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

[big_e]

Seems obvious that if runs are tied, wickets become the deciding factor.

A lot more authentic and meaningful that most boundaries - which is a pretty crap approach.

The countback has happened a few times in franchise cricket, dating back to 2010. Jimmy Neesham's been on the winning side in one of them.

The point of the super over is to decide the winner, and theoretically tied super overs could go on forever so you have to have some point at which they stop and something else decides it.

Personally, I'd say that a tied super over should be decided based on something that happens in the super over, not throughout the full match. If it's wickets, boundaries, whatever, not particularly fussed, but I prefer that the super over effectively starts at nil-all.

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

All these articles about Stokes redemption? - please spare me - winning a cricket match should absolutely never redeem him for his sh1t act outside a nightclub - maybe go visit and volunteer time in a hospital with survivors of nnocent bashings and educate youth about the dangers of assault - once a flog mostly always a flog

Isn't it redemption from when Braithwaite tonked him in the last over of that T20 final?

 

[to1994]

All these articles about Stokes redemption? - please spare me - winning a cricket match should absolutely never redeem him for his sh1t act outside a nightclub - maybe go visit and volunteer time in a hospital with survivors of nnocent bashings and educate youth about the dangers of assault - once a flog mostly always a flog

He made a serious mistake but he was cleared and deserves to play Cricket (completely unrelated to the incident) without being reminded of this every time he plays. I feel like since he returned from The Ashes ban he hasn't quite clicked but that performance with the bat felt like the moment he was himself again. As much as I wanted NZ to win I was pretty happy for him.

 

[Satan]

EXCLUSIVE: ‘It’s a clear mistake’ — Cricket official confirms major World Cup gaffe — FOX SPORTS Australia

A former international umpire and member of the committee that presides over cricket’s notoriously complex rulebook has conceded a “clear mistake” was made on the path to England winning its first World Cup.

apple.news

I know its from apple and Americans know fa about cricket

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Whats guttered mean? Ive seen a few people saying it lately. I thought you might mean gutted?

No. He'd been drink and was in the gutter.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Greatest game of cricket ever played???

In the end its still only limited overs; so, no. Maybe the greatest short form game ever played.

 

[kozi]

In time common sense will prevail and this one will be retrospectively recorded as a draw in the history books.

 

[Park cricketer]

Found this funny

 

[Jughead77]

Funny how the Kiwis have graciously accepted the result, yet some on BF(with no ties to either country) have taken it upon themselves to feel outraged on their behalf.

 

[brutus76]

So England finally won one - seeing they invented the game you'd have thought they would have 5... oh wait... we have 5!

Stokes is still a **** of the highest order.

Feel for the Kiwis - class acts all of them.

A great tournament all round - lets hope maybe the Saffers can make a final in 2023.

 

[Dipper]

All these articles about Stokes redemption? - please spare me - winning a cricket match should absolutely never redeem him for his sh1t act outside a nightclub - maybe go visit and volunteer time in a hospital with survivors of nnocent bashings and educate youth about the dangers of assault - once a flog mostly always a flog

I get your point but this wasn't bashing innocents.

It was a very strange court case in that neither the prosecution nor the defence wanted to put the only witnesses on the stand because they both thought they were unreliable.

Those witnesses, a gay couple, did gave an interview saying that Stokes saved them from a homophobic attack. So it's not cut and dried by any means, either way.

What is clear that the other party were swinging beer bottles around.

On SM-J330G using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ROOTA#6]

Funny how the Kiwis have graciously accepted the result, yet some on BF(with no ties to either country) have taken it upon themselves to feel outraged on their behalf.

What realistically can the kiwis say? They have to cop it. The rest of us are free to say whatever the hell we want about it.

I do wonder how it would have been received to the other mob if the result was the other way round

 

[Seeds]

Why didnt they just do a second super over. The tennis did more then one extra match.

 

[Seeds]

The more I find out about this rule and the situation of the game, the more farcical it all becomes.

More boundaries as a first count back is an absolute joke. I actually thought it was sum total of fours and sixes. Nope, just fours. LOL what? Just fours? A team could hit zero 4s and three 6s but lose because the other team hit one 4 and zero 6s. That's actually one of the most incompetent rules in any sport I've ever come across.

It also turns out wickets mean jack s**t. Are wickets on the count back ladder at all? If not then WTF? Wickets are as important as runs in cricket, yet they don't get any acknowledgement in a tie breaker? The super over can stay, but if that's a tie than surely wickets becomes the next tie breaker, then ladder positions perhaps? Number of FOURS should not even be in the rule book.

Considering the final being awarded on a technicality, along with the five or six rained out matches affecting the group stage, this has been one big joke. Hats off to England for winning a cup on the lost ridiculous way imaginable. Only they could manage that.

Is that serious? Sixes dont count? This is ridculous. A rematch is needed.

 

[PhatBoy]

Stokes did something stupid but this wasn’t, by all reports, an example of someone going out to cause s**t. He saw a situation he thought he could resolve, and in his pissed state it got out of control. Doesn’t excuse it but there’s been a lot worse committed by a lot of famous people who’ve gotten away with it.

The guy is a super cricketer whatever anyone thinks of him and he has a level of ticker that probably hasn’t been associated with many Englishmen since the likes of Gooch and Botham.

I badly wanted NZ to win but I’m actually reasonably happy for stokes.

 

[PhatBoy]

Is that serious? Sixes dont count? This is ridculous. A rematch is needed.

Sixes count.

Some mental vacuum has pressed the idea on this forum that somewhere along the line, only fours were considered ‘boundaries.’

Not only has that never been the case within this rule, it has never been the case in cricket. Fours and sixes are both considered boundaries.

 

[damochandler]

There shouldn’t have been a super over. That would go back to superior run rate and who won the last match between the 2.

If you’re going to go on countback it shouldn’t be about 6s and 4s

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Good get - clearly should only have been 5! The law (as in the MCC Laws of Cricket) make it clear - not as written in the article.

Here's how the Laws look.

19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder
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.


It's clear the word 'act' in this law clearly only relates to the 'wilful act of a fielder' - nothing to do with the batsman, or the ball hitting the bat. So, if the throw had been made before the batsman crossed for the second run - the second run should not count. So - 1 run + 4 = 5.

Umps got it wrong. Mind you - so would I and so would most people.

Put the Cup on the first Air New Zealnd plane back, thanks.

The umpires did discuss it and must have dtermi ed "act" to include the deflection and not just act of a fielder. I'm not sure they got the rule book and checked the wording.
Its not how I would have interpreted it as tje runs only apply "If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder". Everything else is predicated on that If. When that is not true no runs are scorfed, so the " instant of the throw or act" must refer to the fielder's throw or act.
If the second/sixth run was not to count because the batsmen had not crossed at the time of the throw, the batsmen presumably would have had to swap ends as though only one run had been made.

That said, its all in hindsight. Its only now that is pointed out that it becomes questionable. At the time it looked increibly unlucky but within the laws as they have been for decades.


Like other, I woud agree the boundary countback rule is rubbish. Just play more super overs. If there's still no result after day two, then England win through being above NZ on the table.

Two things I would like the super over to do is reverse the order, so the batting team can't just keep guys out there who have their eye in.
The not out batsmen and the next on the teamsheet to come in are the three batsmen. If you do not have three batsmen, the fielding team gets to pick the replacements. That rewards wickets, while still going to the super over as countback by wickets has not been part of the limited game (going back at least far as the tied second final in the 1984/5 WSC).

 

[kozi]

So a boundary is now worth more than 4 singles or x2 twos.

Who decide that?

Three 4’s are also worth more than two 6’s even though those 12 runs take an extra ball to achieve.

Like I said earlier, the more you peel it back the more it stinks.

 

[The Speaker]

The umpires did discuss it and must have dtermi ed "act" to include the deflection and not just act of a fielder. I'm not sure they got the rule book and checked the wording.
Its not how I would have interpreted it as tje runs only apply "If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder". Everything else is predicated on that If. When that is not true no runs are scorfed, so the " instant of the throw or act" must refer to the fielder's throw or act.
If the second/sixth run was not to count because the batsmen had not crossed at the time of the throw, the batsmen presumably would have had to swap ends as though only one run had been made.

That said, its all in hindsight. Its only now that is pointed out that it becomes questionable. At the time it looked increibly unlucky but within the laws as they have been for decades.

Is that what they were discussing, or was it whether Stokes had changed line?

Cricket World Cup 2019 final: Simon Taufel claims ‘clear mistake’ made awarding England six runs

EXCLUSIVE: ‘It’s a clear mistake’ — Cricket official confirms major World Cup gaffe

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Seeds]

Boundaries has always been the tiebreaker for super over matches, and New Zealand knew they needed 16 to win.

England won the match.

Yeah im sure everyone was well aware of the boundary countback rule when the game started and were basing strategy around it. Even if they did it is still stupid.

Its like declaring st kilda the winner of the 2010 grand final because of some silly rule about most forward fifty entries determineing the winner in the case of a tie. No one would be trying to maximise their forward fifty entries with 5 overs to go. No one was trying to maximise fours in case of tie. Its no different to flipping a coin.

 

[King Elvis]

Taufel probably the best umpire of the last 20 years, seems quite cut and dried.

England very, very lucky, in numerous ways.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Is that what they were discussing, or was it whether Stokes had changed line?

Cricket World Cup 2019 final: Simon Taufel claims ‘clear mistake’ made awarding England six runs

EXCLUSIVE: ‘It’s a clear mistake’ — Cricket official confirms major World Cup gaffe

www.foxsports.com.au

Not sure. At the time I had no idea, it seemed an obvious 2+4 until seeing this raised; but it could have been either (or both).

 

[King Elvis]

Three 4’s are also worth more than two 6’s even though those 12 runs take an extra ball to achieve.

Like I said earlier, the more you peel it back the more it stinks.

Exactly - a 6 is obviously worth more than a 4...

Except in this World Cup championing deciding scenario.

 

[Park cricketer]

Three 4’s are also worth more than two 6’s even though those 12 runs take an extra ball to achieve.

Like I said earlier, the more you peel it back the more it stinks.

This is actually a very good point. Blows your mind when you think about the fact that the world cup final was decided based on an arbitrary algorithm where 3 fours mattered more than 2 sixes.