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

[Titanic]

and what about a 'relay' throw where it goes to a 2nd or even 3rd fielder before making it to the wicket (if at all)?

This is a minefield.

 

[Eeyore]

No, that is clearly not what the rule says. The rule does not say 'the act of throwing the ball'. If it just meant when the fielder releases the ball, it would say:
'together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw'.
It wouldn't add the clause 'or act'.

The throw from the outfield was not an over-throw. It was a good throw. If the collecting fielder had then made a mess of catching it, and it had bounced off them, that would be the 'act' that caused the ball to go to the boundary.

You can't just pretend the rule doesn't say 'or act', and you can't just pretend 'or act' somehow means the act of throwing the ball, when it clearly doesn't.

The 'act', as referred to by the law, is the 'willful act of a fielder'. This doesn't apply here as that would refer to something like kicking the ball over the boundary. In this case all we are concerned with is the act of the overthrow itself. Or, simply removing the word 'act' itself, the overthrow.

If this crosses the boundary then the additional runs at the wicket are calculated on the basis of runs completed (at the 'instant of throw') and, crucially, any additional runs are added on the basis that 'they had already crossed at the instant of the throw'.

When the ball was thrown they hadn't crossed. As such only one additional run could be awarded and Rashid would have returned to the striker's end.

It's a great talking point and the head hurt (as a cricket geek) it has caused me means that I'll leave the BREXIT thread alone for a while......

Still, England worthy winners. The cricket they have played over the last four years and throughout this tournament means it is most deserved.

 

[Eeyore]

and what about a 'relay' throw where it goes to a 2nd or even 3rd fielder before making it to the wicket (if at all)?

This is a minefield.

As long as the ball is in play any runs are credited to the batsman.

 

[Titanic]

As long as the ball is in play any runs are credited to the batsman.

but surely the ball was still 'in play' after it hit Stokes bat??

 

[Triggaaar]

The 'act', as referred to by the law, is the 'willful act of a fielder'.

We know it wasn't an overthrow, as it only went to the boundary because it hit Ben's bat. So all you're saying there, is that the clause '7 Overthrow or willful act of fielder' doesn't apply in this case at all.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The 'act', as referred to by the law, is the 'willful act of a fielder'. This doesn't apply here as that would refer to something like kicking the ball over the boundary. In this case all we are concerned with is the act of the overthrow itself. Or, simply removing the word 'act' itself, the overthrow.

If this crosses the boundary then the additional runs at the wicket are calculated on the basis of runs completed and, crucially, any additional runs are added on the basis that 'they had already crossed at the instant of the throw'.

When the ball was thrown they hadn't crossed. As such only one additional run could be awarded and Rashid would have returned to the striker's end.

It's a great talking point and the head hurt (as a cricket geek) it has caused me means that I'll leave the BREXIT thread alone for a while......

Still, England worthy winners. The cricket they have played over the last four years and throughout this tournament means it is most deserved.

With all respect to Taufel - a great umpire, who really ought to know better than anyone, how this law should be interpreted - I honestly think he is wrong.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The fact this thread is still going on is testament to what a classic final that was.

So many talking points, controversy, what if moments. It will be interesting to see how the Kiwis feel about it in one year, 10 years, 30 years and whether any bitterness will creep in, especially if they change the deciding rule from "most boundaries hit" to "least wickets lost".

 

[Willow]

This game didn't see the world's first super-over, there have been plenty of them, and the rules are simple, clear and obvious. If it's a tie after the super-over, the winner is decided by the number of boundaries in the game. There is then a clear and obvious winner.

Would you care to highlight all the times in the past that you've said this method of deciding the game isn't fair?

I'm not aware of any ODI ever being decided in this fashion, let alone a World Cup Final. My point is the tie should be decided by a progressive action, not a regressive one. As others have said, you may as well toss a coin as go by the number of boundaries scored.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The fact this thread is still going on is testament to what a classic final that was.

So many talking points, controversy, what if moments. It will be interesting to see how the Kiwis feel about it in one year, 10 years, 30 years and whether any bitterness will creep in, especially if they change the deciding rule from "most boundaries hit" to "least wickets lost".

As stated previously, though, had the rule been wickets lost, that would probably still have ended as a tie, so you'd still need another tie-breaker.

The suggestion that it should have gone back to either the team that finished higher in the group stage table (my preference) or the head to head result between the two sides, seems entirely equitable, and far less contrived.

 

[Pavilionaire]

We know it wasn't an overthrow, as it only went to the boundary because it hit Ben's bat. So all you're saying there, is that the clause '7 Overthrow or willful act of fielder' doesn't apply in this case at all.

It's just a matter of time before the reverse of the the Stokes incident occurs, whereby decisive overthrows are inadvertently prevented from going to the boundary by the batsman's bat.

 

[Eeyore]

We know it wasn't an overthrow, as it only went to the boundary because it hit Ben's bat. So all you're saying there, is that the clause '7 Overthrow or willful act of fielder' doesn't apply in this case at all.

It was, because there is no willful obstruction.

Had there been a willful obstruction we then move into new territory ...

 

[Eeyore]

As stated previously, though, had the rule been wickets lost, that would probably still have ended as a tie, so you'd still need another tie-breaker.

The suggestion that it should have gone back to either the team that finished higher in the group stage table (my preference) or the head to head result between the two sides, seems entirely equitable, and far less contrived.

I agree on the head to head thing. It should have been applied in the group stage.

But then we wouldn't have got New Zealand in this magical final.

 

[Eeyore]

It's just a matter of time before the reverse of the the Stokes incident occurs, whereby decisive overthrows are inadvertently prevented from going to the boundary by the batsman's bat.

That's happened loads. As long as it's not intentional it's fine.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm not aware of any ODI ever being decided in this fashion, let alone a World Cup Final.

ODIs are not the only cricket and there have been plenty of super-overs, with the same rule. You're complaining about the rule now, but you haven't before. Sour grapes.

 

[Eeyore]

I'm not aware of any ODI ever being decided in this fashion, let alone a World Cup Final. My point is the tie should be decided by a progressive action, not a regressive one. As others have said, you may as well toss a coin as go by the number of boundaries scored.

Or simply decide the match based on the group stage encounter. That's the fairest method in the event of a super over tie.

Still an England win in this case.

 

[Eeyore]

The fact this thread is still going on is testament to what a classic final that was.

So many talking points, controversy, what if moments. It will be interesting to see how the Kiwis feel about it in one year, 10 years, 30 years and whether any bitterness will creep in, especially if they change the deciding rule from "most boundaries hit" to "least wickets lost".

The Kiwis aren't bitter types. They will feel it for years to come as would we. But they have taken it well.

 

[Triggaaar]

It was, because there is no willful obstruction.

What? You've got confused. I didn't claim there was wilful obstruction.

The rule says 'Overthrow or wilful act of fielder'. We agree that it wasn't a wilful act of the fielder. But I assume you also agree that there was nothing wrong with the throw.

Given that there was nothing wrong with the throw, there's no logic at all to freezing the position of the batsmen at the time the fielder threw the ball. It makes no sense. It became an overthrow when it hit the bat again.

 

[Triggaaar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_(cricket)

"There have been at least four instances in Test cricket of eight runs being scored off a single ball."

So in those occasions, the batsmen have run 4 runs, and the ball has ended up at the boundary. Difficult to imagine they ran all 4 before the first fielder threw the ball.

 

[Willow]

ODIs are not the only cricket and there have been plenty of super-overs, with the same rule. You're complaining about the rule now, but you haven't before. Sour grapes.

No sour grapes at all.I would say the same if it was the other way around. To lose the world cup after a tied game and a tied super over is simply not FAIR. A team should be allowed to actively win it without a count back on something historic.

Or simply decide the match based on the group stage encounter. That's the fairest method in the event of a super over tie.

Still an England win in this case.

In the league format, I totally agree. This way it would be used to decide placings, not results.

In terms of a once off match such as the final, I strongly disagree. Each finalist should start on an even keel, not one side with an advantage before a ball is bowled, no matter how slight.

 

[Eeyore]

What? You've got confused. I didn't claim there was wilful obstruction.

The rule says 'Overthrow or wilful act of fielder'. We agree that it wasn't a wilful act of the fielder. But I assume you also agree that there was nothing wrong with the throw.

Given that there was nothing wrong with the throw, there's no logic at all to freezing the position of the batsmen at the time the fielder threw the ball. It makes no sense. It became an overthrow when it hit the bat again.

I know you weren't. But my point is that because there is no willful obstruction it becomes an overthrow which, having crossed the boundary, is judged at the 'instant of the throw'.

I've not seen the 8 runs in one over footage. The only one I know is the seven conceded by Flintoff a few years back and the 3 runs were awarded as a 2+1. Two completed and a third as the batsman had crossed when the ball left the fielders hand.

We're not going to agree on this. But we clearly agree that England deserved the title.