The ICC on Sunday came out in defence of umpire Kumar Dharmasena for his controversial decision to award six overthrow runs, instead of five, to England during the epic World Cup final against New Zealand.
For the first time after the World Cup final, theInternational Cricket Council has come out with a public statement about thecontroversial incident, stating that the “right process” was followedwhile making the decision to award six runs to the eventual winners England atLord’s on July 14.
Midway through the final over of England’s innings, a throwfrom New Zealand fielder Martin Guptill deflected off the bat of Ben Stokes andran to the boundary, and the hosts were awarded six runs, which eventuallyhelped England tie the match and the ensuing Super Over before winning onboundary count.
TV replays showed Adil Rashid and Stokes had not yet crossedfor their second run when Guptill released the ball from the deep, promptingexperts to believe that only five runs should have been given.
However, on-field umpires Dharmasena and Marais Erasmusadded six runs to England total — four runs for the ball reaching the boundaryplus two for running between the wickets by the batsmen.
“They (on-field umpires) had to make a judgement callon the day as to whether the batsmen had crossed when the throw wasreleased,” ICC’s general manager of cricket Geoff Allardice toldESPNcricinfo.
“After everything that went on during that delivery,they got together over their comms system and made their decision. Theycertainly followed the right process when making the decision,” he added.
Allardice also added that the playing conditions did notallow the third umpire or the match referee to intervene.
“They were aware of the law when they made the judgmentabout whether the batsmen had crossed or not at the time.
“The playing conditions don’t allow them to refer tosuch a decision to a third umpire. The match referee cannot intervene when theumpires on the field have to make a judgement call like that,” heexplained.
Allardice said that the entire final would be”considered” by the ICC’s Cricket Committee led by former Indiacaptain Anil Kumble, but the panel is not scheduled to meet until the firstquarter of 2020.
Asked if there were questions raised about England and NewZealand sharing the World Cup after the match ended in a tie twice — first inregulation time and then in Super Over — at the ICC Annual Conference inLondon last week, Allardice insisted that it was important to have only oneworld champion.
“The consistent view has been that the World Cup finalneeds a winner and a Super Over was in the playing conditions to decide a tiedFinal in each of the last three World Cups (2011, 2015 and 2019).”Meanwhile, the ICC has also given a green signalto use a stop clock to combat slow over-rates in limited-overs cricket.