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

[Boxhead_31]

It doesn’t exactly state that in the rules though

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

 

[Stax on the mill]

fu** me you are a lunatic

He does have a valid point though.Don’t blame him for being peeved, particularly when it appears umpires seriously stuffed up by allowing 6 runs instead of 5.

 

[Leeda]

After long time in the wilderness they gather things together...
Congrats to the baby blue...the dragons..the UK...done well dudrs

 

[2006_Eagles]

Benefit of the doubt to the batsman is nowhere in the laws of the game.

Ok, maybe that was just an in house rule when I was an Umpy

 

[BarbieITFC]

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.

And do you know what...if that’s the rule and replays show that to be a fact...then that in itself is the single AND ONLY point that should be debated. Whether something is ‘fair’ or not matter f**k all because all other aspects are a debate about whether we agree with the rules. This is a matter of whether the rules were applied correctly and could have been reviewed by the third umpire.

 

[PhatBoy]

England won. Meh, they can celebrate and the rest of us can kick the can. But fu** 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.

A fair bit of what you say has merit.

Questioning the decision to back the bowling of Boult in the super over based, pretty much, on one poor over, is not in that category.

 

[BarbieITFC]

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

The thing about mankad is that there’s an appeal that can be rescinded. In this case the umpires and players just applied a set of black and white laws of the game...whether they are in the spirit is neither here or there...although as someone else has pointed out... if only the number of times the batsman crosses before the fielder throws the ball in should count then maybe the black and white rules were not applied correctly and it should have been five not six???

 

[Plugger35]

Even though the Black Caps didn't get the World Cup trophy they proved a lot of people wrong who thought they didn't deserve to make the semis and thought that India and England would demolish them, both the NZ v India semi and the final were great games and NZ was undefeated in both of them while Australia got demolished by England in their semi.

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.

Boult had been NZ's most expensive bowler so not sure he was the right choice, Ferguson or Henry might have done a better job or even de Grandhomme who had been NZ's most economical bowler but in that situation i guess you have to back in your most experienced bowler and that was Boult. I'd imagine if Australia were in the same situation they would have chosen Starc but like Boult he can be expensive if he doesn't nail his yorkers.

 

[k31th]

it's amazing the amount of quality discussion around the game has surfaced based on the sheer number of lucky circumstances that occurred in that game (all of which favoured England, basically).

 

[kozi]

it's amazing the amount of quality discussion around the game has surfaced based on the sheer number of lucky circumstances that occurred in that game (all of which favoured England, basically).

If only this sort of quality discussion was had between the powers that be prior to these farcical rules being introduced. Almost like they had the work experience kids finish it off.

 

[Rich the babe Evans]

Boult should have Mankaded Wood on the last ball.

 

[The Passenger]

Questioning the decision to back the bowling of Boult in the super over based, pretty much, on one poor over, is not in that category.

His first five overs were good, but I thought he was a bit off when he came back into the attack. The one off over he bowled around the 40th was a good one, but the other four were a long way from his best.

I was hoping for Ferguson for the super over, but who knows. Maybe Ferguson goes for more. Maybe he goes for less but then the Kiwi batsmen completely seize up chasing 7 or 8. Sometimes needing 12+ from an over, the batsmen just goes in with the "nothing to lose" mentality - Neesham and Stokes seemed to go that way.

 

[Quinz]

Insane to think that two very obscure laws that you would almost never expect to come into play happened in the last moments of a World Cup Final. Not surprising that everyone was caught off guard, the 6 runs vs 5 doesn't seem that intuitive to me.

That's the sort of bizarre bullshit that you dream up when thinking about the most hearbreaking way to beat your biggest rival. Like getting a 6-6-6 infringement and a double 50m penalty to goal from the square with no time left in the Grand Final after a botched score review to put you within 5 points. It's almost that level of stupidly unlikely and unlucky.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Which umpires said this?

'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

 

[Jimthegreat]

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

It's refers to "wilful acts"

 

[Park cricketer]

A fair bit of what you say has merit.

Questioning the decision to back the bowling of Boult in the super over based, pretty much, on one poor over, is not in that category.

I thought Boult was poor the entire match. I remember mentioning to my friend during the opening overs of England's innings that Boult was bowling too short on that wicket and wasting the new ball while Henry was doing the good work at the other end. I felt the occasion had got to him during the entire duration of that match, and the catch that he dropped (he would have caught it in any other occasion) pretty much confirmed my view. Was also bowling a lot of half vollies towards the end while attempting his yorkers.

 

[boondy]

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

The instant the throw becomes an overthrow is when it goes past the keeper or fielder who cant retrieve it .

 

[Park cricketer]

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.

He would have been threatening the MCC members in the members stand to overturn that rule when that overthrow happened.

 

[Boxhead_31]

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.

The key word in this instance is throw not act.
Act relates to kicking the ball at the stumps as confirmed by Simon Taufel

'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

 

[Banyo Bloods]

I watched it live most incredible finish to a game I've ever seen. Heart was pounding. The umpires made it clear to both teams what the rules and permitations were and what was required to win. Given NZ were gifted a wide and then hit a six to need very little after that. They choked. They knew what was required to win that super over and Archer deserves a lot of credit after a poor start to the over to bowl two ripping last deliveries that restricted NZ to the required draw was remarkable. 1 hour sleep then off to work, paying for it now I'm a zombie but so glad I stuck it out the whole last innings was gripping with the momentum changes. NZ fantastic with the ball. England fantastic with the batting recovery but struggled to peg back the difference over the last 10. Needed a miracle and got one but not without some incredible individual brilliance from players of both teams. What a game congrats England. Hope NZ challenge again next time.

 

[boondy]

The key word in this instance is throw not act.
Act relates to kicking the ball at the stumps as confirmed by Simon Taufel

'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

Thats if his interpretation is correct . Which I doubt it is cos the rule would be for closr range run outs not from the deep .An ump makes many decisions in a match . Wides too high etc . The result was 6 . If the result was 5 Rashid would be on strike . 4 runs off 2 balls needed to win .

 

[Richard Pryor]

Here's an idea, second super over if first one is tied? Using new batsmen and bowlers.

 

[Park cricketer]

The thing about mankad is that there’s an appeal that can be rescinded. In this case the umpires and players just applied a set of black and white laws of the game...whether they are in the spirit is neither here or there...although as someone else has pointed out... if only the number of times the batsman crosses before the fielder throws the ball in should count then maybe the black and white rules were not applied correctly and it should have been five not six???

Yeah that's why I mentioned the Ian Bell run out situation too, there was no need for an appeal then because Bell had left his crease when the ball was collected by the keeper. Though I get your point, it would have been difficult to call those runs dead once it crossed the rope.

 

[kozi]

Here's an idea, second super over if first one is tied? Using new batsmen and bowlers.

Imagine in the NBA when scores are still tied after OT they just went back and looked at which team scored most free throws. The league wouldn’t survive the ensuing riots.

To use the example of a professionally run sport, they just keep playing overtimes until a result is reached.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Thats if his interpretation is correct . Which I doubt it is cos the rule would be for closr range run outs not from the deep .An ump makes many decisions in a match . Wides too high etc . The result was 6 . If the result was 5 Stokes goes for a boundary off last ball instead of a bunt just for 2 runs .

Yeah, a 5 time ICC umpire of the year. The man who trained most of today's umpires would be wrong and you'd be right?