For more than 13 years, cricket fans referring to the greatest One Day International (ODI) of all time have only had one match in mind.

As much as I love that 438 game, it’s impossible to argue that yesterday’s World Cup final, with all of its twists and turns, isn’t the single greatest ODI in the history of the sport.

You can point to any one of a number of crucial, game-changing moments, but plenty of attention has been given to the already-infamous overthrow incident.

With the match heavily in New Zealand’s favour, and nine needed off three balls, Ben Stokes scampered back for a second run. Martin Guptill’s throw from the deep struck Stokes’ bat as he dived to make his ground, and the ball deflected to the boundary.

Those two runs, plus the extra four for the boundary, meant that the English were awarded six for the delivery.

Here’s the incident:

It should be mentioned that Stokes didn’t do anything wrong.

It should also be mentioned that cricket fans have been talking about how ridiculous this rule is for years. Batsmen these days never run when the ball deflects off their bodies or bats, knowing that it’s against the spirit of the game. Why, then, is it still awarded as extra runs if the ball makes its way to the boundary?

We can safely assume that this rule will be changed in the not too distant future, and the ball will be deemed dead once it strikes a player or his equipment, but the damage has already been done.

OK, rant somewhat over, but why is there an argument that England should only have been awarded five runs? Here’s Cricinfo:

After consultation with his colleagues, Kumar Dharmasena signaled six runs for the incident, meaning that England – seemingly drifting out of contention needing nine runs from three balls, were suddenly right back in the hunt needing three more from two.

However, according to Law 19.8, pertaining to “Overthrow or wilful act of fielder”, it would appear that England’s second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.

The law states: “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.”

The crucial clause is the last part. 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.

Here’s that moment. As you can see, they’re nowhere near crossing for the second run:

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. However, there is no reference to the batsman’s actions at any other point in the Law.

As anybody who follows sport will tell you, the devil is in the detail, and any ambiguity in the law is far from ideal.

Thus, there is a case to be made for five runs having been awarded, rather than six, but what’s done is done.

If you want to see what class looks like, listen to Black Cap skipper Kane Williamson at the post-match press conference. He had every right to kick up a stink, and bemoan any number of crucial moments and decisions that went against his team.

Instead, this:

“It was just one of those things, hey.” Classy, Kane Williamson, in every sense of the word.

Let’s revisit, albeit painfully, the moment the Super Over was tied.

Quite how the deciding factor that handed England victory was boundaries hit in the match (England hit 26 to the Black Caps’ 17), rather than wickets lost (this was used for many years to separate tied matches, and would have seen New Zealand victorious), is beyond me.

But these rules were settled before the tournament, and both sides knew about them, so there you have it…

To finish, in case you spent most of yesterday watching the tennis (an epic between Novak and Roger, so fair play, really), here are the full match highlights:

I have so much more to say, but I can’t spend all day talking about cricket.

If you want a blow-by-blow account of the drama in the final overs, read this.

[source:cricinfo]