CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Missing a kickable penalty is on the players - correct application of the laws is the responsibility and raison d'être of umpires and unlike an lbw, there is no interpretation or umpires judgement - it was a black/white application. all three umpires got the relevant law completely wrong despite having the timeand opportunity to get it right - Stokes should have been off strike....
On that subject, Ashley Giles is showing his ignorance.
@Catogrande You do realise that England has used up all of their luck before the Ashes.
-
@Bovidae said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Missing a kickable penalty is on the players - correct application of the laws is the responsibility and raison d'être of umpires and unlike an lbw, there is no interpretation or umpires judgement - it was a black/white application. all three umpires got the relevant law completely wrong despite having the timeand opportunity to get it right - Stokes should have been off strike....
On that subject, Ashley Giles is showing his ignorance.
@Catogrande You do realise that England has used up all of their luck before the Ashes.
They've used up all their luck for the whole year at least!
-
-
@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.
It's easy to focus on that one thing, but in truth so many things didn't go our way. It simply wasn't our day despite creating more than enough chances to win. Guppy burning the review on a dead cert plumb LBW, Rosco getting a poor decision, Roy getting a favourable decision, the overthrows, Boult not quite being able to stay in the field for his catch, that's 5 clear cut examples of not coming out on the right side of defining moments in the game.
It was however a cruel and bizarre way to contribute to us not winning the cup -
@canefan Fate was against us, plain and simple. Boult actually bowled almost the perfect last over apart from one half volley which was an attempted yorker gone wrong and was dispatched for six. Unfortunately that was the third ball of the over and gave England a chance at reaching the target, every other ball were yorkers or close to yorkers. Had that bad ball been later in the over, we win, simple as that as the freakish overthrow would not have happened and the equation would have been impossible at that point.
-
@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.
But why would the umpires consult each other if they had thought it was a straightforward six runs?
-
@akan004 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.
But why would the umpires consult each other if they had thought it was a straightforward six runs?
Just trying to make sure of the call they both ended up getting wrong? Erasmus didn't have a great game from our point of view
-
@Mokey yep this.
I've played hundreds of games of organised cricket matches. Every time a throw hits the batsman, there's an awkward moment of whether to run or not. 8 times out of 10 the batters don't take the run, mostly out of guilt because everyone knows they didn't "earn" that run - seldom do they ricochet to the boundary.ICC should make a blanket law that deems every throw hitting a batter as dead. I can't think of any downside to that
We already have laws for obstructing the field
-
@Siam said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Mokey yep this.
I've played hundreds of games of organised cricket matches. Every time a throw hits the batsman, there's an awkward moment of whether to run or not. 8 times out of 10 the batters don't take the run, mostly out of guilt because everyone knows they didn't "earn" that run - seldom do they ricochet to the boundary.ICC should make a blanket law that deems every throw hitting a batter as dead. I can't think of any downside to that
We already have laws for obstructing the field
Then maybe they need to take away the rule that when the batsman hits it, the bowlers fingers deflect it and the batsman backing up gets run out.
Rarely any skill in that and often loads of bad luck.
I used to take my indoor cricket pretty seriously and remember cross batting a glorious "seven" ( six plus the single ) only for it to go between the tiny gap where the indoor netball goal was. Umpire called dead ball. Pissed me right off.
-
-
@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.
-
@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 is completed because the ball hit the batsman, while going for a run it's rebowled- to account for the dubious scenario of fielders throwing at batsmen to prevent a run??? 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?
Yeah makes sense to me. Hitting a running batsman would be very hard to do deliberately without it being blazingly obvious, and probably offer at least as good a chance to run someone out as you would have to save the run.
I wouldn't even worry about rebowling. Maybe allow a run to be counted if the batsmen have crossed?
That would mean that Stokes would have been awarded the second but not the boundary. Seems a fair outcom.
-
@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.
There are a limited range of scenarios where you would be heading off for a second with the throw incoming.
-
@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.
What's the right term here? Disingenuous? Straw man?
-
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.
