Was there an umpiring/scorecard error in the first ODI between South Africa and Pakistan?

[Babar_Azam_fan]

Pakistan was 273/7 at 49.5 and Faheem 4(9) with 1 run needed to win. Faheem hits a four to win.

The score should be 277/7, but it shows 274/7. And Faheem should have been 7(10), it shows 5(10)

For last ball they counted just 1 run instead of 4. How can such mistakes happen in this day and age at such big stage.

 

[Babar_Azam_fan]

Pakistan was 273/7 at 49.5 and Faheem 4(9) with 1 run needed to win. Faheem hits a four to win.

The score should be 277/7, but it shows 274/7. And Faheem should have been 8(10), it shows 5(10)

For last ball they counted just 1 run instead of 4. How can such mistakes happen in this day and age at such big stage.

Faheem should have been 8(10) instead of 5(10)

 

[Babar_Azam_fan]

Everyone including the broadcaster, the ICC, cricinfo and Cricbuzz, all showing 274/7 instead of 277/7 and for Faheem 5(10) instead of 8(10)

 

[Mean&Green]

Bro I’ve been getting so annoyed by that the whole day thank god someone else brought that up they need to fix that

 

[ahmadharis1]

He hit a single, not a four. The one run was completed before the ball crossed the boundary so it's counted as one run. If the ball crossed the boundary before a run was completed, it would have been a four

 

[Yk313]

Pakistan was 273/7 at 49.5 and Faheem 4(9) with 1 run needed to win. Faheem hits a four to win.

The score should be 277/7, but it shows 274/7. And Faheem should have been 7(10), it shows 5(10)

For last ball they counted just 1 run instead of 4. How can such mistakes happen in this day and age at such big stage.

Depends.

If Faheem and SSA crossed (completed the single) before the ball hit the boundary then the scorecard is correct - game would have ended before the four being registered.

 

[Babar_Azam_fan]

Bro I’ve been getting so annoyed by that the whole day thank god someone else brought that up they need to fix that

I didn't watch the match, just the highlights. I think the umpire didn't SIGNAL it as 4 runs. Hence they counted the running between the wickets as a source of runs. They RAN 1 run, hence counted as 1 instead of 4.

A huge blunder by the umpire I'd say. He just wanted to get off the field.

 

[da_don]

Pakistan needed 1 run to win, before the ball went to the boundary the players crossed for the single, so the game was over then thus the boundary does not count. It has happened in the past where a player is stuck on 98 when the team has won even when the player hit the boundary.. i cannot remember who the player was.

 

[Babar_Azam_fan]

Depends.

If Faheem and SSA crossed (completed the single) before the ball hit the boundary then the scorecard is correct - game would have ended before the four being registered.

If that's the case, I'd argue the rules are absurd (like so many others in cricket). It's a 4, not 1. PERIOD.

Doesn't matter if match is won or not.

ICC and it's rules, so many grey areas. So many absurd rules. No wonder it's an absolute joke of an organisation

 

[Babar_Azam_fan]

Imagine a player on 97 with 1 run required to win. He hits a 4 and runs, but gets just one run.

It robs him off his century.

 

[ahmadharis1]

Imagine a player on 97 with 1 run required to win. He hits a 4 and runs, but gets just one run.

It robs him off his century.

Then he doesn't have to take the run, he can take the boundary instead for the hundred. Nobody is forcing him to run

 

[Babar_Azam_fan]

Then he doesn't have to take the run, he can take the boundary instead for the hundred. Nobody is forcing him to run

You can't wait to see if it reaches the boundary or not, if there's just one ball to win. You've to run.

 

[ahmadharis1]

You can't wait to see if it reaches the boundary or not, if there's just one ball to win. You've to run.

Regardless, decision is still in the hands of the batsman. Depends if he values the win more or personal accolade

 

[RajBan]

That's the rules as far as I know. Any additional run does not get registered once one team has already won. I think that change in rule happened 4-5 years back. Prior to that the entire run scored as part of the winning strike used to get added.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

Imagine a player on 97 with 1 run required to win. He hits a 4 and runs, but gets just one run.

It robs him off his century.

Remember when Sehwagh got robbed of a century when he was 99 and there was 1 run to win and he hit a noball for six, but it didn't count because the noball was registered before the ball reached the boundary? It's the same concept here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aavdA6iWP7A

 

[Indiafan]

I didn't watch the match, just the highlights. I think the umpire didn't SIGNAL it as 4 runs. Hence they counted the running between the wickets as a source of runs. They RAN 1 run, hence counted as 1 instead of 4.

A huge blunder by the umpire I'd say. He just wanted to get off the field.

Dude it's not a blunder but ICC rules.

 

[Babar_Azam_fan]

Dude it's not a blunder but ICC rules.

Then one amongst many dumb rules

 

[Babar_Azam_fan]

Regardless, decision is still in the hands of the batsman. Depends if he values the win more or personal accolade

It's a dumb rule. Period

 

[Varun]

First world problems.

 

[Babeikh]

Seems like quite a rubbish rule as it clearly went for four so that should cancel out the single they took before the ball crossed the boundary. But as [MENTION=132715]Varun[/MENTION] says, pretty much a first world problem and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[cricketerB94]

Not anything dumb in that rule. You won the match, now go home. Everything after that is considered dead.

Imagine if there is not that rule and a batsman is on 90 and he keeps running 10 scores, because opposition does not care as they lost the match, will you consider that a century for that batsman?

 

[Saj]

In all honesty, I didn't even look to see if the ball went for four.

I was just relived that Faheem had put bat on ball, because during that innings he looked like he was batting without a bat in his hand.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Dude it's not a blunder but ICC rules.

Can you please cite the rule? All I find is that the greater of the runs (boundary or those that are run) will account to the batsman - which in case of Fahim was a boundary.

19.7.3 When a boundary is scored, the batting side, except in the circumstances of 19.8, shall be awarded whichever is the greater of

19.7.3.1 the allowance for the boundary

19.7.3.2 the runs completed by the batsmen together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant the boundary is scored.

19.7.4 When the runs in 19.7.3.2 exceed the boundary allowance they shall replace the boundary allowance for the purposes of Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left).

19.7.5 The scoring of Penalty runs by either side is not affected by the scoring of a boundary.

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

and 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.

Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.

© Marylebone Cricket Club 2017