Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

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



Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,909




Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
37,339
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
What they don't do in that article, and what has been discussed on here and posted by [MENTION=15605]knocky1[/MENTION] is what is meant by 'act' in that rule? Does the moment the ball hits Stokes bat take it from being an overthrow from the fielder, to another event or act? If that is how the umpires saw it, then clearly they'd crossed when the act took place and 2 runs therefore achieved. Be interesting to hear from other sources other than Kiwis and Aussies.

It's all more ifs and buts anyway. If we needed four from the last two balls and if we'd had Rashid on strike he might just have been tempted in to a huge mow that could have gone anywhere, including an edged four that would have handed us victory without the need for the super over. We played the last two balls exactly as the match conditions - including the "error" - dictated :shrug:
 


Nitram

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2013
2,265
Great advert for the game, I watched all day with an increasing sense of foreboding, the way the game went in the latter stages was gut wrenching, sustained highs and lows of emotion I cannot remember watching from any other event.
Absolutely brilliant entertainment that will never be repeated. The way Williamson and the Kiwis spoke in ‘defeat’ was commendable and a great credit to them and their nation.
A game played hard and to every possible limit but with grace and respect. A lot to learn from this.
 


Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
37,339
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
Taufel is correct. It is something I looked at and they have called it wrong. He's right to point it out. Pretty sure we would have raised it on the other foot.

As per my post below yours, though he's technically correct. no one knows what would have then transpired. Could have got a streaky four, could have tapped a single for Stokes to slog the last ball, could have got out, could have bowled a dot :shrug:
 


colinz

Banned
Oct 17, 2010
862
Auckland
What they don't do in that article, and what has been discussed on here and posted by [MENTION=15605]knocky1[/MENTION] is what is meant by 'act' in that rule? Does the moment the ball hits Stokes bat take it from being an overthrow from the fielder, to another event or act? If that is how the umpires saw it, then clearly they'd crossed when the act took place and 2 runs therefore achieved. Be interesting to hear from other sources other than Kiwis and Aussies.

I think the guy would know his stuff.
Taufel, a five-time winner of the ICC’s Umpire of the Year award and widely viewed as one of the greatest umpires this century, stated: “They (England) should have been awarded five runs, not six.”
 




Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,458
Hove
Taufel is correct. It is something I looked at and they have called it wrong. He's right to point it out. Pretty sure we would have raised it on the other foot.

Would be great to hear from someone else properly looking at it. The part I don't understand is the 'act'. The overthrow itself didn't happen until the act of the ball hitting the bat, therefore is the point at which the batsmen cross taken from the throw, or from the act of hitting Stokes bat which caused the throw to become an overthrow? I don't think it's as clear as Taufel is saying. Had it not hit the bat and gone for 4 direct from the throw I might agree.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,909
As per my post below yours, though he's technically correct. no one knows what would have then transpired. Could have got a streaky four, could have tapped a single for Stokes to slog the last ball, could have got out, could have bowled a dot :shrug:

Butterflies and wings, yes. I'd still be a pissed off Kiwi though. I feel for them.

Wouldn't give a shit if it was Australia.
 


Willow

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2003
1,673
Didcot
It's all more ifs and buts anyway. If we needed four from the last two balls and if we'd had Rashid on strike he might just have been tempted in to a huge mow that could have gone anywhere, including an edged four that would have handed us victory without the need for the super over. We played the last two balls exactly as the match conditions - including the "error" - dictated :shrug:

You shrug like it's no big deal :lolol:

I find it incredible nobody can be sure exactly what the ruling should have been, umpires included.
 




pasty

A different kind of pasty
Jul 5, 2003
31,024
West, West, West Sussex
Think it is time to move on.

Yes, the award of 6 runs when Stokes diverted the ball should have only been 5, but it wasn't. Nothing anyone can do about it now. England won the World Cup.

The only thing that could possibly have made yesterday any better, was if it had been against the Aussies.
 


Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
37,339
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
Butterflies and wings, yes. I'd still be a pissed off Kiwi though. I feel for them.

Wouldn't give a shit if it was Australia.

I'm genuinely gutted it was against NZ. Tremendous sports and competitors throughout the tournament. If that had been the Aussies I'd probably still be out celebrating now, while if it had been India I'd be laughing my socks off till Kingdom Come (though I'd be quite unpopular in my office).

You shrug like it's no big deal :lolol:

I find it incredible nobody can be sure exactly what the ruling should have been, umpires included.

I think an error was made in the heat of the moment but no one thought to check if they'd crossed.
 






colinz

Banned
Oct 17, 2010
862
Auckland
It's all more ifs and buts anyway. If we needed four from the last two balls and if we'd had Rashid on strike he might just have been tempted in to a huge mow that could have gone anywhere, including an edged four that would have handed us victory without the need for the super over. We played the last two balls exactly as the match conditions - including the "error" - dictated :shrug:

He was never going to get a 2 off the last ball. Yet I don't think he would play for the tie either, he looked knackered.
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,135
Goldstone
And what an amazing moment that was. EVERYONE went "Yeah!!!!, No!!!!!!, Oh............YEAHHHH!".
I had the remote controls in my hand as I was ready to storm off (I've had my fill of England losing in tournaments). When he was caught, I hit the power button and the TV went off. Then just before I switched off the sound I heard Ian shouting 6. What? TV back on. **** me, he stepped on the rope. We just went from needing 22 off 8 with Stokes out, to needing 16 off 8 Stokes back in and on strike.
 
Last edited:


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,458
Hove
He was never going to get a 2 off the last ball. Yet I don't think he would play for the tie either, he looked knackered.


Leg side full toss, had he needed a six, reckon he'd had dispatched it into the Mound Stand as he had the delivery a few balls before, probably the worse ball of Boult's match. Only reason I think he played it as he did has he premeditated getting the single at least.
 




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,759
Chandlers Ford
One thing I haven't seen mentioned at all (sorry if it makes colinz even MORE pissed off) is that the very last ball of the super-over, with two needed to win, would have been called a wide, had Guptil just stood still and left it.
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,458
Hove
One thing I haven't seen mentioned at all (sorry if it makes colinz even MORE pissed off) is that the very last ball of the super-over, with two needed to win, would have been called a wide, had Guptil just stood still and left it.

To be fair, as mentioned above, Stokes could have left Boult's last ball and it would have been a wide, would have missed an additional leg stump that one.
 








colinz

Banned
Oct 17, 2010
862
Auckland
One thing I haven't seen mentioned at all (sorry if it makes colinz even MORE pissed off) is that the very last ball of the super-over, with two needed to win, would have been called a wide, had Guptil just stood still and left it.

Poor Gupi he must be feeling like shit.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here