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

[Sheebo]

These are from the MCC's e-learning for umpires and others. The top one is the main slide, the other two are the transcript of the video referred to.

View attachment 113055
View attachment 113056
View attachment 113057

MCC clearly state that completed runs means 'all runs completed BEFORE the instance of the throw', and that the run in progress means the one taking place AT the instance of the throw.

The interpretation by MCC for umpires is clearly "The runs scored before the fielder released the ball are counted, as well as the runs awarded for the boundary". Nothing whatsoever about a 'completed run' being after the fielder released the ball. If we are arguing purely about the 'throw' - then it should have been five runs, wherever the comma is placed. If we are arguing about the 'act' being the hitting of Stokes' bat - then that is a nonsense as 'act' is referring back to the only other mention of 'act' in the law, which is a wilful act by the fielder.

Not sure we can really argue this much more either way. MCC set the laws, and this is their guidance.

I’ve not followed the ‘controversy’ on this thread or the media - but they’d both just started the run when the throw came in so 6 wa correct yeh?

Even if it should have been 5 it most definitely doesn’t mean NZ would have won either. (Different scenario affects shot selection at end).

 

[LlcoolJ]

And people were saying it was a bigger world cup win than the rugby

Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk

Of course it is. It's cricket.

 

[ManOfSussex]

The fact you state, that the sub committee member has asked the MCC to state what the law means, is proof of ambiguity. The postulation continues.

The Times said they've approached The MCC for comment. All they did in regards to Taufel's actual remarks is just report what he'd said, they didn't say he was right or wrong. I see The Cricketer magazine has done exactly the same thing too.

 

[knocky1]

The fact you state, that the sub committee member has asked the MCC to state what the law means, is proof of ambiguity. The postulation continues.

We can't. The on-field umpires made their decision which stands and a member of The MCC Laws sub-committee disagreed with it.

As arguably the doyen of cricketing newspapers The Times this morning didn't either and merely reported MCC Laws sub-committee member Taufel's remarks and stated they've approached The MCC for further comment, I'm more interested in the response now, if any, of The Marleybone Cricket Club to The Times of London and others for clarification on a matter of the laws of the game than the continuing postulation on here.

The Times said they've approached The MCC for comment. All they did in regards to Taufel's actual remarks is just report what he'd said, they didn't say he was right or wrong. I see The Cricketer magazine has done exactly the same thing too.

They are postulating in between counting the ££££££s.

 

[Geestar]

Don’t get the need for anyone to compare these things - it cannot be and shouldn’t be compared to anything... Muxh like the whole club v country tosh - they’re 2 completely separate things!

It's two sporting world cups won by the same country.....hardly 'completely separate things'



Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk

 

[Sheebo]

It's two sporting world cups won by the same country.....hardly 'completely separate things'



Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk

One sport is cricket, one is Rugby Union. What is the need to possibly compare which is bigger?! They were both great

 

[Bold Seagull]

One sport is cricket, one is Rugby Union. What is the need to possibly compare which is bigger?! They were both great

The cricket world cup trophy is 600mm tall and weighs 11 kg. The Webb Ellis Trophy for rugby is 282mm tall and weighs 4.5kgs. So that is a definitive answer to which one is bigger.

 

[Beanstalk]

I’ve not followed the ‘controversy’ on this thread or the media - but they’d both just started the run when the throw came in so 6 wa correct yeh?

Even if it should have been 5 it most definitely doesn’t mean NZ would have won either. (Different scenario affects shot selection at end).

A run is only a run once the batsmen have crossed, thus the controversy. Frankly, the last ball was a rank full toss against the best hitter in the game. It would've left the ground had we needed 3 to win. Stokes only bunted it to make sure we didn't lose the game.

Ultimately, the game is played live, in the moment, not in retrospect. The action was so full on that you could argue a million little things changed the game, not just a single run. New Zealand had the opportunity the previous over when Boult stood on the rope - it didn't work out. They also needed 3 runs to win from 2 balls in the super over. Had Neesham not shanked the (great) bouncer by Jofra, it would've been New Zealand's game.

I think NZ have every right to be a bit upset about losing by boundaries (it skews the match to the chasing team, just like wickets skews it to the team batting first) but to say that it was down to an umpire's mistake is wrong.

 

[LlcoolJ]

A run is only a run once the batsmen have crossed, thus the controversy. Frankly, the last ball was a rank full toss against the best hitter in the game. It would've left the ground had we needed 3 to win. Stokes only bunted it to make sure we didn't lose the game.

Ultimately, the game is played live, in the moment, not in retrospect. The action was so full on that you could argue a million little things changed the game, not just a single run. New Zealand had the opportunity the previous over when Boult stood on the rope - it didn't work out. They also needed 3 runs to win from 2 balls in the super over. Had Neesham not shanked the (great) bouncer by Jofra, it would've been New Zealand's game.

I think NZ have every right to be a bit upset about losing by boundaries (it skews the match to the chasing team, just like wickets skews it to the team batting first) but to say that it was down to an umpire's mistake is wrong.

Concise and correct.

 

[banjo]

Honestly who cares. We’re world champions.

 

[drew]

One sport is cricket, one is Rugby Union. What is the need to possibly compare which is bigger?! They were both great

This. They both look up to Football and both resent it!!!

 

[LlcoolJ]

This. They both look up to Football and both resent it!!!

Not in Yorkshire mate.

 

[Triggaaar]

Not in Yorkshire mate.

What, even with both the Champions of Europe and the most Massive football club in the world?

 

[LlcoolJ]

What, even with both the Champions of Europe and the most Massive football club in the world?

Plenty of football Neanderthals, like everywhere, but cricket is MASSIVE here as well.

 

[colinz]

I’ve not followed the ‘controversy’ on this thread or the media - but they’d both just started the run when the throw came in so 6 wa correct yeh?

Even if it should have been 5 it most definitely doesn’t mean NZ would have won either. (Different scenario affects shot selection at end).

I think the most important ruling is about the run being awarded if the batsmen have crossed at the time of the ball being thrown. Because until they have crossed the batsmen are deemed to be backing up.
And had 5 been given it would have been a different scenario, because Stokes would have gone to the none striker's end for the next delivery.

 

[Normal Rob]

Century up 101 pages.

You really should change your settings.

 

[Wardy's twin]

referees make mistakes in most football games so why should any other sport be different.

 

[knocky1]

You really should change your settings.

Am I in favour of a long format of the game or do I prefer the shorter version?

 

[drew]

referees make mistakes in most football games so why should any other sport be different.

Agree, and part of the fun of this forum is discussing them. Nobody expects the powers that be to go back and change a result though. They can't because you can't predict what would have happened subsequent to an incident.

 

[Wozza]

Been meaning to ask....

When a batsman is run out on a second run, the first run still counts. Is that a new rule or am I cracking up? ODI/T20 only?