Was England Rightly Crowned As The World Champ?

 

Summary: After the match and the tie-breaker were both tied, the ICC Cricket World Cup 2019 was awarded to England because they had hit more fours than New Zealand. The criteria for choosing the winner was lambasted by fans and former players alike. What is interesting is that former International Umpire Simon Taufel observed an error in judgment by the standing umpires in the final over. Had it not been for that error, New Zealand might have won; there would have been no Super-Over!

It was the first time since 1996 that a new world champion was crowned at the ICC Cricket World Cup 2019. England, the introducers of the game of Cricket to the world, won it for the first time since the inaugural World Cup in 1975. The hosts defeated New Zealand in a thriller nailbiting finish as both the match and the super-over were tied. The match was everything that a World Cup final should be.

England won the Cricket World Cup for the first time.

Batting first, New Zealand made a par score of 241. They knew that it would be a hard-fought battle. England had a shaky start as Jason Roy and Joe Root fell cheaply. Jonny Bairstow seemed to give the Kiwis some fight but he also got out quickly after Root’s dismissal. Eoin Morgan also fell cheaply. Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler gave the Black Caps a steady fight.  

After taking the wicket of Jos Buttler, the 2015 World Cup finalists would have thought that they had gained an upper hand over the Boys in Blue but Ben Stokes had other plans. His tremendous strokeplay kept the match alive. While the wickets kept falling at one hand, Ben Stokes single-handedly took the match to the last over. Still, the match remained quite balanced till the very last bowl. Nobody could predict who would win, it could have gone either way.

15 runs were required in the final over. Ben Stokes was at the striker’s end and Trent Boult was bowling. The first two balls were dots, Stokes refused singles to Adil Rashid. Ben hit a massive six on the 3^rd ball. 

The fourth ball, however, proved to be a game-changer! Stokes hit the ball towards the deep mid-wicket and hurriedly ran for a double. Martin Guptill fielded the ball and threw it at the keeper’s end where Ben Stokes had to make a huge dive to save his wicket. Now happened the drama. As Ben dived forward, the ball hit him and deflected toward the third man and went for a four! The umpire gave them as overthrows and England gained 6 runs, instead of the 2 that they had run! 

On the fifth Adil Rashid was run out. On the last ball, England required 2 runs. Ben Stokes was at the striker’s end and could only manage a single as Mark Wood got run out and the scores were tied. It resulted in a Super-Over, which, surprisingly was also tied!

After the super over could also not yield a result, England was crowned champions on the basis of the number of boundaries hit. England had hit 26 boundaries compared to New Zealand’s 17. The climax to the well-placed match was a sensational and controversial win by England.

Two rules that played a prominent role in making this match as sensational as it was must be looked into. First of all, had the overthrows not been given on the 49.4^th ball, the result could have been different in the first place. It was absolute injustice with the Kiwis. Secondly, awarding the win to England on the basis of the number of fours hit has also not gone down well with the fans and former players alike. Scott Styris expressed his displeasure with this rule and went as far as calling ICC a joke in his tweet.

In matches of such stature where a lot is at stake, the ICC ought to come up with some fair regulations. To keep things fair, the ‘overthrow’ ball should have been called a dead-ball, and re-bowled; or England, more simply, should have not been awarded the extra 4 runs. It was obviously unintentional on the part of Ben Stokes but it changed the course of the match. Asking for a re-bowl might seem frivolous and outlandish to some but desperate times call for desperate measures! As per the law 20.4.2.11 of the MCC cricket rulebook, with regards to matters pertaining to dead-balls the umpires’ discretion is advised. They are required to make a decision concerning calling a dead-ball if any circumstances are not exclusively mentioned in the law. In the situation, where the biggest trophy in the sport was on stake, some appropriate action must have been taken. It was unjustice.

Moreover, Simon Taufel, former international umpire, and representative of the commission that supervises cricket’s rules and guidelines has acknowledged that bestowing England six runs because of the overthrow in the last over was an absolute blunder. England required nine runs off three balls when the throw from Martin Guptill inadvertently hit a diving Ben Stokes’ bat and went away for four. The umpires gave England six runs, as opposed to five which as stated by the former Australian umpire was an error. This not only awarded England an extra run but also ultimately kept Ben Stokes on strike for the last two balls.

Simon Taufel who happens to be a five-time winner of the ICC’s Umpire of the Year award asserts that the umpires made a mistake in implementing the MCC laws. While talking to told foxsports.com.au on Monday he said:

They (England) should have been awarded five runs, not six. It’s a clear mistake. It’s an error of judgment.

If the rules were applied the way Taufel described then England would have required four runs from the last two deliveries and Adil Rashid would have been on strike, in place of Stokes since replays showed that the two had not crossed.

The former umpire, however, said that the call “influenced the game”, but articulated that it should not be considered as costing New Zealand the World Cup. I think he was being too generous to say that. Taufel defended the umpires and said that that moment involved so many moving parts, and stressed that it would be unfair to say that this moment decided the match. Well, actually it did!

After the Super-Over was also tied, awarding victory to England on the basis of a more number of fours hit is absurd. Why not give the victory to New Zealand; they took more wickets. Even after a tie in the tie-breaker, there could have been a Bowl-Out (as had happened in the India-Pakistan 2007 T20 World Cup match) to obtain a more clear-cut, fair, acceptable and, reasonable result. Let alone these suggestions, both the teams could have been announced as the joint winners (as had happened in the 2002 Champion’s Trophy where India and Sri Lanka were declared as joint winners). It in itself would have been a historic moment.