CWC Final - Black Caps v England
-
@MN5 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Sneakdefreak said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@akan004 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Frank said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Can we talk about rugby please?
Not just yet.
Cheating pommy bastard, you're banned from commenting on cricket for at least 6 months.
Fair enough, that will still leave me three and a half years of gloating before we inevitably get dumped out in the first round next time.
Who would want to gloat after a result like that? I certainly wouldn't had NZ been awarded the Cup.
I'd actually feel slightly sick about the result if we'd been the ones awarded the Cup. Thankfully there are some good memories I cxan bask in - like knocking out India in the SF - that is something i will saviour for fucking years
We all know Kane would have declared the match a tie and share the spoils with the English team because he's apparently the reincarnation of Mother Theresa in cricket pads.
This is the kind of wank shit fluffybunny post I'd expect from @NTA
Get off this site you troublemaker.
Go @Sneakdefreak ! Don't listen to this ranga Scots fuck - he was backing Stokes all the way.
Tho yes I think it was a definite possibility that Kane would have built a cross out of bats and stumps and mounted out on a hill above The Basin for his future ascension 😉
-
-
@NTA said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@MN5 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Sneakdefreak said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@akan004 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Catogrande said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@Frank said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
Can we talk about rugby please?
Not just yet.
Cheating pommy bastard, you're banned from commenting on cricket for at least 6 months.
Fair enough, that will still leave me three and a half years of gloating before we inevitably get dumped out in the first round next time.
Who would want to gloat after a result like that? I certainly wouldn't had NZ been awarded the Cup.
I'd actually feel slightly sick about the result if we'd been the ones awarded the Cup. Thankfully there are some good memories I cxan bask in - like knocking out India in the SF - that is something i will saviour for fucking years
We all know Kane would have declared the match a tie and share the spoils with the English team because he's apparently the reincarnation of Mother Theresa in cricket pads.
This is the kind of wank shit fluffybunny post I'd expect from @NTA
Get off this site you troublemaker.
Go @Sneakdefreak ! Don't listen to this ranga Scots fuck - he was backing Stokes all the way.
Tho yes I think it was a definite possibility that Kane would have built a cross out of bats and stumps and mounted out on a hill above The Basin for his future ascension 😉
A bloke born in Christchurch triggers my Wellington ness. The fact he chooses to play for England triggers my Scottish ness.
His complexion is the only good thing about him.
-
@Snowy said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:
There is really only one question with this, did they cross?
No they didn't at the time of the throw (apparently it is clear from video). The wording of the law isn't exactly obvious though:
"together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act."
So the throw seems obvious enough - the time that the ball leaves Guppy's hand (so one run + the 4) but what is the "act"? When it comes off Stoke's bat? Are they talking about someone kicking the ball, rather than throwing?
The previous clause makes that clear though, because it's 'willful act of the fielder'. I think that's designed to cover situations where fielders do something dodgy to manipulate strike.
I remember about 10 years ago India were trying to win a test on the last day vs South Africa but Amla was looking untouchable and had scored a triple ton. They were 9 down and he was doing a great job of shepherding the number 11, so Sehwag (I think) tried to be a bit cunning and 'accidentally' kicked a ball over the boundary (to keep Amla on strike at the end of the over). Except the umpires didn't buy it and so it was a 'willful act' and so given as four overthrows instead of a straight boundary.
-
Just adding to my last post, the relevant rule in full:
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
-
In regard to the five runs rather than six - everyone who was watching had the opportunity to be a national hero by observing what had happened and quickly texting Ian Smith to roll down the stairs and onto the field to require the umpires to apply Law 16.9.2 If, at this call of Time, the overs have been completed and no Playing time remains, or if the side batting last has completed its innings, the umpires shall immediately inform both captains of the necessary corrections to the scores and to the result.
In fact, unless someone can provide video evidence of the requirements of 16.10 being completed - perhaps we can still do it!
16.10 16.10 Result not to be changed
Once the umpires have agreed with the scorers the correctness of the scores at the conclusion of the match – see Laws 2.15 (Correctness of scores) and 3.2 (Correctness of scores) – the result cannot thereafter be changed.
-
@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.
