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

[GT49er]

Yes. Batsmen hit the ball and start running for 1 run (which they're never going to get with a direct hit). Fielding team sees the chance of a run-out and launch the ball at the stumps. The throw is taken before the batsmen have crossed. It misses, whizzing past the stumps, the batsmen finish their run, then go for a second, and then a third. While they're running the third, the ball (which is being chased) beats the fielder and hits the boundary rope. The batsmen get 4 runs for the boundary, 2 runs for runs completed, and they don't get the 3rd run as it was still in progress, and obviously it had been thrown before they started the run, let along crossed.

Has anyone got some youtube clips of an example like mine here, where the umpires have said 'oh no, you only get the 4 for the boundary, and zero for the running'?

Edit: No - not sure about my answer ...... I'll but out!

 

[drew]

The only thing I'm really confident about is how the rule should be interpreted from an English language point of view.

I don't know how umpires usually interpret the rule. We do know that Taufel thinks it should be 1 run, and that the umpires on the field (let's not pretend they've never witnessed an overthrow before) thought it should be 2. We also know that no commentator (including many ex-captains) thought it was wrong at the time.

I think you mean 7.

Surely some fans can find plenty of examples to show how many runs umpires give?

Why 7?

 

[LlcoolJ]

Don't tell 'em your name Pike!

*leans on edge of bar*

 

[Triggaaar]

Why 7?

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?

 

[dazzer6666]

I’m with Trig. The second run was complete (almost) when the ball his the bat. If the ball had dribbled off into a space 30 yards away they could have taken a third (sporting considerations aside). The timing of the throw is of no consequence - the ‘act’ could even be interpreted as the ball hitting Ben’s bat, not the throw depending on how you read the clause.

 

[mikeyjh]

The assumption appears to be that the umpires on the field didn't know the rule properly and made a mistake, not that they knew the rule and interrupted it the same as you have and applied it consistently as they have in other matches. No one else seems to have made a proper statement on it other than an Aussie, and they can hardly be trusted now can they!

The ICC have said the leave INTERPRETATION of the laws to the umpires on the field and comment no further. So the only thing that we can glean from Taufel's comments is that he would interpret them differently not that they were wrong.

 

[colinz]

I’m with Trig. The second run was complete (almost) when the ball his the bat. If the ball had dribbled off into a space 30 yards away they could have taken a third (sporting considerations aside). The timing of the throw is of no consequence - the ‘act’ could even be interpreted as the ball hitting Ben’s bat, not the throw depending on how you read the clause.

I think you have to define the meaning of 'act' https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/act

To me the 'act' would be throwing the ball. The ball hitting the bat wouldn't have been a premeditated intention, and no different to hitting the ground, obviously by hitting a piece of wood the ball would travel further causing the boundary or 4 over throws.

I've watched games before when the team's overall score can be changed after the completion of the innings.. If during the innings a 4 has been scored but 2 runs added if the match referee believes it was a 6 and vice versa. In this case 5 should have been awarded and not 6.

Leading Australian bookmaker Sportsbet has refunded those who put money on the Black Caps to win the Cricket World Cup final against England, describing the fashion in which the match was decided as an "absolute disgrace".

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12249679

Edit : go to 4min 20 sec of the video in the link. Check out Gupi's missus nice bit of eye candy.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I think you have to define the meaning of 'act' https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/act

To me the 'act' would be throwing the ball. The ball hitting the bat wouldn't have been a premeditated intention, and no different to hitting the ground, obviously by hitting a piece of wood the ball would travel further causing the boundary or 4 over throws.

I've watched games before when the team's overall score can be changed after the completion of the innings.. If during the innings a 4 has been scored but 2 runs added if the match referee believes it was a 6 and vice versa. In this case 5 should have been awarded and not 6.




https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12249679

Edit : go to 4min 20 sec of the video in the link. Check out Gupi's missus nice bit of eye candy.

"Australian bookie in having a go at England non shocker!"

It's the sort of thing that Paddy Power would do here and which a tabloid would then regurgitate as "news". A publicity stunt, and you've fallen for it in a failed, straw clutching attempt to prove your point.

I've stayed out of this debate for the most part because it's complete nonsense and conjecture but really colinz, you really need to stop digging and let it lie..... [emoji23]

It's cricket. There are always a million ifs and buts. As this thread has proved, you can go back to loads of decisions where a run out two might have been given either way. It turned out that one run to either team would have changed the result but that's just chance.

I bet one could pick apart any match and find an incident where one run should probably have been given/not given to one or both sides. E.g. I was getting pissed off by the strictness of the umpires re wides against us, as I said.

Maybe all those decisions should be looked at again and let's change the score accordingly?

No, because that would be completely stupid.

Give up mate, you are just making a fool of yourself.

EDIT - And that link actually has nothing to do with your point as the bookie is just saying that they thought the boundary countback rule wasn't fair (as a publicity stunt).

 

[dazzer6666]

I think you have to define the meaning of 'act' https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/act

To me the 'act' would be throwing the ball. The ball hitting the bat wouldn't have been a premeditated intention, and no different to hitting the ground, obviously by hitting a piece of wood the ball would travel further causing the boundary or 4 over throws.

I've watched games before when the team's overall score can be changed after the completion of the innings.. If during the innings a 4 has been scored but 2 runs added if the match referee believes it was a 6 and vice versa. In this case 5 should have been awarded and not 6.


https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12249679

Yep....could easily be interpreted that way too. Instinctively awarding 6 looked correct though - 2 had just about been completed when the ball hit the bat, then it went for 4. A similar thing happened at junior’s league game a couple of weeks ago as it happens - push into the outfield, went for the second run and ended up going to the boundary. Umpires awarded 6 runs then too (but obviously didn’t hit the batsmen/bat).

Can’t see the links but didn’t think the score could be changed (on the first innings) if the second innings had started ?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

*Sour faced Aussie trying to take the gloss off England's win before the ashes starts* shocker.

Would expect nothing less.

 

[colinz]

It's cricket. There are always a million ifs and buts. As this thread has proved, you can go back to loads of decisions where a run out two might have been given either way.

I've just returned to this debate, and was surprised at the number of people who feel that a 5 should have been awarded and not 6. It's not about poor umpiring decisions it's about umpires not understanding the rules.
The umpires could just say sorry when the ball was thrown we thought the batsmen had crossed.
Now that more & more people are understanding that awarding 6 was incorrect, it'll be interesting to see if the ICC or who ever issue a statement, or just remain silent..

 

[ManOfSussex]

The assumption appears to be that the umpires on the field didn't know the rule properly and made a mistake, not that they knew the rule and interrupted it the same as you have and applied it consistently as they have in other matches. No one else seems to have made a proper statement on it other than an Aussie, and they can hardly be trusted now can they!

I read in the 16 page section on the cricket world cup in The Times today that The ICC have declined to comment on this but The MCC, of which Taufel is obviously on the laws committee of, have been approached for comment. I feel the conjecture on here could do with a statement from them on it.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I've just returned to this debate, and was surprised at the number of people who feel that a 5 should have been awarded and not 6. It's not about poor umpiring decisions it's about umpires not understanding the rules.
The umpires could just say sorry when the ball was thrown we thought the batsmen had crossed.
Now that more & more people are understanding that awarding 6 was incorrect, it'll be interesting to see if the ICC or who ever issue a statement, or just remain silent..

FFS.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think you have to define the meaning of 'act' https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/act

To me the 'act' would be throwing the ball.

Although I maintain that it's not crystal clear what the 'act' means, I accept there's a good chance they meant for it to only mean a wilful act. It doesn't matter though, as the other point I've discussed is clearer, and means that 6 runs was correct anyway.

I've watched games before when the team's overall score can be changed after the completion of the innings.. If during the innings a 4 has been scored but 2 runs added if the match referee believes it was a 6 and vice versa.

Have you ever seen that done for the chasing side, where they've won by 1 run, and then they've recalculated and said they lost by 1 run? That would be completely unacceptable, given that they'd timed their runs according to what the umpires (and therefore scoreboard) told them they needed.

 

[Triggaaar]

Now that more & more people are understanding that awarding 6 was incorrect

 

[colinz]

Although I maintain that it's not crystal clear what the 'act' means, I accept there's a good chance they meant for it to only mean a wilful act. It doesn't matter though, as the other point I've discussed is clearer, and means that 6 runs was correct anyway.

6 runs was not correct because the batsman had not crossed at the time of the act (throw).

Have you ever seen that done for the chasing side, where they've won by 1 run, and then they've recalculated and said they lost by 1 run? That would be completely unacceptable, given that they'd timed their runs according to what the umpires (and therefore scoreboard) told them they needed.

No I've never seen a chasing side have their score reduced when they've won by a run. Were talking about a 0ne in 10,000 chance of these things happening.
I think what happened on Sunday will never happen again in our lifetime.

 

[Willow]

Give up mate, you are just making a fool of yourself.

That's unfair, it's perfectly reasonable to chew over the bones of the game like this. This thread is naturally partizan and not representative of the cricket community as a whole!

England rode their luck big time on Sunday and a lot of key decisions went their way. To me, the celebrations were muted. They know they got away with one there.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

6 runs was not correct because the batsman had not crossed at the time of the act (throw).



No I've never seen a chasing side have their score reduced when they've won by a run. Were talking about a 0ne in 10,000 chance of these things happening.
I think what happened on Sunday will never happen again in our lifetime.

So shut up about it then

 

[Triggaaar]

6 runs was not correct because the batsman had not crossed at the time of the act (throw).

No, 6 runs was correct, because they didn't need to have crossed at the time of the throw:

any runs for penalties awarded to either side = 0
and the allowance for the boundary = 4
and the runs completed by the batsmen, = 2
together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act = 0
Total = 6

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

The King of Spain had it right on the beeb this morning..

“Whether it was 5 runs or 6 is debatable, what isn’t is that we have the World Cup, and we’re not giving it back”

Here endeth the lesson.