closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 301 to 322 of 322

Thread: Cricket World Cup 2019

  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-P View Post
    Agree with that. I was there and was weirdly calm chiefly for that reason.

    And it now emerges that NZ wuz robbed, as Stokes's 'six' in the last over should have been five:

    https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket...e04cff9b7cb105

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-a9004826.html
    Jeez, that is bloody obscure technicality that confuses fans - not sure why at the moment of the throw matters and if the batsman crossed. Literally everyone would have been even MORE confused if 5 runs were awarded in that moment instead of 6.

    Umpires made the right call - even if technically incorrect.

  2. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom-P View Post
    Though of course there is a difference between an honest error of judgment and ignorance/misinterpretation of the laws. The latter is harder to stomach.



    Absolutely.
    NZ got robbed.

  3. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    NZ got robbed.
    This is what it says

    '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;
    • 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.'


    It was not an overthrow or wilful act of a fielder. It was a freak result due to an unintended interference/interception from the bat of Ben Stokes. I still say 6 should stand.

    Edit to further add - on the last bullet point, the 'act' is NOT the throw, but the ricochet of the bat. So they had of course already crossed.
    Last edited by crazyp; Yesterday at 15:54.

  4. #304
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    NZ got robbed.


    NZ were robbed when the uncouth bogans bowled underarm for the last ball in a WC match when a 6 would have meant a win.


    "The ICC said umpires took decisions on the field based on their interpretation of the rules and that it did not comment on them.


    New Zealand batsman Henry Nicholls brushed off the decision as part of the sport.

    "It doesn't mean anything to us now, it's the game, things happen," he told BBC Radio 5 Live.

    "Sometimes you get the rub of the green. England had a great tournament, they have been the dominant team for the last four years so they deserve to win it”."

  5. #305
    Quote Originally Posted by crazyp View Post
    This is what it says

    '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;
    • 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.'


    It was not an overthrow or wilful act of a fielder. It was a freak result due to an unintended interference/interception from the bat of Ben Stokes. I still say 6 should stand.

    Edit to further add - on the last bullet point, the 'act' is NOT the throw, but the ricochet of the bat. So they had of course already crossed.
    It is a boundary from an overthrow. Otherwise no runs need to be awarded.
    If it is not an overthrow, only two runs need to be awarded.

    BTW, saying NZ were robbed is just a joke.
    It clearly was an umpiring error though.
    Just silly and unfortunate that a well fought game comes down to umpiring mistakes and silly rules about number of boundaries.

  6. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    It is a boundary from an overthrow. Otherwise no runs need to be awarded.
    If it is not an overthrow, only two runs need to be awarded.

    BTW, saying NZ were robbed is just a joke.
    It clearly was an umpiring error though.
    Just silly and unfortunate that a well fought game comes down to umpiring mistakes and silly rules about number of boundaries.
    I still disagree - the act which contributed to the overthrow was not the throw but the bat. Also note, that logically I think everyone thought it was 6 runs, no outcry at all in the moment.

    Irrespective, the one run was not crucial. It was not the last ball of the innings and decision making would have changed for the final balls.

    I do not disagree on the boundaries - the better tie break should have been on the previous result in the group game and then group position if that game was also tied/rained off. England would have still won. Wickets would be as meaningless as boundaries so I rule that out directly.

  7. #307
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Maidenhead-ish UK
    Posts
    962
    Quote Originally Posted by crazyp View Post
    Irrespective, the one run was not crucial. It was not the last ball of the innings and decision making would have changed for the final balls.
    It was crucial, because Stokes would not have been on strike for the last ball. The chances of Rashid scoring three against Boult are vanishingly small.

  8. #308
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    1,042
    According to the rules then it's an umpire mistake, but mistakes are allowed to stand for other decisions e.g. incorrect dismissals, so why not this call for 6 runs?

  9. #309
    Master vagabond's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Here and There....
    Posts
    4,428
    Was it an overthrow though?

    Technically I don't think so.....as the ball hit Stokes' bat before reaching the wicket, which was further ahead in its trajectory. So I'm not sure it was an "overthrow".

    The last point in the law does say "throw or act" - which in this case is the act of the ball hitting Stokes' bat, causing this whole kerfuffle.

    One for discussion over a pint or 2 down the pub, for years to come, me thinks.......

  10. #310
    Quote Originally Posted by crazyp View Post
    I do not disagree on the boundaries - the better tie break should have been on the previous result in the group game and then group position if that game was also tied/rained off. England would have still won. Wickets would be as meaningless as boundaries so I rule that out directly.
    However, if it was determined by the number of wickets lost during the 50 overs, NZ would be champions. (8 vs 10). But, it wasn’t so they aren’t.

    England are. Get in!

  11. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Pointy View Post
    It was crucial, because Stokes would not have been on strike for the last ball. The chances of Rashid scoring three against Boult are vanishingly small.
    No it would have been 4 from 2 with rashid on strike. Anyway as said above, one for arguments down the pub but as I said earlier, not that controversial as no one really picked on it at the time!

  12. #312
    Quote Originally Posted by vagabond View Post
    Was it an overthrow though?

    Technically I don't think so.....as the ball hit Stokes' bat before reaching the wicket, which was further ahead in its trajectory. So I'm not sure it was an "overthrow".

    The last point in the law does say "throw or act" - which in this case is the act of the ball hitting Stokes' bat, causing this whole kerfuffle.

    One for discussion over a pint or 2 down the pub, for years to come, me thinks.......
    The point is runs are awarded only if it is an overthrow. Otherwise, there are no runs allowed for a ball hitting a batsman
    from a fielder’s throw. The act refers to the penalties awarded for a wilful ‘act’ of a fielder. It has nothing to do with the
    ‘act’ of throwing the ball.

  13. #313
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    New Plymouth, New Zealand
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by MrSmith View Post
    NZ were robbed when the uncouth bogans bowled underarm for the last ball in a WC match when a 6 would have meant a win.

    Excepting, of course, that it was neither illegal to bowl under arm at the time nor a World Cup match.

    Anyway, we have had a few beers and felt sorry for ourselves. Now we are over it.

  14. #314
    Quote Originally Posted by Taranaki Time View Post
    Excepting, of course, that it was neither illegal to bowl under arm at the time nor a World Cup match.

    Anyway, we have had a few beers and felt sorry for ourselves. Now we are over it.
    But the intent of the captain and a complicit bowler against the spirit of the game.

    It would be churlish to compare that to the actions of an umpire and their interpretation of the rule book.

  15. #315
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    812
    Quote Originally Posted by MrSmith View Post
    But the intent of the captain and a complicit bowler against the spirit of the game.

    It would be churlish to compare that to the actions of an umpire and their interpretation of the rule book.
    I don't want to fetishise the 5 / 6 runs question, but I have to say I wonder whether the umpires knew and had digested that rule, as opposed to simply [sic] making an error re its application in the moment (as Taufel suggested, rather protectively). If they weren't sure about batsman crossing etc presumably they could have gone upstairs. The fact that they didn't makes me wonder.

  16. #316
    Grand Master Andyg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    21,736
    It would be churlish to continue to complain about something which the losing side has already accepted.

    Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
    Friedrich Nietzsche


  17. #317
    Quote Originally Posted by MrSmith View Post
    At times like this I head straight to the bogan news websites and read their take on things and the comments.
    This time it’s one long grizzle about how NZ should have batted first on the super over and how this fake win will always have an asterisk next to it plus lots of other drivel from them

    A few kiwis and brits in Australia so this comment gave a bit of balance:

    “I don't need to check the scorecard, I know England has won something when the smell of sour grapes sweeps across Australia”

    NZ will have made a lot of friends and gained support from neutrals and fans whose teams were knocked out in this tournament, something you will never say about the Australian team.
    Superb. Just wait until we've won back the Ashes as well.
    Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.

  18. #318
    Master hhhh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On the M25...probably
    Posts
    3,131
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJEN View Post
    The point is runs are awarded only if it is an overthrow. Otherwise, there are no runs allowed for a ball hitting a batsman
    from a fielder’s throw.
    Not strictly true. There is nothing in the Laws that states that batters cannot continue to run if the ball accidentally strikes a batter whilst running, or if a shot from the striking batter hits the non-striking batter.

    It is generally frowned upon and seen as not within the spirit of the game, but if the batters do decide to run, those runs will count.

    The Umpire can only disallow the runs if he feels the intervention of the batter was deliberate, in which case a dead ball would be called, and the batters would return to their original ends.

    In the Final, Ben Stokes did the sporting thing and stayed on the floor after the ball struck him, not attempting to profit from the situation. It was (un)fortunate that the deflection then reached the boundary as the 4 additional runs then had to be counted.

    It’s a bit greyer when it comes to the runs completed as the Laws refer to “throw or act”. What happened is a mix of Laws 19 and 37. The decisive “act” that caused the overthrow was obviously the ball striking Stoke’s bat, an accidental obstruction of the field, at which point the batters had crossed on the 2nd run, so if you take it from that act, rather than the throw, 6 runs was a correct interpretation of the Laws as written.
    Last edited by hhhh; Yesterday at 22:20.

  19. #319
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    New Plymouth, New Zealand
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by MrSmith View Post
    But the intent of the captain and a complicit bowler against the spirit of the game.

    It would be churlish to compare that to the actions of an umpire and their interpretation of the rule book.
    What Greg Chappell did was undoubtedly unsporting, but within the laws of the game at the time. For what it is worth, I believe he paid a fairly heavy price for his mistake.
    As for being “churlish to compare” the two incidents, who was it that brought up the Chappell/ McKechnie incident in the first place?
    The umpires seem to have made an error over the number of runs awarded and who should have been on strike for the penultimate ball of the innings. In a close game it may very well have had an effect upon the outcome of the match. We will never know. These things do happen.

  20. #320
    Deliberate attempt to confuse the issue.
    Common sense dictates those rums were for an overthrow’. Otherwise no boundary would be given.
    Anyway, congrats England.
    Take this lightly- It took England
    *44 years* with
    2 South Africans,
    1 West Indian,
    1 New Zealander,
    1 Irish &
    2 Pakistanis
    and a lame ICC Rule to win the World Cup...!

    藍


    On a serious note, this is an excellent side with Roy,Bairstow,Root, Butler and above all Stokes who is a true champion. Hope they maintain the form for a few years to keep England a force to reckon with. The batting is excellent when firing on all cylinders.
    Last edited by RAJEN; Today at 03:03.

  21. #321
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Cumbria
    Posts
    2,083
    Unbelievable end to a great match. Fabulous sportsmanship from the Kiwis and I'm pleased E&W won given their performances over the last couple of years.
    I'd like to see NZ win the next one...

  22. #322
    I loved this little picture essay by the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...up-photo-essay

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •