Ben Stokes asked umpire to not award overthrows in WC final, says James Anderson (Dharmasena denies)

[Danyaalr01]

Ben Stokes created arguably the most pivotal moment in ODI history during the Cricket World Cup final.

And it's now been revealed that England's World Cup hero had asked the umpires to overturn the decision that ultimately led to England's win over New Zealand.

With England needing nine off the final three balls of the final at Lord's, Christchurch-born Stokes was running back for a second run when a throw from Martin Guptill hit his bat and deflected to the boundary for four.

It meant six was recorded off the ball instead of two and Stokes eventually got two singles off the final two balls to force a tie and a Super Over.

Stokes' test teammate for the upcoming Ashes series, Jimmy Anderson revealed that Stokes had appealed to the umpires to turnover their decision which could have seen the match never reach a tie.

"The etiquette in cricket is if the ball is thrown at the stumps and it hits you and goes into a gap in the field you don't run," Anderson told the BBC's Tailenders podcast.

"But if it goes to the boundary, in the rules it's four and you can't do anything about it.

"I think, talking to Michael Vaughan who saw him after the game, Ben Stokes actually went to the umpires and said, 'Can you take that four runs off. We don't want it'.

"But it's in the rules and that's the way it is.

"It's been talked about for a while among the players, potentially that being a dead ball if it does hit the batsman and veer off somewhere."

Stokes was quick to apologise to the Black Caps on the field and continued that after the match, suggesting he might have to say sorry "for the rest of my life" for the extra runs which he labelled "fluke".

"Playing against New Zealand is always a good event, they are good lads. I will be apologising to Kane for the rest of my life … It was written in the stars to happen for us," he said.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12250327

 

[Anwar_194]

I doubt that, he just raised his hands and that was it. No need to get attention. NZ was robbed by big 3 and there is nothing rest of the countries can do. if they had done the same with India then Dharmasena would have been either killed by now or had been retired from the umpiring.

 

[Madplayer]

If this is true the Stokes has my respect. However that doesnt change the fact Kiwis were robbed because of those fluke 6 runs.

 

[James]

I pointed this out in another thread. IMO Stokes tried to decline the runs. But the laws of the game are the laws of the game at the end of the day, and this scenario (with the argued error of the erroneous 6th run) falls purely on the umpires as their responsibility.

So it is indeed very impressive sportsmanship if Stokes did try to decline the runs, but even if he hadn’t then there should be no blame attached to him for any of this.

 

[Kaptan]

I doubt that, he just raised his hands and that was it. No need to get attention. NZ was robbed by big 3 and there is nothing rest of the countries can do. if they had done the same with India then Dharmasena would have been either killed by now or had been retired from the umpiring.

Grow up and stop dragging India into this matter.
Many decisions have gone against India in recent past, no one was killed for it.

 

[Danyaalr01]

If this is true the Stokes has my respect. However that doesnt change the fact Kiwis were robbed because of those fluke 6 runs.

Well yeah. I wonder why the other officials didn't take action when Dharmasena signalled 6, couldn't the 3rd umpire have said something, especially on such a huge occasion, in a crunch situation.

Dharmasena should lose his ICC umpiring status, or at least be warned. He was by far the worst umpire in the whole world cup. There has to be a standard, why was Aleem Dar 4th umpire, he is a much better umpire than Dharmasena.

 

[RamLakhan]

Whatever about these 4 extra runs or 1 extra run issue, still you cannot judge the result based on that! Who knows if it was given just 5 runs or 2 runs or even 1 run, still England could have won the game with the pressure again growing into both the teams! Even if Stokes was not on strike facing the last still a tailender is also capable of hitting 4 or 6 in the last ball! It has happened several times in the history of the game! The pressure and anti-pressure can do anything! Who knows the match would have not gone into the super over at all!

So telling that England would have scored 1 less or 4 less than the target in the final scorecard is not conclusive enough because the reduction of runs should happen in the context of the game and game would have continued based on that!

 

[Abdullah719]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A section of the media had claimed that Ben Stokes wanted the umpires to take off the boundary. But Kumar Dharmasena says there were no such calls made by Stokes <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CWCFinal19?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CWCFinal19</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1153208810972024832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 22, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Robert]

If this is true the Stokes has my respect. However that doesnt change the fact Kiwis were robbed because of those fluke 6 runs.

The Kiwis robbed themselves by hitting 16 boundaries to England’s 24.

 

[IMMY69]

I think getting to the tie at the end of 50 overs was just about the fair result.
There were deliveries left after that Overthrow incident and anything could have happened...

However, after the super over was tied they should have gone with wickets, then head to head then NRR.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Enough of England apologizing or feeling bad for their victory. Or be made to explain their win.

They are deserved World Champions. Both teams had enough chances to win the game, ultimately England won it.

Good on them. Now go enjoy.

 

[Robert]

Whatever about these 4 extra runs or 1 extra run issue, still you cannot judge the result based on that! Who knows if it was given just 5 runs or 2 runs or even 1 run, still England could have won the game with the pressure again growing into both the teams! Even if Stokes was not on strike facing the last still a tailender is also capable of hitting 4 or 6 in the last ball! It has happened several times in the history of the game! The pressure and anti-pressure can do anything! Who knows the match would have not gone into the super over at all!

So telling that England would have scored 1 less or 4 less than the target in the final scorecard is not conclusive enough because the reduction of runs should happen in the context of the game and game would have continued based on that!

Quite so. Without the deflection, and with Stokes on strike, England were capable of getting seven in two balls.

There is so much hate for England in this place. It’s sad to see.

 

[IMMY69]

Quite so. Without the deflection, and with Stokes on strike, England were capable of getting seven in two balls.

There is so much hate for England in this place. It’s sad to see.

I agree.
I must admit after the victory I was extremely happy and then once my WhatsApp started going I started to over analyse it.

Overall I think the ICC laws could have been better but it is what it is.

Englands name is on the trophy and they are definitely the best side in the world. So time to move on.

 

[Aman]

I think getting to the tie at the end of 50 overs was just about the fair result.
There were deliveries left after that Overthrow incident and anything could have happened...

However, after the super over was tied they should have gone with wickets, then head to head then NRR.

Everyone knows cricket is all about runs and boundaries brother.

 

[Titan24]

Quite so. Without the deflection, and with Stokes on strike, England were capable of getting seven in two balls.

There is so much hate for England in this place. It’s sad to see.

I agree that England were definitely capable of scoring 7 runs in 2 balls.

However, your second part about hatred towards England in this place is generalizing everyone. Also I think many of the neutral fans from India, Australia etc (On social medias) during the final thought NZ were a bit unlucky in the finals.

However luck is part of the game and England won fair and square, many people dont give Stokes and England enough credit of maintaining composure, handling the pressure, trying till the end and then winning it.

I think it all started with sympathy towards NZ as neutrals and then as the further points were made by some it looked like hatred towards England which I think is clearly not the case.

You would have seen many posters and many threads appreciating how England changed the dynamics of their white ball cricket. You have to understand that just like fans of Eng and Nz it was a roller coster ride of emotions in the final for many neutral fans as well.

Most of the comments immediately after the final were bit of emotions driven but more than that it was questions raised over ICC rules, regulations and mishandling of the different situations. Which was completely uncontrollable factor which Eng had nothing to do with and they did best they could have done based upon upon the given circumstances and won the WC fair and square.

Congrats once again on winning the WC!

 

[Aman]

Quite so. Without the deflection, and with Stokes on strike, England were capable of getting seven in two balls.

There is so much hate for England in this place. It’s sad to see.

Please, it's not just PP. It's everywhere because it's controversial win and will forever be tainted because of how England won. If they went with something more logical, like wickets (something you've admitted to), NZ would be world champions. The reason they're not is because of a corrupt governing body idiotically bringing over T20 rules to determine ODIs without thinking it through.

 

[Itachi]

This final will be remembered for a long time.... But not for the right reasons.

 

[Captain caveman]

Quite so. Without the deflection, and with Stokes on strike, England were capable of getting seven in two balls.

There is so much hate for England in this place. It’s sad to see.

Where is the hate??
We just want a just result.
If the situation had been reversed and england wrer on the receiving end, we would be making just as much noise about england being robbed!
The only fair result in my eyes was for the world cup to be shared between england and new zealand.
How about you showing some fairness towards new zealand, instead of being so flipant that you would of won it without the umpires mistakes.

 

[praveen]

The Kiwis robbed themselves by hitting 16 boundaries to England’s 24.

That's just fluke. Teams intend to score more runs, not boundaries.

 

[Robert]

Please, it's not just PP. It's everywhere because it's controversial win and will forever be tainted because of how England won. If they went with something more logical, like wickets (something you've admitted to), NZ would be world champions. The reason they're not is because of a corrupt governing body idiotically bringing over T20 rules to determine ODIs without thinking it through.

I’d say historical rather than logical as I see no more logic in the wickets rule than the boundaries one.

I am not talking about the WC so much as hatred of England for things done by men long dead.

 

[Robert]

That's just fluke. Teams intend to score more runs, not boundaries.

Not fluke, competition rule. And England score more boundaries than anyone, because the more boundaries you hit, the faster you score and the more time you have to score even more.

Ironically it was NZ that taught England this in 2015, but NZ forgot their own lesson.

 

[MenInG]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A section of the media had claimed that Ben Stokes wanted the umpires to take off the boundary. But Kumar Dharmasena says there were no such calls made by Stokes <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CWCFinal19?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CWCFinal19</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@Saj_PakPassion) <a href="https://twitter.com/Saj_PakPassion/status/1153208810972024832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 22, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Robert]

Where is the hate??
We just want a just result.
If the situation had been reversed and england wrer on the receiving end, we would be making just as much noise about england being robbed!
The only fair result in my eyes was for the world cup to be shared between england and new zealand.
How about you showing some fairness towards new zealand, instead of being so flipant that you would of won it without the umpires mistakes.

Have a look at Time Pass for the hate.

Why should the team that scored fewer according to the rules of the competition get a share? That’s not fairness, it’s the opposite.

 

[Savak]

Lol sure he did. Deep down he was very happy with those 4 extra runs

 

[delpiero10]

Not fluke, competition rule. And England score more boundaries than anyone, because the more boundaries you hit, the faster you score and the more time you have to score even more.

Ironically it was NZ that taught England this in 2015, but NZ forgot their own lesson.

Except that England DIDN’T score faster than New Zealand in the match, and in fact scored much more slowly in certain periods of their innings than New Zealand did.

Have you not considered the stupidity of a rule that has effectively rewarded the team that faced more dot balls than the other? Not to mention the fact that the rule didn’t even take into account the number of runs scored in boundaries, just total boundaries hit, thereby implying that 11 x 4s were worth more than 10 x 6s.

 

[praveen]

Not fluke, competition rule. And England score more boundaries than anyone, because the more boundaries you hit, the faster you score and the more time you have to score even more.

Ironically it was NZ that taught England this in 2015, but NZ forgot their own lesson.

The obscure competition rule nobody ever prepares for. England plays fast but it has its own risk like how they lost more wickets than NZ. Anyways England got incredibly lucky and won the cup and that is fine and fair. My only objection is when fans bring up points like England scored more boundaries as if it was premeditated.

 

[Robert]

Except that England DIDN’T score faster than New Zealand in the match, and in fact scored much more slowly in certain periods of their innings than New Zealand did.

Have you not considered the stupidity of a rule that has effectively rewarded the team that faced more dot balls than the other? Not to mention the fact that the rule didn’t even take into account the number of runs scored in boundaries, just total boundaries hit, thereby implying that 11 x 4s were worth more than 10 x 6s.

Doesn’t matter if it was stupid or not, it was the rule.

Kiwis got 68 in boundaries, England 96.

 

[Saj]

Strange stuff from Anderson.

Why make something up that did not happen!

 

[HitWicket]

Strange stuff from Anderson.

Why make something up that did not happen!

He said he believed that was what Vaughan said. It was also said on radio commentary when it occurred, although evidently a false assumption based on Stokes raising his hands and looking at the umpire.

 

[Saj]

He said he believed that was what Vaughan said. It was also said on radio commentary when it occurred, although evidently a false assumption based on Stokes raising his hands and looking at the umpire.

Bizarre goings on.

Obviously trying to portray Stokes as some sort of angel.

 

[hadi123]

You can't not ask for the runs to be counted. Ben Stokes apologised, that's all he could do, the ball had gone for 4, so there's nothing that could be done. I'm sure he wouldn't have ran, had the ball not gone to the boundary. Still classy by Stokes for apologising.

 

[gazza619]

Stokes shouldnt even have apologised. Not his fault.

 

[Salma_T]

Ifs, buts, maybe......we can never say the result would have been different if the runs or extra run wasn't awarded. They won the cup and that is it.

 

[satheesh]

England are the deserving winners . As simple as that .... I feels pity for those who think NZL were robbed off... There is a thing called 'scoreboard pressure'. The more the importance of the match the more its intensity will become. From that point of view , it was NZL who got a lot luckier by winning the toss. I am almost sure had ENG batted first they would have put on atleast 275 with the batting prowess they posses and NZL would have been bundled out for a paltry score.
Then these type of discussions would never have taken place.

So accept that ENG are the deserving winners and move on .

 

[Imran's Tiger]

England are the deserving winners . As simple as that .... I feels pity for those who think NZL were robbed off... There is a thing called 'scoreboard pressure'. The more the importance of the match the more its intensity will become. From that point of view , it was NZL who got a lot luckier by winning the toss. I am almost sure had ENG batted first they would have put on atleast 275 with the batting prowess they posses and NZL would have been bundled out for a paltry score.
Then these type of discussions would never have taken place.

So accept that ENG are the deserving winners and move on .

I don't think anyone denies that England 'deserved' to win by 0 runs!

 

[Abdullah719]

Didn't Ask Umpires to Cancel Overthrow Runs in World Cup Final: Stokes

All-rounder Ben Stokes has cleared the air regarding the controversial 'six' which was awarded to England during the World Cup final against New Zealand.

"I saw all of that. I was thinking to myself, did I say that? But hand on heart, I did not go up to the umpires and say something like that to the umpires," he said in the latest episode of BBC podcast.

"I went straight to Tom Latham and said 'Mate, I am so sorry', looked over to Kane (Williamson) and said 'I'm sorry'," he added.

During the final over in England's chase of 241 on July 14 at Lord's, a throw from the deep deflected off a diving Stokes' bat and ran away to the third man fence. Stokes was completing his second run in the thrilling chase that eventually ended in a tie.

After consultation with Marais Erasmus and the rest of his colleagues, Kumar Dharmasena signalled six runs for the incident, meaning that England -- who by then seemed to be drifting out of contention needing nine runs from three balls -- were suddenly right back in the hunt with three needed from two balls.

England were adjudged winners of the World Cup on the basis of their superior boundary count -- 22 fours and two sixes -- to New Zealand's 17 after the the match ended in a tie after regulation play and Super Over.

Earlier, Stokes' teammate James Anderson had claimed that the all-rounder, who was hugely apologetic the moment the incident happened, had appealed to the umpires to overturn their decision.

"I think, talking to Michael Vaughan who saw him after the game, Ben Stokes actually went to the umpires and said, 'Can you take that four runs off. We don't want it'," Anderson had told BBC's Tailenders podcast.

Dharmasena, who was targeted for his controversial overthrow call, had accepted his mistake, but said he didn't regret the decision. ICC had also backed the Sri Lankan umpire over the issue.

Former India skipper Anil Kumble-led Cricket Committee will also be discussing issues relating to the World Cup final, including the controversial boundary count back rule, in their next meeting in first quarter of 2020.

https://www.news18.com/cricketnext/...w-runs-in-world-cup-final-stokes-2252281.html