks like they've decided it was a no-ball, but the boundary counted. So Gower conceded 4 runs without bowling a delivery.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63436.html

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

There was discussion in the 1990s about changing the law to only include the required runs.
I think it might even have been implemented briefly, maybe through the playing conditions of one series rather than in the Laws, but am not certain about that.

 

[The Passenger]

If a boundary is hit to finish a game the full boundary (whether 4 or 6) is counted to the score.

I have no idea bout a situation where they batsmen need 1, 2 or 3 and complete those runs before the ball trickles into the boundary. I'm pretty sure it's the full boundary.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Under Law 19.6, the greater of the boundary or the run in progress if the batsman have crossed. (i.e. if they have crossed for fifth when the ball first touches the rope, the five should be counted)
One would think that would end the matter.

However, Law 21.6(c) seems to say the boundary shall only be counted on winning runs if the batsmen have not completed enough runs to win.

Law 19.6 does not state that is subject to Law 21.6, erhaps leaving this open to interpretation.

From "Law 21 - The result"

6. Winning hit or extras
(a) As soon as a result is reached as defined in 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5(a) above, the match is at an end. Nothing that happens thereafter, except as in Law 42.17(b) (Penalty runs), shall be regarded as part of it. Note also 9 below.
(b) The side batting last will have scored enough runs to win only if its total of runs is sufficient without including any runs completed by the batsmen before the completion of a catch, or the obstruction of a catch, from which the striker could be dismissed.
(c) If a boundary is scored before the batsmen have completed sufficient runs to win the match, the whole of the boundary allowance shall be credited to the side’s total and, in the case of a hit by the bat, to the striker’s score.

edit: I should have added that a fairly firm precedent seems to be that the greater of the boundary or runs run is scored.

 

[damochandler]

anyone remember when mark waugh needed a 4 or a 6 to get his ton in an odi about 13 years back and the team needed 1 run to win. he hit the 4 and got his ton

 

[Tassieboy]

But if 1 is needed to win and a four or six is hit, only 1 is counted if the batters cross before it reaches the boundary.

 

[damochandler]

But if 1 is needed to win and a four or six is hit, only 1 is counted if the batters cross before it reaches the boundary.

that is correct.

 

[Dan Cooper]

If a boundary is hit to finish a game the full boundary (whether 4 or 6) is counted to the score.

...

That is the case and I think it always has been.

 

[whats_at_stake]

I do not think it is as clearcut. The above only applies if a noball is not bowled. There was this game a few years ago where Sehwag was on 99* and India needed 1 to win. Bowler bowled a (deliberate actually and was later suspended by his board but that is irrelevant) front foot no ball which was hit for six. Sehwag remained on 99*.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

The no-ball (and presumably wide) situation is a little different, in that the act which scores the winning run occurs before either the striker hits the ball or the batsmen start running.

 

[Dan Cooper]

The no-ball (and presumably wide) situation is a little different, in that the act which scores the winning run occurs before either the striker hits the ball or the batsmen start running.

Spot on.

An interesting variation would be a 1 run to win scenario where the bowler bowls a wide that beats the batsman & keeper and goes down to the ropes. Is it 1 wide to the score or 4?

My guess is 4, but it's only using logic. Not the rule book.

 

[DrVanNostrand]

It counts as a six, and six should be added to their score.

I have no idea bout a situation where they batsmen need 1, 2 or 3 and complete those runs before the ball trickles into the boundary. I'm pretty sure it's the full boundary.

In this instance, only the runs required to win are counted because as soon as the batsmen complete the amount of runs needed to win, the ball is automatically dead and the game is finished.

 

[Belnakor]

There was discussion in the 1990s about changing the law to only include the required runs.
I think it might even have been implemented briefly, maybe through the playing conditions of one series rather than in the Laws, but am not certain about that.

remember this vaguely.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Anyone care to try and clarify this one >

A one run to win scenario where the bowler bowls a wide that beats the batsman & keeper and goes down to the ropes. Is it 1 wide to the score or 4?

My guess is 4, but it's only using logic. Not the rule book.

 

[Belnakor]

It was a pretty easy match to find on Cricinfo (Gower didn't bowl much) - it looks like they've decided it was a no-ball, but the boundary counted. So Gower conceded 4 runs without bowling a delivery.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63436.html

its a funny bit of trivia because he went into the record books as "no balled for throwing" ie: DI Gower became the first England player to be called for throwing in a Test in England. Kimani from India got done the same year for throwing the first ball of an innings where the target was 1 run.

 

[Belnakor]

Anyone care to try and clarify this one >

would depend when the umpire signaled the wide? In which case 4. Until he signals the match isn't over.

if someone got stumped off a wide with 1 to win and 9 wickets down does the dismissal take over?

 

[Dan Cooper]

would depend when the umpire signaled the wide? In which case 4. Until he signals the match isn't over.

if someone got stumped off a wide with 1 to win and 9 wickets down does the dismissal take over?

I appreciate your answer.

If a bowler bowls a wide the umpire will usually have adjudged it to be a wide well before the ball hits the fence, and likely signalled it before it gets there as well. For a spinner or a medium pacer he will certainly have had ample time to signal before the ball hits the ropes.

 

[Mateyman]

would depend when the umpire signaled the wide? In which case 4. Until he signals the match isn't over.

if someone got stumped off a wide with 1 to win and 9 wickets down does the dismissal take over?

I would imagine the team wins with 0 wickets left?