No I am not right I am a nobody . If it is was given 5 Rashid would have been on strike . 4 to win off 2.Balls . Rashid would have won the game and been the hero .
World Cup Final New Zealand v England Sunday July 14 @ Lords
- Thread starter Gough
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's correct. Guptill threw the ball in before they crossed. Should only have been 5 and Rashid should have been on strike. Taufel was one of the world's best umpire's, he'd sure know the rules. Watching the replay he clearly threw the ball before they crossed. Wasn't even close.
Id award it to the team who lost the toss
Ya stayed up all night for ten minutes of calculations?
Ya stayed up all night for ten minutes of calculations?
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
If the umpires deemed the overthrow ball 5 runs, would that have put Rashid back on strike?
Seem a bit weird to me as Stokes finished down that end.
Seem a bit weird to me as Stokes finished down that end.
- Oct 14, 2011
- 66,459
- 111,678
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Same rule as when a catch is taken before or after the batsmen cross. In this case just substitute the catch for when the ball is released by the fielder.
Technically it should've been a single plus 4 overthrows. Hence the batsmen would've needed to swap back and Rashid on strike. Seeimg it was incorrectly given 6 hence Stokes was on strike. Poor old Kiwi's just weren't destined to win.
First off, congratulations to England. They were abysmal four years ago and now they're world champions something that can't be taken off them no matter how unfair the result may seem.
The way England won the World Cup is not their fault - they can only play to the regulations put in front of them but they were declared the winners in an unsatisfactory manner. Teams win games of cricket by scoring more runs than their opponent or if they win batting 2nd they have won by a certain number of wickets after scoring more runs than their opponent.
England and New Zealand both scored 256 off 51 overs. England declared the winner by scoring more boundaries - yet New Zealand took 10 wickets to England's 8 so why should wickets taken not count more as a tiebreaker?
New Zealand had the rough end of the stick on the 1st ball of the England innings when Jason Roy was lucky to have been given not out. Roy was unlucky on Thursday, lucky last night and what a day for personal luck to even out.
If cricket's rules were up to me, Ben Stokes would have been out caught on the boundary by Boult in the 2nd last over instead of being given 6 runs. As Simon Taufel has said, England were lucky to get 6 overthrows in the last over as he feels they should have been given 5.
Where i have no sympathy for New Zealand is you can't expect to win with a 1st innings total of 241. They needed to bowl and field brilliantly, which they did for the most part but that's just not enough runs to play with. At the innings break, i felt they were 20 short. In the end, they were 1 run short, not once, but twice.
The way England won the World Cup is not their fault - they can only play to the regulations put in front of them but they were declared the winners in an unsatisfactory manner. Teams win games of cricket by scoring more runs than their opponent or if they win batting 2nd they have won by a certain number of wickets after scoring more runs than their opponent.
England and New Zealand both scored 256 off 51 overs. England declared the winner by scoring more boundaries - yet New Zealand took 10 wickets to England's 8 so why should wickets taken not count more as a tiebreaker?
New Zealand had the rough end of the stick on the 1st ball of the England innings when Jason Roy was lucky to have been given not out. Roy was unlucky on Thursday, lucky last night and what a day for personal luck to even out.
If cricket's rules were up to me, Ben Stokes would have been out caught on the boundary by Boult in the 2nd last over instead of being given 6 runs. As Simon Taufel has said, England were lucky to get 6 overthrows in the last over as he feels they should have been given 5.
Where i have no sympathy for New Zealand is you can't expect to win with a 1st innings total of 241. They needed to bowl and field brilliantly, which they did for the most part but that's just not enough runs to play with. At the innings break, i felt they were 20 short. In the end, they were 1 run short, not once, but twice.
It's beyond laughable!!!
Alrighty then . Glad thats sorted .
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Say the ball doesn't go to the boundary, and the batsmen run an extra two (assuming the ball doesn't come off Stokes' bat, but rather off the wickets), then they still get four runs.
Seems a bit weird that if the ball goes to the boundary, you lose the second run because you hadn't crossed at the point the throw has been let go. But if the ball doesn't reach the boundary, crossing becomes irrelevant and you get whatever you run.
I can't profess to knowing every sport inside out, but I can't imagine there are too many - if any - which have so many nuances in the rules as cricket.
- Oct 14, 2011
- 66,459
- 111,678
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Can’t run on it. Ball is dead but if it gets to the boundary it’s 4 runs. To say cricket is a quirky game would be an understatement.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
The ball is definitely not dead on an overthrow. Even if it comes off the batsmen - as it did yesterday with Stokes.
There is a gentleman's agreement in cricket not to run on an overthrow when the ball hits the batsmen. However, once it reaches the boundary, the umpires hands are tied and they need to award the four overthrows.
The batsmen are within their rights to run if the ball deflects off the batsmen, however you would be supremely unpopular with the opposition, and if you did so in the dying stages of a world cup final, the wider cricketing public.
Last edited:
To be fair the 2nd run wasnt questioned by anyone . Not commentators or the 2 field or 3rd or 4th umpire because it seemed right . When a lengthier look at rules and interpretation is settled its ok . Its easy to be wise in hindsight .
You can run . Its not a dead ball . Its just batsmen dont do it . We are all experts til we get our rule books out .
Gough
Moderator
- Sep 29, 2006
- 71,908
- 133,503
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
That's fine, we're not umpires, we don't know all the rules. But now I suspect each and every one of us will always be on the look out for something like this when overthrows happen in the future, and we'll want to see the replay. The umpires should have already known about this element of the rules and the need to check a replay to understand who should be on strike & how many runs to award
- Oct 14, 2011
- 66,459
- 111,678
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Was always of the understanding that the ball is dead unless it gets to the boundary as opposed to it being a gentleman’s agreement. I stand corrected.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Yet another quirk of this great game. Ball hits the batsmen running and your overthrows will either be 4 or 0 (but only due to convention - not the actual rules).
No chance. The English have their hands on that cup and would fight that like madmen.
He was the one wicket I knew they needed. He never seems English to me as he's got the self-belief of a yank.
Guptill stuffed it for them early. That wasn't bad luck. Anybody in that bad form during the series should be banned from reviewing their own wicket in a freaking final. If it had been an Aussie in appalling form doing it, I would have been in a foaming temper for the rest of the match.
I found it funny at the time and it isn't getting less funny. Cricket is such a bizarre sport. It's so arbitrary, the rule could have been which team made the most catches in the circle or which team bowled the least wides or whatever. Would have made as much sense.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
