England’s director of cricket Ashley Giles says he is unconcerned at claims England were given an extra run in their World Cup win over New Zealand.
A fielder’s throw hit Ben Stokes’ bat as he dived to complete a second run in the final over and went for four.
England were given six runs but Stokes and Adil Rashid had not crossed when the throw was released, so the law appears to say that was one too many.
Asked whether it mattered to him, Giles said: “Not really.”
He added: “You could argue the last ball that [Trent] Boult bowled was a full toss on leg stump and if Stokes’ hadn’t just been looking for two he probably would’ve banged it out of the ground anyway.
“We are world champions; we have got the trophy and we intend to keep it.”
Retired Australian umpire Simon Taufel, who was named the International Cricket Council’s Umpire of the Year on five successive occasions from 2004 to 2008, called the award of the extra run a “clear mistake”.
The ICC said umpires took decisions on the field based on their interpretation of the rules and that it did not comment on them.
Stokes went on to help England match New Zealand’s total of 241 before they won one of the most amazing games of cricket ever played following an additional ‘super over’.
Both teams ended the extra over with 15 runs but England were crowned champions by virtue of having scored more boundary fours and sixes – 26 to New Zealand’s 17 – in the entire match.
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.”
What does the law say?
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.
There is some potential for ambiguity in the law, because “act” could be interpreted as the moment the ball deflected off Stokes’ bat. However, there is no reference to the batsman’s actions elsewhere in the law.