[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand *** Official Match Thread ***

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

The biggest bit of luck either side could have had in that final on that pitch was winning the toss.

This is indeed a huge variable in cricket - perhaps more so than in any other sport? Plus there's the possibility of dodgy umpiring decisions which can turn a game - and of course one can replay endlessly the various 'could have beens'.


My mind goes back to a game where I was a member of team of players who were (I regret to say) far better than me. (They were top club cricketers and I was a poor village one;I was drafted in to make up the numbers.) Our opening bat was dropped on 0 and went on to make a ton. Like a wally, I mentioned to him that lady luck had been on his side. His response was "Yeah - but I still had to made another hundred or so without needing her again."

 

[Bold Seagull]

Taylor & Roy

Roy's wasn't a bad decision. That is a lack of understanding of technology and it's role with the umpires. In my opinion, less than half the ball clipping the top of leg is too much doubt for an umpire to be giving. While the technology shows it clipping, the benefit of doubt lies with the batsmen - good decision.

 

[Triggaaar]

The ball was dead when it hit the ropes. If the ball was retrieved before hitting the ropes it would still be live.

Agreed.

But the rule isn't about when the ball is dead.

That part of the rule is. The rule covers overthrows and wilful acts by a fielder. One parts of the rule refer to when the batsmen cross, other parts of the rule do not.

It's about whether the batsman had crossed at the time Guptil threw (the act) it.

No, that is incorrect. Firstly (but not the main point), 'the act', as you put it, is not the throw. Act refers to something other than the throw, because the law covers 'an overthrow or from the willful act of a fielder'. That point is separate to the argument, but I felt I should point it out.

The part of the rule that we're interested in (it's only been quoted in this thread 50 times so far):
"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 comma in that sentence means that the clause at the end ('at the instant of the throw') does not refer to completed runs, which is referenced at the start of the sentence, before the comma. That's just how the English language works. So without that clause, completed runs means runs that have been completed when the ball is dead.

Furthermore (not detracting from the facts above, but added for clarity), in that sentence 'the run in progress' also means 'the run in progress when the ball is dead'. It wouldn't make sense for it to mean 'the run in progress when the ball was thrown'. You could indeed have a run that was in progress when the ball was thrown, and then further runs after that before the ball hit the ropes, so it wouldn't make sense for the rule to single out the one run in the middle, and not comment on the others.

 

[Bold Seagull]

This is indeed a huge variable in cricket - perhaps more so than in any other sport? Plus there's the possibility of dodgy umpiring decisions which can turn a game - and of course one can replay endlessly the various 'could have beens'.


My mind goes back to a game where I was a member of team of payer who were (I regret to say) far better than me. (I was drafted in to make up the numbers.) Our opening bat was dropped on 0 and went on to make a ton. Like a wally, I mentioned to him that lady luck had been on his side. His response was "Yeah - but I still had to made another hundred or so without needing her again."

It varies doesn't it depending on the conditions and the pitches. In a tournament where a large majority of matches were won by the side batting first, at a venue where all 4 previous games were won by the side batting first, it was a HUGE toss to win.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

It varies doesn't it depending on the conditions and the pitches. In a tournament where a large majority of matches were won by the side batting first, at a venue where all 4 previous games were won by the side batting first, it was a HUGE toss to win.

Can't disagree with that - but the ball was certainly hooping around early on. I suspect (we'll never know) that the kiwi quicks would have had a bit of fun.

 

[Triggaaar]

Is that the one where the fielders foot touched the boundary market thing but they only looked at it for about 20 seconds and they only gave the 2 runs?

I think so. I was sat there waiting to see a camera angle from the side, but they just gave 2 and moved on.

 

[Triggaaar]

Like a wally, I mentioned to him that lady luck had been on his side. His response was "Yeah - but I still had to made another hundred or so without needing her again."

Why are you confessing this? Did you feel the need to be cleansed I think I'd keep it to myself.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Why are you confessing this? Did you feel the need to be cleansed I think I'd keep it to myself.

Because I'm still a wally?

 

[Triggaaar]

Because I'm still a wally?

Nah. Just offloading I think. I assume you cringed after you said it

 

[drew]

Because you said the had completed 3 runs before the ball was thrown, and then the ball got thrown to the boundary (another 4). By your understanding, the 4th run that they started wouldn't be counted, as they hadn't crossed when the ball was thrown. How did you get 6?

In the first example you quoted, I didn't say the ball had crossed the boundary.

 

[CHAPPERS]

[tweet]1151063047764664320[/tweet]

 

[Triggaaar]

In the first example you quoted, I didn't say the ball had crossed the boundary.

WTF? You said the ball 'gets to the boundary and they stop'. It doesn't have to cross the boundary, it only has to get there. So what you're saying is that you meant that the ball stops just short of the boundary, and then the batsmen just stop running. Did they get bored or something?

 

[colinz]

Rule 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.

'the act', as you put it, is not the throw. Act refers to something other than the throw, because the law covers 'an overthrow or from the willful act of a fielder'. That point is separate to the argument, but I felt I should point it out.

The act is for something other than a throw such as kicking the ball.

The part of the rule that we're interested in (it's only been quoted in this thread 50 times so far):
"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 comma in that sentence means that the clause at the end ('at the instant of the throw') does not refer to completed runs, which is referenced at the start of the sentence, before the comma. That's just how the English language works. So without that clause, completed runs means runs that have been completed when the ball is dead.

Your over thinking it, your saying that because the comma is there it's retrospective. Meaning that the the batsmen crossing at the time of the throw becomes irrelevant, once the ball is dead, provided they've completed the run in progress before the ball hits the rope.

Furthermore (not detracting from the facts above, but added for clarity), in that sentence 'the run in progress' also means 'the run in progress when the ball is dead'. It wouldn't make sense for it to mean 'the run in progress when the ball was thrown'. You could indeed have a run that was in progress when the ball was thrown, and then further runs after that before the ball hit the ropes, so it wouldn't make sense for the rule to single out the one run in the middle, and not comment on the others.

My interpretation of that is once the ball leaves the fielder's hand, it's a 4 if the ball inadvertently hit's the boundary, so because the ball has hit the boundary it has become dead once it has left the fielder's hand..
The boundary 4 is added to any runs already completed, the run in progress is also given, provided the batsmen have crossed when the ball is thrown.
If the ball hadn't of hit the boundary the second run would have been given, plus any other run scored during the fielding of the ball.

Anyhow at the weekend I hope to chat with a neighbor who's an umpire.

.

 

[One Love]

Anyhow at the weekend I hope to chat with a neighbor who's an umpire.

.

I wait with bated breath to see the outcome of this.

After all, so much rests on it.

 

[colinz]

I wait with bated breath to see the outcome of this.

After all, so much rests on it.

Does it ?

 

[Braggfan]

I keep reading in the press about the legacy of this win and how it will inspire a new generation of cricket fans. Is anyone else shuddering at the thought of how much damage will be done, and how much of laughing stock "The Hundred" will make us?

 

[Triggaaar]

The act is for something other than a throw such as kicking the ball.

That's how I read it originally. In this case, I interpreted the act as when the ball hit Stokes's bat, as that is what caused the overthrow. However, others have said that the act means a wilful act, as that is what's in the rule heading. It's not clear which is right, but either way, you said "at the time Guptil threw (the act) it" and it certainly isn't that.

Your over thinking it

No, I'm simply applying the rules of English language to the meaning of something written in English.

your saying that because the comma is there it's retrospective.

It's simply that the clause (which is 'if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw') cannot apply to conditions that were in a part of the sentence separated by the comma. Go and look up how to use a comma. You do not use them to set off parts of the sentence that are essential to the meaning. If the clause ('if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw') was to be applied to completed runs, it would have to say that. It doesn't.

... it has become dead once it has left the fielder's hand..

I'm sorry, that's clearly not the case. The ball isn't dead when it leaves the hand, anything can happen after that, including a run out. Once it's dead, it doesn't matter what anyone on the field does, it's dead. You can't go back and say 'oh, because such and such happened, it was dead before anyone could possibly know it was dead'. That's just silly, and not written in this rule.

Anyhow at the weekend I hope to chat with a neighbor who's an umpire.

To be honest, you'd be better off asking an expert in English language or a lawyer who would be used to the way in which clauses like these are interpreted.

We've not yet seen any evidence of how these calls are usually determined (which seems very odd to me, similar things must have happened many times), but regardless of what eventually gets clarified by the ICC, the fact is that at the moment the rule book says it should have been 6 runs.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

That's how I read it originally. In this case, I interpreted the act as when the ball hit Stokes's bat, as that is what caused the overthrow. However, others have said that the act means a wilful act, as that is what's in the rule heading. It's not clear which is right, but either way, you said "at the time Guptil threw (the act) it" and it certainly isn't that.

No, I'm simply applying the rules of English language to the meaning of something written in English.
It's simply that the clause (which is 'if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw') cannot apply to conditions that were in a part of the sentence separated by the comma. Go and look up how to use a comma. You do not use them to set off parts of the sentence that are essential to the meaning. If the clause ('if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw') was to be applied to completed runs, it would have to say that. It doesn't.

I'm sorry, that's clearly not the case. The ball isn't dead when it leaves the hand, anything can happen after that, including a run out. Once it's dead, it doesn't matter what anyone on the field does, it's dead. You can't go back and say 'oh, because such and such happened, it was dead before anyone could possibly know it was dead'. That's just silly, and not written in this rule.

To be honest, you'd be better off asking an expert in English language or a lawyer who would be used to the way in which clauses like these are interpreted.

We've not yet seen any evidence of how these calls are usually determined (which seems very odd to me, similar things must have happened many times), but regardless of what eventually gets clarified by the ICC, the fact is that at the moment the rule book says it should have been 6 runs.

What does the scorebook say? That will give the answer to all the questioning. I believe it reads 6, therefore it's a 6.

 

[LlcoolJ]

What does the scorebook say? That will give the answer to all the questioning. I believe it reads 6, therefore it's a 6.

Exactly. As Metallica said, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

The rest is sour grapes and unbecoming. Especially when NZ are such a quality, sportsmanlike team.

I note that our Southern Hemisphere friends are conveniently ignoring the points about the dodgy wides given against Archer and the four that wasn't given when the fielder touched the rope.

It's cricket. It happens. The scorebook is the only important thing.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

A great example of how a glorious and thrilling thread (for 550-odd posts) can turn into one full of tedium, whataboutism and assumptions and interpretations of an ambiguous law of the game. With a side order of sour grapes.

I get why it's being discussed, it's just a shame it couldn't have been a sub-thread, instead of turning this one into a boring, drawn-out point-scoring exercise.