Former umpires say officials erred in giving 6 overthrows in WC final, ICC declines comment
London/Melbourne, Jul 15: Former international umpires Simon Taufel and K Hariharan Monday said officials standing in the World Cup final erred in awarding six runs, instead of five, to England for an overthrow, an observation that the ICC refused to comment on.
Luck smiled on England midway through the final over of their innings when a throw from New Zealand fielder Martin Guptill deflected off the bat of Stokes and ran to the boundary. England tied the match and the ensuing Super Over before winning on boundary count on Sunday.
Sri Lanka's Kumar Dharmasena and South African Marius Erasmus were the on-field umpires for the pulsating game in which England were chasing 242 in the regulation 50 overs.
"It's a clear mistake.. it's an error of judgment. They (England) should have been awarded five runs, not six," Taufel, a five-time ICC Umpire of the Year, told foxsports.com.au.
Echoing Taufel's view was former Indian umpire K Hariharan.
"Kumar Dharmasena killed the World Cup for New Zealand. It should have been five runs not six," he told PTI.
The ICC refused to make a comment with a spokesperson simply saying, "The umpires take decisions in the field of play with their interpretations of the rules and we don't comment on any decisions as a matter of policy."
Law 19.8 of the ICC rules, pertaining to 'Overthrow or wilful act of fielder', 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 umpires needed to check if at the point of throw the two batsmen had crossed each other or not. If we see that replay, when the throw came, the two batsmen had barely started the second run," Hariharan observed.
"That run can never be counted. It was duty of square leg umpire (Marius) Erasmus to consult the TV umpire and change the decision. Stokes shouldn't have been on strike next ball," he added.
Taufel, a highly-regarded ex-Australian umpire, is now a part of the MCC's laws sub-committee that makes the rules governing cricket.
The bizarre incident took place in the fourth ball of the final over at the Lord's.
TV replays showed Adil Rashid and Stokes had not yet crossed for their second run when Guptill released the ball from the deep.
However, on-field umpires Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus added six runs to England total following the incident -- four runs for the ball reaching the boundary plus two for running between the wickets by the batsmen.
Taufel also defended the officials.
"In the heat of what was going on, they thought there was a good chance the batsmen had crossed at the instant of the throw," Taufel said.
"Obviously TV replays showed otherwise. The difficulty you (umpires) have here is you've got to watch batsmen completing runs, then change focus and watch for the ball being picked up, and watch for the release (of the throw)," Taufel said.
"You also have to watch where the batsmen are at that exact moment."
He acknowledged the call "influenced the game" but added, "It's unfair on England, New Zealand and the umpires involved to say it decided the outcome".
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
