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

[demondavey]

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.

Hadn’t crossed mate.

 

[The Speaker]

link?

 

[corbies]

Which umpires said this?

Lawrie Colliver on twitter has confirmed it with two former international umpires.

 

[demondavey]

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

Trivial? Wow.....

 

[demondavey]

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!!!



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...



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



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.

No of course they should’ve tried to get the run, but the fact the wicket fell on 15 runs means that England should’ve won because they got a wicket and NZ didn’t. It probably seems fairer that way.

 

[Hawks_4478]

Hadn’t crossed mate.

But some are interpreting the act is when the ball hits stokes bat (which in when they had crossed).

 

[Hawks_4478]

Lawrie Colliver on twitter has confirmed it with two former international umpires.

Names of umpires?
I believe, watching the game live, the on field umpires checked upstairs with the 3rd umpire for clarification. From memory, there was a delay before the next ball was bowled. So that’s 3 umpires saying it was 6 runs.

 

[The Speaker]

But some are interpreting the act is when the ball hits stokes bat (which in when they had crossed).

That's not a fielding act. The reason it says 'act' and not just 'throw' is because the fielders can kick the ball or in some other way act upon the ball. The ball hitting the bat was not a separate action.

 

[demondavey]

But some are interpreting the act is when the ball hits stokes bat (which in when they had crossed).

Once again, you have to go back to the rule book to decide.

 

[dumb]

queen reaching into the couch cushions for some more obe's and mbe's

 

[Hawks_4478]

Once again, you have to go back to the rule book to decide.

Which is slightly ambiguous

 

[The Smith Revolution]

Haven't read all of this, but has anyone commented on Sauntner ducking the last ball of NZ's innings. Was an odd choice and I did wonder at the time whether one run might be the difference.

 

[k31th]

let's list the priorities in limited overs cricket...
1. score the most runs
2. lose the least amount of wickets in the process of scoring runs.
3. nothing; absolutely nothing.

if 1 is equal, surely we defer to #2?

if people still want to de-value wickets so much past #2 to past NOTHING ELSE, then we should stick with "boundaries" as an arbitrary point as a classifier. But seriously, does anybody think our priorities are straight with this rule?

We all collectively realised we had bad rules when the tied was automatically reverted to higher ladder position (this has it's own issues with "no result" games etc).

My opinion is do super overs until you eventually get a winner. The only downside is the time it takes. Not as though any World Cup Finals match should ever be held in a stadium with no lighting and they already use a ball that's visible at night so who cares if they run out of natural light.

 

[Hawks_4478]

That's not a fielding act. The reason it says 'act' and not just 'throw' is because the fielders can kick the ball or in some other way act upon the ball. The ball hitting the bat was not a separate action.

Im not sure on that, it’s it’s definitely stated that way

 

[rocker_oz33]

It was a cracking match .

In the poms run chace NZ fieled and caught fantastic they saved quiet runs with they're fielding.

First time they had you play everyone once insteed of group stages i think its a fair system.

 

[Hawks_4478]

Haven't read all of this, but has anyone commented on Sauntner ducking the last ball of NZ's innings. Was an odd choice and I did wonder at the time whether one run might be the difference.

Maybe it was just a natural reflex, it’s not easy facing a bouncer at 140km/h ish !!

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Listening to the radio. I've just realised NZ were better off with Boult dropping the catch.

 

[k31th]

Maybe it was just a natural reflex, it’s not easy facing a bouncer at 140km/h ish !!

read about the ducking from about here (last three overs of NZ's innings) -> https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...nd-sunday-july-14-lords.1223226/post-61829000

 

[Satan]

Lots of

 

[corbies]

let's list the priorities in limited overs cricket...
1. score the most runs
2. lose the least amount of wickets in the process of scoring runs.
3. nothing; absolutely nothing.

if 1 is equal, surely we defer to #2?

if people still want to de-value wickets so much past #2 to past NOTHING ELSE, then we should stick with "boundaries" as an arbitrary point as a classifier. But seriously, does anybody think our priorities are straight with this rule?

We all collectively realised we had bad rules when the tied was automatically reverted to higher ladder position (this has it's own issues with "no result" games etc).

My opinion is do super overs until you eventually get a winner. The only downside is the time it takes. Not as though any World Cup Finals match should ever be held in a stadium with no lighting and they already use a ball that's visible at night so who cares if they run out of natural light.

Not losing wickets isn't a priority in limited overs cricket after 50 overs. You're just as pleased to make 9-347 after 50 overs as you are to make 5-347.

 

[Gough]

Lots of

Top band, had some rollicking good nights watching them live.

 

[k31th]

Not losing wickets isn't a priority in limited overs cricket after 50 overs. You're just as pleased to make 9-347 after 50 overs as you are to male 5-347.

it's a distant priority, I admit, hence my personal preference to continue with super overs... can you list anything closer to the "score the most runs" priority as compared to "lose the least amount of wickets"?

 

[FreoRicci]

Listening to the radio. I've just realised NZ were better off with Boult dropping the catch.

That was bizarre. Caught it, then looked down and in the panick, stepped on the boundary.
The other fielders should’ve yelled throw it throw it as soon as he caught it. Just weird watching that.
England were lucky all game. The first ball LBW not given live.. just knew NZ were up against it

 

[Satan]

Top band, had some rollicking good nights watching them live.

Xmas eve at the central were brilliant gigs , worth downloading the live album

 

[rocker_oz33]

Boult was so close to the boundarie he would been better going for safety and knocking the ball back into play.

But there are alot of what ifs .

2 teams without a world cup championship both teams put on a cracking constest.