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

[BarbieITFC]

Ok, so declaring my hand from the start. I’m a Pom and apart from my lousy soccer team I’ve never supported a team longer than the England cricket team. I’m 45, so we’re going back to early 80s.

A few observations:
- the Roy first ball reprieve: well DRS reprieved Nicholls early on and identified that Williamson got a nick. DRS has to have a tolerance for error so as far as I’m concerned and the Roy incident looked like it was going leg side so I say fair enough.

- the Boult catch/six: for me this is the moment of the game. Throw it in bounds and whether it is caught again or not then it’s not a six and NZ win.

- the deflected six runs: its the law of the game, so all the whinging on here is just hysterical (and quite funny)...but I’d happily see the law changed so it can never be more than four runs (the overthrow cancelling out the runs between wickets)

- the most boundaries: it’s a pretty harsh way to lose and I’d again be happy if they changed it to be another super over (like sudden death penalties in soccer).

Does the victory feel hollow...no...BUT...I’m not convinced any tie breaker will ever be satisfactory because more than anything the losing team doesn’t deserve to lose.

At the end of the day though, I reckon NZ have just had about 5 million Poms adopt NZ as their second team.

 

[Kram]

Is Plugger35 still alive or has his head exploded?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

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

I imagine it is boundaries, with each "Boundary 4" or "Boundary 6" counting as one boundary.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/boundaries

19.7.1 A Boundary 6 will be scored if and only if the ball has been struck by the bat and is first grounded beyond the boundary without having been in contact with the ground within the field of play. This shall apply even if the ball has previously touched a fielder.

19.7.2 A Boundary 4 will be scored when a ball that is grounded beyond the boundary

- whether struck by the bat or not, was first grounded within the boundary, or

- has not been struck by the bat.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

Wickets would be a risky tie breaker (what to do in case of tie) and in last nights situation just as unfair as boundaries.

One rule that should be cleared up is the ball is dead as soon as it hits the batter ( body or bat )

 

[The Speaker]

At the end of the day though, I reckon NZ have just had about 5 million Poms adopt NZ as their second team.

All the second-team support in the world won't win them a tournament.

This was a potentially significant day for the future of cricket in England, but NZ does much with much less, and their future always seems a bit perilous - this won't have helped them at all.

 

[Black white]

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

Tennis has different rules. England won within the rules. Appreciate the game and the fact t20 will be exposed as the lesser game to the 50 over gane

 

[Park cricketer]

When that bat deflection overthrow happened, my first thought was whether the umpires would consult with Stokes. I know it's perfectly within the rules but we have seen before that batsmen don't attempt extra runs for deflections off the bat as it's deemed against the spirit of the game.

We also have seen umpires consulting with the fielding captain to enquire if they wanted to recall a batsman back after getting dismissed off a Mankad. Still remember the outrage that followed Ian Bell's run out at Trent Bridge back in 2011 after which MS Dhoni decided to recall Bell after the lunch break. Actually I remember it happening one more time when Tendulkar or Dhoni called back an Australian player after Ashwin mankaded him. Not sure if it would have been possible but would have made for a bigger drama had the umpires thrown the ball at Stokes' court

 

[Park cricketer]

What would have happened if even the boundary count was tied between the two teams?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Wickets would be a risky tie breaker (what to do in case of tie) and in last nights situation just as unfair as boundaries.

One rule that should be cleared up is the ball is dead as soon as it hits the batter ( body or bat )

Its unlucky, and the timing of it enormously so.
But, generally, is it any more bad luck than the three or four times early in the tournament where the bails refused to dislodge or many other things thta can occur?
Luck plays its part, all you can do is give it minimal opportunity to change a result (Boult steeping on the rope, Santner ducking ball 49.6, every loose ball that got hit, every dot ball played out that could have been a two, allowed luck to be decisive).

The reason to consider change it is not because of the unfortunate circumstance of the final; but that the players have taken it on themselves not to run when it happens. So, maybe, for that reason it should be looked at.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

What would have happened if even the boundary count was tied between the two teams?

T-ball. One swing each. Longest hit wins.

If that is tied, bring back the "bowl off".

 

[Park cricketer]

Superovers were more fun back in the day and you actually had clear winners!

 

[demondavey]

All the second-team support in the world won't win them a tournament.

This was a potentially significant day for the future of cricket in England, but NZ does much with much less, and their future always seems a bit perilous - this won't have helped them at all.

For NZ to make the last two World Cup tournaments is huge. They’ll be fine.

 

[demondavey]

T-ball. One swing each. Longest hit wins.

If that is tied, bring back the "bowl off".

Pint drinking contest

 

[gtrxuone]

The result is done and dusted now.And England are the winners.It's a game of Cricket none of us will ever forget.Feel for the Kiwis as a tie was a fair result. Remember also after 50 overs England all out 241+Nz 8-241

 

[kozi]

What would have happened if even the boundary count was tied between the two teams?

Team who’s captain scored most runs in leap years when the seasonal temperature was above average.

 

[Park cricketer]

T-ball. One swing each. Longest hit wins.

If that is tied, bring back the "bowl off".

Found it!

 

[Park cricketer]

To be honest, England may not have deserved to win the final but I think they were deserving to win the tournament (I know it sounds confusing) because I think they were the most complete team out of all teams in the tournament despite their own frailties.

I'm just sad that we can't make fun of England anymore for the fact that they hadn't won a world cup despite inventing the game. It was a good meme while it lasted.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Ok, so declaring my hand from the start. I’m a Pom and apart from my lousy soccer team I’ve never supported a team longer than the England cricket team. I’m 45, so we’re going back to early 80s.

A few observations:
- the Roy first ball reprieve: well DRS reprieved Nicholls early on and identified that Williamson got a nick. DRS has to have a tolerance for error so as far as I’m concerned and the Roy incident looked like it was going leg side so I say fair enough.

- the Boult catch/six: for me this is the moment of the game. Throw it in bounds and whether it is caught again or not then it’s not a six and NZ win.

- the deflected six runs: its the law of the game, so all the whinging on here is just hysterical (and quite funny)...but I’d happily see the law changed so it can never be more than four runs (the overthrow cancelling out the runs between wickets)

- the most boundaries: it’s a pretty harsh way to lose and I’d again be happy if they changed it to be another super over (like sudden death penalties in soccer).

Does the victory feel hollow...no...BUT...I’m not convinced any tie breaker will ever be satisfactory because more than anything the losing team doesn’t deserve to lose.

At the end of the day though, I reckon NZ have just had about 5 million Poms adopt NZ as their second team.

The law of the game states an overthrow will be the boundary plus however many runs were made (or batsmen crossing) at the time of the fielders throw. The Batsmen had only crossed once at the time of the throw, it should have been 5 runs, not 6 as the current rules state.

Honestly though, the biggest stuff up for NZ was wasting their review early on in the game when it was absolutely plum.

 

[The Passenger]

England won. Meh, they can celebrate and the rest of us can kick the can. But * me they are an unlikeable team (not that Australia is much better).

RE: Deciding the victors. Never been a fan of the super over. Always thought five overs for each team allowed for the skill of each team to come to the fore, rather than a one over shoot-out. You can call that sour grapes, but ultimately that favours England more than any other team as they have more big hitters than the rest.

But the real hackiness was deciding the winner by boundaries. The countback should've been ladder position or previous result between the two teams. Same result, but a more palatable way to decide it, given the arbitrary nature of deciding boundaries outweigh wickets taken, or least dot balls conceded etc.

RE: The overthrows. I think there will be a bit of tightening of the laws following this because it's a bit ambiguous. Never really had much attention as it's pretty rare for boundary overthrows to come from a throw from an outfield throw, and certainly not in such important circumstance. I think the next change of laws will clearly define what is the act (is it the throw, the moment the ball goes past the keeper, or the moment the touches the batsmen - if that happens at all) and whether at the moment of the act the batsmen need to have crossed or actually completed the run. Cold comfort for the Kiwi's if it's ultimately decided that should have been five runs.

Ultimately the Kiwi's bottled it. And as much as I hate to say it, one of my favourite cricketers in Trent Boult was at the forefront of that. That flick back in the second last over wasn't particularly hard by modern standards, and would've put the game beyond England. Then conceding 14 and 15 overs in the final over and super over respectively is not what you'd expect from him, even when bowling to guys like Stokes and Buttler.

Those four overthrows were not his fault. I wonder what people's thought are on that? I know when Guptill throws it in from the deep you aren't expecting to concede four overthrows, but I was screaming at the TV to just concede the two runs and back Boult in to protect 7 off the last 2. I guess you probably gotta go for the miracle run out. 99 times out of 100 if you don't get the run out, there's no overthrows conceded so no harm done. This was the 1 time out of 100.

I wonder at what point the decision to bowl Boult in the super over gets questioned. Yes he is their best bowler, but he is not so far ahead of Ferguson or Henry as to default to Boult regardless of performances on the day. Clearly the other two were bowling better at the time. The only justification for me is the expectation that Boult would be able to swing the new ball around and become trickier to score from.

 

[Xtreme]

Bottom line England took their chances and won. New Zealand didn't and lost. They Fed-errored their way to defeat.

 

[rippersnipper]

That’s the thing, nearly any tie breaker you come up with, England win, other than wickets lost. But then that might encourage a batsman to leave the last ball of the innings instead of losing their wicket, doesn’t encourage attacking cricket.

Presumably, if you've hit more boundaries then you've also had more dot balls if the scores are tied, no? How is that in any way a measure of attacking cricket?

 

[eddiesmith]

I don't think there was any fault in the throw, you have to get it in quickly to the keeper, even if just to keep Stokes busting his ass.

Archer bottled the super over badly, he might finally have been seen as the overrated player he is if NZ had got that extra run, but at least he had the sense not to go for the run out on the 2nd last ball where if he missed, NZ win

 

[kozi]

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.

It isn’t being debated whether 6’s count or not. The actual debate is how flawed and ridiculous it is that 4’s which produce less runs count for more than 6’s.

Why should a team that hits say 11 4’s (44 runs) be awarded victory over a team that hit say 10 6’s (60 runs).

System is nothing short of completely and utterly flawed.

 

[Bareth Garry]

Imagine if Kohli was captain out there when the overthrows caused six runs. He'd be throwing a fit demanding the third umpire to check the rulebook. And I wouldn't blame him.

 

[Boxhead_31]

I would have thought when it hit Stokes and they had crossed when that happened.

It's when the throw is made

The judgment error was the timing of when the fielder threw the ball. The act of the overthrow starts when the fielder releases the ball. That's the act.
"It becomes an overthrow from the instant of the throw."
Taufel explained that the umpires had a raft of things to consider every ball.

"In this particular case, the umpires have got a lot on their plate, because like every ball, they've had to watch the batsmen complete the first run, they've had to watch the ball being fielded, to understand how it's in play, whether the fielder's done the right thing. Then they've got to look to see when the ball is released, in case there is an overthrow. And that happens every delivery of the game. And then they've got to back to see where the two batsmen are.
"They've then got to follow on and see what happens after that, whether there is a run out, whether there's an 'obstructing the field', whether the ball is taken fairly. There's multitudes of decisions to be taken off the one delivery. What's unfortunate is that people think that umpiring is just about outs and not outs. They forget we make 1000s of decisions every match.
"So it's unfortunate that there was a judgment error on the timing of the release of the ball and where the batsmen were. They did not cross on their second run, at the instant of the throw. So given that scenario, five runs should have been the correct allocation of runs, and Ben Stokes should have been at the non-striker's end for the next delivery.

'We're not perfect': Taufel admits World Cup umpires got it wrong

Former leading umpire Simon Taufel has confirmed that England should only have been awarded five runs, not six, off the third-last ball of their innings.

www.theage.com.au