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

[pasty]

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.

Fair or otherwise, the rules are there at the start of the competition. My biggest bug-bear in football is that a team can finish 6th in a league and be promoted over the team that finished 3rd, even if they get something like 20 points less over the season. Completely and utterly unfair in my opinion, but thems the rules.

 

[Audax]

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 rule is attempting to cover multiple scenarios, and in this particular scenario the additional "or" reference to an "act" is irrelevant. It is the throw itself that matters in this instance. Note also that the rulebook refers to a "willful act", not just an act. The ball striking Stokes' bat and being deflected cannot be considered a "willful" act, so we go back to the most recent "willful" act - which was the throw. In which case the rules are blindingly clear that the moment in time that matters is when the ball was released from hand.

Also, in cricket, the term "overthrows" refers to any runs scored after the throw has been made but then not cleanly collected. It doesn't matter what triggers those runs to be possible - it could be the 'keeper missing the throw, it could be a deflection from the stumps from a direct hit, or it could be a deflection from the batsman as it was in this instance.

The pain for the Kiwis is that had the ball *not* gone to the boundary, it's likely it would have stayed at 2 runs. In general, cricket 'etiquette' means that batsmen turn down the overthrows where they've been made possible due to an accidental deflection from the runner.

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.

Only the last throw matters in this situation. The previous throws were completed without triggering the rule. No minefield at all.

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.

It's actually easy to understand if you've watched enough cricket:

1. Batsmen plays a shot into a gap.
2. Batsmen run the first, and decide to take a risky second.
3. Throw comes in, direct hit on the stumps deflects ball into another gap.
4. Batsman had made ground; decide to take additional runs.
5. Batsmen run the third, chance a fourth.
6. Throw comes in, is a bit wild, isn't gathered cleanly at the stumps, and runs away to the boundary.
7. End result: 8 runs.

I've seen a similar sequence of events to that, although I've never seen an 8 before. I can, however, accept that it has happened given I've seen a sequence of events where it could have happened.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

It goes without saying that the method for determining a world cup final should be the same as other knockout games. The rule has been used before, but it's only now you complain, so it does come across as sour grapes.

A team should be allowed to actively win it without a count back on something historic.

Actively winning it in this case was England preventing New Zealand from scoring more runs in the super-over. That's the rule.

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.

Er, we did start even, and England scored more boundaries in the match. Did you think it was boundaries in previous games or something?

 

[Mellotron]

My sheer admiration and relief for Archer knows no bounds. Having to defend 15 runs off 6 balls is complete and utter brown trouser time for a bowler, and frankly, I'm AMAZED that the rookie was put in ahead of Woakes. The entire World Cup was in his right hand. A nation on his shoulders. And he bloody wobbled BIG time, but he got there. Imagine being in his shoes, knowing that for the rest of his career, his LIFE, he'd have been known as the guy who blew the 2019 World Cup. I don't know how he was selected, but I'm assuming he must've put his hand up in that dressing room and said "I got this".

Fair play fella.

Listening to Morgan re: choosing Archer, he said "It was an easy decision, he's our best yorker bowler and was up for it."

 

[Triggaaar]

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

Ok.

 

[Audax]

It goes without saying that the method for determining a world cup final should be the same as other knockout games. The rule has been used before, but it's only now you complain, so it does come across as sour grapes.

I believe (but willing to be corrected) that this is the first time the Super Over rule has been used in an ODI World Cup. It's been around for years in Twenty-20, but is only a recent addition to ODI. I'm also reasonably certain that the rule only applied for the final (and possibly semi-finals). In the league phase a tie would simply have been shared points (1 each).

 

[Triggaaar]

1. Batsmen plays a shot into a gap.
2. Batsmen run the first, and decide to take a risky second.
3. Throw comes in, direct hit on the stumps deflects ball into another gap.
4. Batsman had made ground; decide to take additional runs.
5. Batsmen run the third, chance a fourth.
6. Throw comes in, is a bit wild, isn't gathered cleanly at the stumps, and runs away to the boundary.
7. End result: 8 runs.

The first throw becomes an overthrow, so they go for extra runs. It seems to have been decided that that overthrow is not the one that the rules state you go back to when counting runs, but that it's the timing of the second overthrow that counts. But if we're to interpret the rules in the way we're being asked to here, it would make sense that you go back to when the first overthrow happens.

It does defy common sense to argue that after the batsman legitimately completed two runs, getting Stokes back on strike, that Stokes is then forced back off strike.

Otherwise, if a team needs 8 from the last 2 balls, and they've got 1 batsman left on strike, and a numpty at the other end, and they hit it towards the boundary for what would be a comfortable 2, the fielder can simply stop it, and throw it off the field, giving them 5 runs and taking the batsman off strike.

 

[Bold Seagull]

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.

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.

They knew at the start of the super over they didn't have the tie. If you know that, then you play to it. There was no surprise, no count back after the event, they knew they had to get England's score +1.

When 2 sides are that close after 102 overs, you're getting down to fine details how you separate them. You could do wickets, but would England have risked the run outs, doubtful, so what if they were both 8 down, what then?

Pakistan didn't qualify on net run rate, and yet beat NZ and finished level on points with them - how is that fair? Pakistan's no result came against Sri Lanka who they probably expected to beat, whereas NZ's came against India, arguably one of the strongest sides at the tournament. Lots of rules, regulations and such in this tournament that might not seem entirely fair.

 

[Triggaaar]

I believe (but willing to be corrected) that this is the first time the Super Over rule has been used in an ODI World Cup. It's been around for years in Twenty-20, but is only a recent addition to ODI.

Yes, so it's a rule Willow hasn't complained about before. It doesn't matter whether it's Twenty-20, 40 overs, 50 overs, ODI, it's the same principle.

I'm also reasonably certain that the rule only applied for the final (and possibly semi-finals).

Obviously it would only apply for knockout games.

 

[Triggaaar]

They knew at the start of the super over they didn't have the tie. If you know that, then you play to it. There was no surprise, no count back after the event, they knew they had to get England's score +1.

When 2 sides are that close after 102 overs, you're getting down to fine details how you separate them. You could do wickets, but would England have risked the run outs, doubtful, so what if they were both 8 down, what then?

Pakistan didn't qualify on net run rate, and yet beat NZ and finished level on points with them - how is that fair? Pakistan's no result came against Sri Lanka who they probably expected to beat, whereas NZ's came against India, arguably one of the strongest sides at the tournament. Lots of rules, regulations and such in this tournament that might not seem entirely fair.

The one thing that really isn't fair is when a team is knocked out because their game was called off due to bad weather.

They obviously had ridiculously bad luck with the ball hitting Stokes's bat. But I don't agree that it's not fair how it was decided. That's the rule, and it applies equally to all teams.

 

[Audax]

The first throw becomes an overthrow, so they go for extra runs. It seems to have been decided that that overthrow is not the one that the rules state you go back to when counting runs, but that it's the timing of the second overthrow that counts. But if we're to interpret the rules in the way we're being asked to here, it would make sense that you go back to when the first overthrow happens.

It does defy common sense to argue that after the batsman legitimately completed two runs, getting Stokes back on strike, that Stokes is then forced back off strike.

No, it does make sense. The rule only applies if the ball goes to the boundary. And at that point, it only applies to the most recent throw or willful act. It doesn't matter what happened before then. The rule is actually very clear, and Taufel would only have spoken out about it as clearly as he has if that's the accepted interpretation amongst umpires. Especially given he's currently involved in helping work on the next set of rules amendments. He knows his stuff.

Otherwise, if a team needs 8 from the last 2 balls, and they've got 1 batsman left on strike, and a numpty at the other end, and they hit it towards the boundary for what would be a comfortable 2, the fielder can simply stop it, and throw it off the field, giving them 5 runs and taking the batsman off strike.

Your scenario here is covered under a separate law; either law 41 or 42. Both of those laws cover "unfair play" and give the umpires discretion. At a minimum, the umpires would call dead ball and the delivery would need to be re-bowled. So it would still be 8 from 2 balls, and the striker would then have a re-do at hitting a boundary or an easy 2 (to leave 6 off the final delivery).

If, in their opinion, it is a serious enough offence the umpires may also award 5 penalty runs on top. So the batting team would then be left needing 3 from 2 balls.

(Note that if the fielding side were to do the same thing twice, the second time around would be an automatic 5 penalty runs).

So no ... no side would ever attempt that.

 

[Mellotron]

Or do the right thing and play a second super over with different bowlers. Job done. None of this countback rubbish, and a clear and obvious winner.

There was a clear and obvious winner. England. It was in the rules before the start of the game.

 

[Willow]

It goes without saying that the method for determining a world cup final should be the same as other knockout games. The rule has been used before, but it's only now you complain, so it does come across as sour grapes.

Only now I complain? It's never happened in an ODI before, right?! I'm not a great follower of Twenty20 cricket if that is what you are referring to. This competition has been my first exposure to the boundary count rule, and I am sure many other cricket fans are the same.

Actively winning it in this case was England preventing New Zealand from scoring more runs in the super-over. That's the rule.

Actively winning it by matching the same as what the other team has done? Hmm okay. You don't see a problem with that rule?

Er, we did start even, and England scored more boundaries in the match. Did you think it was boundaries in previous games or something?

No I did not. I was referring to the suggestion that we decide the outcome of the final by what happen previously in the group matches.

Anyway, I think I have shot my Boult on this one, the arguments are endless

 

[Audax]

Yes, so it's a rule Willow hasn't complained about before. It doesn't matter whether it's Twenty-20, 40 overs, 50 overs, ODI, it's the same principle.

FWIW, I'm not defending Willow here (I've actually not read any of their posts in here). I was only pointing out that it is a new addition to ODIs, and for more casual observers of the game it may have taken them by surprise.

My personal opinion is that the Super Over is a great way of resolving a tie, and given the rule was clearly stipulated for this competition I don't think NZ have any complaints over the Super Over itself. Whether or not it should have gone to a Super Over in the first place is another question entirely, and one that we'll never know the answer to.

I do think that the on field umpires made one glaring mistake in this instance, and it's not one related to the rules themselves. They should have referred it to the TV Umpire to provide clarity on whether the batsmen had crossed or not. (Although I'm unsure if the TV Umpire rules allow them to ... and if they don't, they should - as this *might* have influenced the result of a high profile match). Maybe NZ should have appealed for obstruction, as that might have triggered the TV Umpire to take a look (who may then have been able to provide clarity on the number of completed runs scored).

 

[mikeyjh]

No, it does make sense. The rule only applies if the ball goes to the boundary. And at that point, it only applies to the most recent throw or willful act. It doesn't matter what happened before then. The rule is actually very clear, and Taufel would only have spoken out about it as clearly as he has if that's the accepted interpretation amongst umpires. Especially given he's currently involved in helping work on the next set of rules amendments. He knows his stuff.

Firstly, the only thing that's 'clear' is that the rule isn't 'clear'. Otherwise everyone would just agree with you which, obviously, they don't. Secondly, I'm not sure I'm not sure you have you've reached the conclusion that there is an 'accepted interpretation' given that the response from everyone who watched it is "I've never seen that happen before". That's why they umpires had to reach an interpretation that some don't agree with, they had no precedent upon which to base it.

 

[Triggaaar]

Only now I complain? It's never happened in an ODI before, right?! I'm not a great follower of Twenty20 cricket if that is what you are referring to. This competition has been my first exposure to the boundary count rule, and I am sure many other cricket fans are the same.

Ok, so you haven't seen it happen before. Well now you know there have been super-overs before (doesn't matter which format, it's the same deal), and that's the rule. All the teams around the world have accepted it as a fair way to decide the outcome if teams can't be split after a full game and then a super-over.

Actively winning it by matching the same as what the other team has done? Hmm okay. You don't see a problem with that rule?

No, because on the day, we didn't match what New Zealand did, we scored more boundaries.

No I did not. I was referring to the suggestion that we decide the outcome of the final by what happen previously in the group matches.

Oh yes, my mistake. I see you were replying to someone else.

Anyway, I think I have shot my Boult on this one, the arguments are endless

It's ok. You think it's an unfair way to decide who wins. You're still allowed to think that, I just hope you accept that everyone (in each team) knew that's how it would be done before the start of the match, and it didn't favour one side over the other.

 

[Triggaaar]

I do think that the on field umpires made one glaring mistake in this instance, and it's not one related to the rules themselves. They should have referred it to the TV Umpire to provide clarity on whether the batsmen had crossed or not.

But that's assuming that it matters whether or not they've crossed, and that's not something we agree on.

 

[Audax]

Firstly, the only thing that's 'clear' is that the rule isn't 'clear'. Otherwise everyone would just agree with you which, obviously, they don't. Secondly, I'm not sure I'm not sure you have you've reached the conclusion that there is an 'accepted interpretation' given that the response from everyone who watched it is "I've never seen that happen before". That's why they umpires had to reach an interpretation that some don't agree with, they had no precedent upon which to base it.

Within this thread, I've only seen alternative interpretations happening because of fundamental misunderstandings about how the rule is written, or attempting to make the rule cover a wider range of actions than it is intended to. It is actually very easy to break down into its component parts, and once done so it is very clear in its intent.

1: The rule only applies if the ball goes to the boundary.
2: It only applies to the most recent "throw" OR "willful act" by a fielder.
3: The rule is not intended to cover deliberate "unfair play" (that is covered by rules 41 and 42).
4: The total runs scored are the boundary itself (4), plus any complete runs before then (complete being defined clearly in the rules as the batsmen having crossed before point 2 above).
5. Batsmen return to the ends they would be at for the completed runs (covered under a separate rule).

Now, I've not read the entire thread, but so far of what I have read the only contrary interpretations to mine / Taufel's that I've seen so far have failed at least one of those elements:

- It was suggested that relay throws open up a minefield. This fails the second point above.
- It was suggested that the ball striking Stokes' bat was the act that should matter. It doesn't, because a) it wasn't "willful", and b) Stokes' bat isn't a field.
- It was suggested that they weren't "overthrows" because the throw was "clean" until it hit the bat. That's incorrect.
- The example of batsmen being able to score 8 runs from a single delivery thanks to this rule was brought up. My example of how it could happen was objected to due to a failure to understand that the rule does not apply to *all* overthrows, but only to those that result from the ball crossing the boundary. Any runs scored prior to the ball crossing the boundary (whether "normal" or "overthrows") count in addition to the boundary itself.

As for Taufel - we'll see. But I very much doubt that his interpretation will be contradicted by anyone involved in the laws of cricket. The rule is very, very clear in the way it is written. The main misunderstandings in this thread are drawn out of misunderstandings of *when* to apply the rule and *what* constitutes a "willful act".

 

[Triggaaar]

No, it does make sense. The rule only applies if the ball goes to the boundary. And at that point, it only applies to the most recent throw or willful act.

It doesn't actually say that. It says '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', but it doesn't clarify whether it means the act that caused the ball to go to the boundary, or whether the act can only mean a wilful act.

The rule is actually very clear

It clearly isn't.

Taufel would only have spoken out about it as clearly as he has if that's the accepted interpretation amongst umpires.

If that is the accepted interpretation amongst umpires, then fair enough. If that is the case, can you provide examples of where this has been ruled on before?

Your scenario here is covered under a separate law; either law 41 or 42. Both of those laws cover "unfair play" and give the umpires discretion. At a minimum, the umpires would call dead ball and the delivery would need to be re-bowled. So it would still be 8 from 2 balls, and the striker would then have a re-do at hitting a boundary or an easy 2 (to leave 6 off the final delivery).

So you're saying the fielding side would need to be a bit more subtle about it.

 

[Audax]

But that's assuming that it matters whether or not they've crossed, and that's not something we agree on.

The rule clearly states it does matter. For a run to count, the batsmen *must* have crossed at the point the throw (or willful act) occurred. And, further, the batsmen should return to the end they should be at for completed runs.

In this instance, the batsmen had not crossed when the throw was released by the fielder. Therefore, only 5 runs should have been awarded: 4 for the boundary, and 1 for the completed run. Stokes should have returned to the non-strikers end, and Rashid should have faced the next delivery.