RateTheRef

I was interested in the earlier incident when Boult caught Stokes on the long on boundary but then inadvertently stepped onto the boundary rope whilst attempting to release the ball from his grasp. His NZ colleague Guptill was quick to signal 6 runs which was accepted, apparently without question, and a photo in today's Times seems to confirm that Boult still had the ball in his hand when his foot snagged the boundary. However if he had got rid of the ball a fraction of a second earlier, only the runs (? 2) which the batsmen had taken would have been awarded, with Stokes remaining at the crease either way, and the course of cricketing history would almost certainly have been altered for ever. Such were the margins of success and failure yesterday at Lord's.       

Not so. If Boult had released the ball a fraction earlier and thrown it to Guptill, as he did, then Stokes would have been out and the two runs would not have counted anyway.
The margin was really as close as that. Interesting that, without TV, none of us would have known when Guptill released the ball in teh overthrow incident. Obviously, there was quite a delay after that so the umpires must have been discussing it, however, if they were not 100% sure then they could do nothing about it. Whether the TV officials should have intervened is debatable because none of the players seemed to be aware of any problem and accepted the decisions of the onfield officials which is the way it always should be whether they be right or wrong!