World Cup Final New Zealand v England Sunday July 14 @ Lords

[Bomberboyokay]

Most boundaries should be changed to additional super overs until someone wins (see extra innings in baseball).

Good game. Glad I made a point of watching it. Will do so again in 2023.

If I ever go overseas for a World Cup (either format) it'll be India. England crowds are a bunch of stiffs.

 

[Hawks_4478]

Does the rule book state that though?

It’s slightly ambiguous ; The law doesn't specify exactly what moment the throw or 'act' is recorded, whether it's the moment Guptill releases the ball or the moment it hits the bat of Stokes.

 

[philreich]

I’d much rather retain the Ashes than the World Cup tbh

Dude, I'm with you - it's been 18 long years since we won an Ashes series in England, so it's time!!!!

 

[demondavey]

All teams knew the rules before the start of the tournament, it’s pretty easy to understand...
You play to the rules.

And you say it’s a lack of intelligence by me...... no s**t they know the rules as do the supporters etc, it’s not about the rules or not understanding them, it’s about the ridiculous notion that that particular ruling exists to determine the biggest game in ODI cricket.

Yeah, I get it, England won on a count back of boundaries, but do you really think counting boundaries is the most advanced way to declare a winner? It seems incredibly lame because it is.

 

[demondavey]

It’s slightly ambiguous ; The law doesn't specify exactly what moment the throw or 'act' is recorded, whether it's the moment Guptill releases the ball or the moment it hits the bat of Stokes.

To my understanding a throw at the stumps resulting in hitting an object renders the ball dead?

 

[Mr Magic]

That match was unbelievable!!

It was so memorable I can only compare it to the time I saw the first plane hit the twin tower !!

I am still trying to digest what I just saw, no doubt the match will be ingrained in my memory ,especially the six off the non-catch on the boundary, and the 2 that became six after the run-out attempt deflection that went to the boundary!!

One for the ages and all players will become folklore!!

 

[Boxhead_31]

Just wondering if the 1999 World Cup has an * next to it because Australia only advanced to the final by a tie, couldn’t even win a semi final?

At least this wasn’t some hard count back that could only be decided after the tie. Both teams went into the Super Over knowing that NZ had to win, England a tie was enough. Like any other event where there are tie breakers and one team knows they have to win.

According to Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.

The law states: "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."

The crucial clause is the last part. A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run.

 

[Hawks_4478]

To my understanding a throw at the stumps resulting in hitting an object renders the ball dead?

Have you ever watched a game of cricket? You seem like a very causal observer of the game (at best).
This has happened so many times before, it’s always judged this way!

 

[Hawks_4478]

According to Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.

The law states: "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."

The crucial clause is the last part. A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run.

But when is the throw completed though? When it hits stokes or when it leaves the arm.

 

[demondavey]

Have you ever watched a game of cricket? You seem like a very causal observer of the game (at best).
This has happened so many times before, it’s always judged this way!

Am I wrong? Or is it ‘right’ because it’s ‘always’ been judged that way?

 

[eddiesmith]

So it was a tie? Clearly it was a tie. So technically by your logic it’s a joint victory?

Like everything, there was a tie breaker and England won it. Who remembers which Shield finals were draws or wins? All I remember is Victoria winning the Shield!!!

Let's not forget that in that 1999 Semi Final - McGrath bowled a no-ball that was pulled for 4 by Gary Kirsten I think but the no-ball was missed by the umpire (and only seen on the replay). Therefore that delivery should have been 5 runs instead of the 4 that was recorded.

Therefore South Africa were the deserved victors that day and were robbed of a famous victory by umpiring incompetence.

Which is another interesting point, people can point out whether a run was correctly given, wasn’t the last ball so you can’t just say that was the difference. But, if you do that, how many no balls were missed? I don’t think they called one? In the modern game it’s even more crucial miss as the next ball is a free hit, how much difference does that make in a tight chase!

Were very strict on head high wides in one innings, didn’t call any the next...

Wickets lost in the super over is probably the fairest outcome. It probably should have played out that way, that or another super over.

But I really don’t like the idea that NZ were better off trying to not make the winning run. It’s like a batsman leaving the last ball, it’s a joke. Boundaries may be stupid, but at least it’s rewarding attacking cricket

According to Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.

The law states: "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."

The crucial clause is the last part. A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run.

How many people knew that before today? I’d say 99.9% of cricket fans would assume it’s 6 as they had crossed when the throw was deflected.

 

[Hawks_4478]

Haha! Jog on mate. Seriously. You want to talk about a lack of understanding? It’s declaring the winner of a World Cup via a countback on boundaries. It’s not about ‘intelligence’ it’s about disagreeing with the notion.

My point was you’re having a whinge over something trivial, instead of enjoying what was a classic world cup final. Glass half empty.

 

[Mr Magic]

I am happy England won so the players can get their bonuses and paypackets off the elite. But I think they should share some of their spoils, say 50k, give to the NZ players each because there will have to be a movie about this as well!!!

No one would believe this match if one did not see it!!!

It makes the Federer/Djokovic match running parallel look ordinary!!

People would struglle to right a better script in the way the match panned out for drama and shock value!!

 

[boondy]

You are a complete and utter pillock.

Thats better.

 

[Hawks_4478]

Am I wrong? Or is it ‘right’ because it’s ‘always’ been judged that way?

You are wrong because it was awarded 6 runs. Here’s the rules again. The key word is act, the act is when the ball hit stokes.

"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.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Couple of issues with least wickets. First of all it’d likely favour the team batting first 90% of the time as a team chasing in a tight game takes more risks.

Secondly you’d end up with the farcical outcome where a player is better off not trying to get the winning run in case he gets run out! Imagine if the tie breaker was wickets in the super over, then NZ only try to run the single instead of trying to win the game? Yeah, that’s a great look...

Fact is only reason people want wickets lost as a tie breaker is because England wouldn’t win, the only tie breaker you could find where NZ wins so people now claim it’s the fairest...

Why not wickets lost in the actual super over! Oh that’s right, NZ lose there too...

England's ************************************************* World Cup.

If the boot was on the other foot you would be whinging like s**t.

 

[Jimthegreat]

[/QUOTE]

You are wrong because it was awarded 6 runs. Here’s the rules again. The key word is act, the act is when the ball hit stokes.

"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.

Last sentence, as the AGE article alluded too, is the clincher. That's the AGE writer's argument. act or throw, meaning essentially when the ball was thrown. They weren't close to crossing when it was thrown.

 

[Hawks_4478]

Last sentence, as the AGE article alluded too, is the clincher. They weren't close to crossing when it was thrown. That's the AGE writer's argument.
[/QUOTE]

But they crossed when the ball deflected off stokes bat.

 

[corbies]

You are wrong because it was awarded 6 runs. Here’s the rules again. The key word is act, the act is when the ball hit stokes.

"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.

Its been confirmed with several umpires that the act is the throw. The only reason it says act is for a kick or something a fielder does that couldnt be described as a throw.

 

[k31th]

England were apparently given 1 too many runs in the Stokes overthrow.

Should England have got five, and not six, for overthrows?

The laws raise the question as to whether England were awarded one run too many with Stokes and Rashid having not crossed when the throw was released

www.espncricinfo.com

Them knowing they needed 16 to win doesn't make it any better that they needed 16 to win in the first place, because the rule that forced them into the position is nonsensical.

wow. ok... didn't know the law was written this way... I wonder how lawyers would argue it as certain definitions of terms may change the interpretation of "act"... but once the umpire has stuffed up the adjudication (he signalled 6 runs to the scorers) then I guess it's a non-event, just like all umpire stuff ups that are not called or called that is either reviewed or not.

 

[Hawks_4478]

Its been confirmed with several umpires that the act is the throw. The only reason it says act is for a kick or something a fielder does that couldnt be described as a throw.

Which umpires said this?

 

[Bomberboyokay]

"Why can't ODIs always be like this???"

Test matches have to go for that to happen.

 

[corbies]

There's some absolutely classic footage of Glenn Maxwell going around watching the last ball of the match with his Lancashire teammates. As Guptill is run out all his teammates erupt in celebration, you see him turn around in disgust and walk off. The reaction of every Aussie who watched.

 

[The Speaker]

Secondly you’d end up with the farcical outcome where a player is better off not trying to get the winning run in case he gets run out! Imagine if the tie breaker was wickets in the super over, then NZ only try to run the single instead of trying to win the game? Yeah, that’s a great look...

Actually that'd be ok within cricket's philosophy. The aim of the game is to take wickets, which is why the bowling is the attack and the batting defends their wicket.

 

[k31th]

There's some absolutely classic footage of Glenn Maxwell going around watching the last ball of the match with his Lancashire teammates. As Guptill is run out all his teammates erupt in celebration, you see him turn around in disgust and walk off. The reaction of every Aussie who watched.

link?