In the opening match of the India vs England Test series at Hyderabad's Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium, England faced a formidable challenge from India's spin duo, Ravichandran Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja, after captain Ben Stokes won the toss and chose to bat first. On the very first day, the pressure on England's 'Bazball' approach was evident. In the midst of all the action that unfolded, an intriguing incident occurred as England batsman Rehan Ahmed experienced a deduction in his run tally.
A notable confusion unfolded when Jasprit Bumrah delivered the last ball of the 47th over to England's Rehan Ahmed. During the play, Ahmed flicked an attempted yorker on the on-side behind square, and while attempting a second run, the ball was thrown by Mohammed Siraj. The throw went past the Indian team captain Rohit Sharma, who was late to react while backing up the non-striker end, and the ball raced to the boundary.
Here's A Video Of The Incident:
Initially, Rehan Ahmed was credited with 6 runs, however, the umpire reversed this decision, stating that only 5 runs would be awarded. The reversal was based on the fact that the two batters hadn't crossed each other at the moment the fielder released the throw, impacting the final run count. This decision left both spectators in the stadium and cricket enthusiasts on social media intrigued. However, the decision stood as accurate, aligning with the rule set by the International Cricket Council (ICC) for such circumstances.
MCC Rule 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.”
The application of this rule gained notoriety for being incorrectly handled during the 2019 World Cup final when England were awarded 6 runs instead of 5, despite the two batters not having crossed each other. The inconsistency in the application of the rule sparked discussions and raised questions about the need for a more uniform and clear interpretation of such situations in cricket.