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

[Crankitup]

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.

Correctamundo. Kiwis were robbed.

However, according to law 19.8 - Overthrow or wilful act of fielder - of One Day International Cricket rules on the ICC's website, there is a strong argument that the second run that Ben Stokes attempted to get off the delivery should not have counted.
This is the wording of the law: "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."

Replays of the ball show that when Guptill threw the delivery in from the boundary, Stokes and his partner Abdul Rashid had not crossed over for the second run when running down the pitch, nor had he reached the crease at the striker's end when the ball deflected off his bat, meaning that according to the law, England should have been awarded five runs, not six.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/394419/cricket-world-cup-final-contentious-overthrow-explained

 

[DaRick]

This one was worth five such was the epic nature of it. Most enthralling cricket match ever played

The 1987 final was pretty epic.

 

[kozi]

In terms of the countries W-L records it will go down as a tie.

View attachment 709675

Tie is the correct result and far more fair than a winner being picked off an arbitrary system. Trophy was awarded to England simply because it had to go to someone and nothing more.

 

[eddiesmith]

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.

Be interesting though if it was the final ball and you needed the extra run...

 

[Park cricketer]

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.

I know it was legal under the rules but it almost seemed like they had no idea how to separate both the teams after the end of 50 overs and the super over tie, but they had to have a winner because it was the world cup final and so they decided it based on some completely random rule.

Imagine explaining this game to your grandkid.

"It was the greatest game of cricket that had ever happened"

"Tell me more about it grandpa.."

"New Zealand and England scored the same number of runs and New Zealand picked two wickets more after 50 overs"

"So New Zealand were the winners right?"

"No England became the world champions"

"What.. But how?"

"Because England scored more boundaries in their batting innings"

"I'll stick to Fortnite thanks"

 

[Doodlesweaver]

No chance. The English have their hands on that cup and would fight that like madmen.

Glad that it's been recorded as a tie.

 

[Pessimistic]

AFL’s golden point for a tied final after extra time is not that different for potential to be a debacle. Where it has been used, the players were not aware extra time was over and were just told ‘right its over this team won’

 

[happy_eagle]

We need to stop identifying flaws in the game as "quirks"

 

[The Passenger]

AFL’s golden point for a tied final after extra time is not that different for potential to be a debacle. Where it has been used, the players were not aware extra time was over and were just told ‘right its over this team won’

Didn't realise that was a thing.

Is this still the same rules?

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-06/new-extratime-rules-clarified-to-end-finals-ties

If scores are tied at the end of normal time, there will be two periods of additional time played of five minutes each way, plus time-on.
Teams will have a new rotation cap of 15 interchanges.
If scores remain tied at the end of additional time, the siren will NOT be sounded and play will continue until the next score has been confirmed.
The siren will then immediately sound to end the match.

Has potential for a hell of a lot of confusion.

 

[The Passenger]

We need to stop identifying flaws in the game as "quirks"

Fair call to be honest.

 

[The Speaker]

Depends on the quirk though. I, for one, will always be partial to a tree in the playing area.

 

[Saint12]

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.

Or which team bowled the most dot balls

 

[Pessimistic]

Didn't realise that was a thing.

Is this still the same rules?

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-06/new-extratime-rules-clarified-to-end-finals-ties



Has potential for a hell of a lot of confusion.

So far only a box hill VFL final. There was confusion, but no rules revision it seems.
It would be advantageous to be playing with the wind in the last, just keep roosting it at the goals


Edit. They just said the same thing on 360

 

[Black white]

Or which team bowled the most dot balls

Zzzzz, they won by the rules of day, move on.

 

[The Passenger]

At least this wasn't a repeat of the farcical scenes at the end of the 2007 world cup final.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Zzzzz, they won by the rules of day, move on.

We are allowed to play with this. Who wouldn't?

 

[Doodlesweaver]

At least this wasn't a repeat of the farcical scenes at the end of the 2007 world cup final.

Marvellous that!

 

[Black white]

We are allowed to play with this. Who wouldn't?

Doodle Playtime

 

[Pessimistic]

Will it beat beefy getting out for a duck after getting stuck into everything aussie the night before?

 

[boondy]

Loved the poms celebrating . They were so happy , I remembered that feeling in the Grandstand at the MCG last year apparently Collingwood were robbed too . I also was at a losing GF so I felt for NZ . Obviously players feel it 10 000 times more tho .

 

[big_e]

In terms of the countries W-L records it will go down as a tie.

View attachment 709675

That's cricinfo, not the official records though.

ICC playing conditions say the team with the most boundaries "shall be the winner". England won the game.

 

[melanChronic]

Very interesting with Taufel confirming that the umpires should have awarded 5 runs instead of 6... obviously the one run could have made all the difference, but imagine if Erasmus and Dharmasena had made the right call and then (correctly) told Stokes that he had to go down to the non-strikers end.

England would have been up in arms, and its an interesting debate as to whether they would have preferred to take the 5 and have Rashid on strike, or just settle for the 2 (agreeing that the ball was dead after hitting Stokes) and allow Stokes to have the strike? And would they have even been allowed to do that (decline the overthrow boundary)?

So disappointing that the umpires let us down there at that crucial juncture. Not that I had any idea about that rule, but you'd expect them to seeing as Taufel is so across it. From a cricket nerd point of view I am happy to now know exactly how it works in terms of overthrows and the definition of a wilful act by the fielder distinguishing between the initial runs and the overthrown runs. Previously I'd often wondered how an umpire would rule on someone "deliberately" (in the AFL sense) tapping the ball over the boundary to turn an all-run 5 into a 4.

 

[eddiesmith]

Didn't realise that was a thing.

Is this still the same rules?

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-06/new-extratime-rules-clarified-to-end-finals-ties



Has potential for a hell of a lot of confusion.

Its stupid, my team lost a final in golden point a few years back, the extra time is going on, they get a point, siren sounds!

 

[The Passenger]

That's cricinfo, not the official records though.

ICC playing conditions say the team with the most boundaries "shall be the winner". England won the game.

Must admit I always worked off the assumption CricInfo followed the ICC.

Does the ICC keep a list of their official records online?

I can't find the playing conditions for the world cup. Does it say most boundaries "shall be the winner of the match" or "shall be the winner of the trophy/tournament/cup"?

 

[Aussie_boy]

Watching the Kayo Mini again and it’s beyond me how NZ didn’t win that. Sometimes it just isn’t meant to be.