Were the Blackcaps robbed?
The umpires in the Cricket World Cup final might have made a crucial error in the last over of England's innings, cricket fans are suggesting.
New Zealand tied with England in a match that's being hailed as the greatest the World Cup has ever seen - not just in the usual 50 overs, but also in the 'super over' that was meant to separate the two sides.
England were awarded the trophy, having hit more boundaries in the match.
But the umpires' decision to award England six runs on the third-to-last ball of their innings is being questioned, with suggestions five should only have been given - which would have seen New Zealand win the match by one run.
- The 'super' over that killed the Blackcaps' World Cup dream
- Cricket World Cup: England beat Blackcaps in thrilling final at Lord's
- Cricket World Cup 2019: World goes crazy over England's unreal victory over Blackcaps
Here's what happened. Blackcaps paceman Trent Boult bowled to English batting hero Ben Stokes, who hit the ball to deep midwicket.
Martin Guptill threw it in from close to the boundary and it appeared to be on track to hit the wicket - but Stokes had his bat out in front, trying to get back in the crease to avoid being run out.
"This is a big moment - they've got to run!" shouted commentator and former Blackcap Ian Smith.
In a freakish turn, the ball hit Stokes' bat and ricocheted to the boundary for four.
"Oh, he gets in the way!" screamed Smith. "This is going to go all the way to the boundary off the bat.
"Can you believe this? It has! I do not believe what I've just seen!"
Because they'd already completed two runs, the total awarded to the English side was six. This took them from needing a difficult nine runs off three balls, to just three off two, a much easier task.
But a close reading of the official laws of cricket suggest the umpires got it wrong, writes ESPNCricinfo's Andrew Millar, reporting from Lord's, where the match was played.
Law 19.8 says: "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."
Millar says the final clause of the law may have been overlooked by the umpires.
"A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run."
In other words, the second run shouldn't have counted, because the two batsmen hadn't crossed paths when Guptill let go of the ball.
"There is potential scope for ambiguity in the wording of the law, given that it references throw or 'act', which may pertain to the moment that the ball deflected off Stokes' bat," Millar wrote.
"However, there is no reference to the batsman's actions at any other point in the law."
If you dock one run from England's total, New Zealand would have won the game outright, without the need for the super over. But it's arguable that had England needed four off two, rather than three, Stokes and Rashid would have played differently to how they did, so we'll never really know.
New Zealand captain Kane Williamson said he wouldn't be dwelling on a single run here or there.
"There were so many other bits and pieces to that game that were so important," he said, after the match.
"When it comes down to a tie, you start looking at every single delivery, don't you? It was a pretty tough pill to swallow that when, yeah, when we were looking pretty likely with Trent bowling really, really well, so one of those things."
Stokes didn't hit the ball deliberately and actually apologised to Williamson for the mistake that played a huge part in England bringing cricket home.
"Not the way I wanted to do it, ball going off my bat like that," said Stokes.
Newshub.
