CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12250327
If that is true, hats off to Stokes for the gesture
-
@canefan status of this game keeps rising IMO.
-
@taniwharugby said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@canefan status of this game keeps rising IMO.
This tournament sets the bar that all future ones must aspire to. The ICC need to see that pure scoring doesn't create excitement. Never mind counting the number of 4s and 6s. The tension and excitement of having a real contest between bowler and batsman in conditions that could be harnessed by good execution on both sides made it great.
-
@canefan yeah the arbitrary deciding point of contention aside and despite the fact there werent the numerous games with 400+ scores that were predicted, there was alot of drama, tension and competition throughout, that you have to say made it a roaring success.
-
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
The problem with the overthrows is I have never seen it ruled that way. I don't see why they would suddenly say it was only five runs because it is a final.
Because it is nearly always from a sprint for a quick single where they have crossed before the throw.
-
-
@Donsteppa so the 2 finalists were also the 2 'unluckiest' teams....does that make them even better (play wise having to fight against bad luck as well?)
-
@KiwiPie said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
The problem with the overthrows is I have never seen it ruled that way. I don't see why they would suddenly say it was only five runs because it is a final.
Because it is nearly always from a sprint for a quick single where they have crossed before the throw.
Do you think Kane was aware of the batsmen crossing rule as does not seem to be any mention of him asking umpires if it should have been 5 or 6 and which batsmen should be facing the next delivery?
-
@Cyclops said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
That would mean that Stokes would have been awarded the second but not the boundary. Seems a fair outcom.
except they hadn't crossed at the time the ball was thrown in, which is the specified point at which the law states a run can be counted in the case of an overthrow
-
@Nevorian said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@KiwiPie said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
The problem with the overthrows is I have never seen it ruled that way. I don't see why they would suddenly say it was only five runs because it is a final.
Because it is nearly always from a sprint for a quick single where they have crossed before the throw.
Do you think Kane was aware of the batsmen crossing rule as does not seem to be any mention of him asking umpires if it should have been 5 or 6 and which batsmen should be facing the next delivery?
Based on what i've read from interviews, he did query the amount of runs counted initially before the umpires made their final decision after consulting with the third umpire
-
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Cyclops said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
That would mean that Stokes would have been awarded the second but not the boundary. Seems a fair outcom.
except they hadn't crossed at the time the ball was thrown in, which is the specified point at which the law states a run can be counted in the case of an overthrow
That was in a hypothetical future rule change where the ball is dead if it hits a batsman after a fielder returns the ball, so the boundary overthrow rule doesn't apply.
-
@Siam said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Chris-B umm, what scenario is that?
Should add that all completed runs before the hit are counted and if no run after the batsman is hit to account for the dubious scenario of fielders throwing at batsmen to prevent a run???
If hit trying complete the first run (single), ball rebowled might work
A scenario I can't see happening, what if the fielder trying to save runs by hitting the batsman, misses? Team going to be happy with non backed up overthrows?
Not much of a percentage play that one, unless there's something I'm missing.
One run to win - ball driven gently to a mid on in line with the stumps. Fielder's got one stump to aim at to tie - or a large oncoming batsman to buy another ball - boom!!!
World Cup on the line - I'd definitely throw at Gatting!
Edit: or anyone playing for East-Christchurch-Shirley!
-
Imagine if, runs tied, England had 13 fours and 2 sixes across regular match + super over. And we had 10 fours and 4 sixes. Both teams have same runs, and same total runs from boundaries (64).
England still win on number of boundaries (15 vs 14), even though we have more sixes.
The boundary rule is presumably there to encourage more aggressive/swashbuckling play, but isn't even coherent in how it does that! It assumes boundaries are "better" than 1s and 2s, but not necessarily that 6s are better than 4s given the above. So it's completely ridiculous.
-
@TeWaio The boundary rule was introduced to determine the winner in a tied super over in T20s, and it makes sense in that format of the game I suppose. The clowns at the ICC probably never envisaged this happening in a ODI CWC semi or final so applied the same rule to ODIs. Makes zero sense in the 50 over format.
-
@TeWaio said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Imagine if, runs tied, England had 13 fours and 2 sixes across regular match + super over. And we had 10 fours and 4 sixes. Both teams have same runs, and same total runs from boundaries (64).
England still win on number of boundaries (15 vs 14), even though we have more sixes.
The boundary rule is presumably there to encourage more aggressive/swashbuckling play, but isn't even coherent in how it does that! It assumes boundaries are "better" than 1s and 2s, but not necessarily that 6s are better than 4s given the above. So it's completely ridiculous.
especially when in todays cricket a lot of the ones and twos are saved right on the boundary
-
@akan004 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@TeWaio The boundary rule was introduced to determine the winner in a tied super over in T20s, and it makes sense in that format of the game I suppose. The clowns at the ICC probably never envisaged this happening in a ODI CWC semi or final so applied the same rule to ODIs. Makes zero sense in the 50 over format.
Still don't reckon it makes sense for T20s, given my above example regarding 4s and 6s.
If they want to have this stupid rule (and they shouldn't), it should be "total runs scored from boundaries" not "total number of boundaries".
That way 6s are worth 1.5x 4s, i.e. like in the ACTUAL GAME. ICC need to give themselves an uppercut.
-
