General Cricket World Cup 2019

Ever Hopeful

Ever Hopeful

Contributor
If Stokes had hit that ball for six, rather than a deflection hats off to them, great game, but fuck me that is hollow
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rizzah
matiunz

matiunz

This year yet?
Contributor
If Stokes had hit that ball for six, rather than a deflection hats off to them, great game, but fuck me that is hollow

Yeah it’s a shit way to lose but it’s a complete freak play sadly, could also say if we didn’t leave the last ball of the innings we could have won, if Boult had been more mindful of the rope-plenty of “what if’s” but history will say we lost by being about a meter short of a second run on the last ball
 
Sup42

Sup42

Contributor
Looking forward to following these boys

Could build something special from here, just need to find some batsmen
 
matiunz

matiunz

This year yet?
Contributor
Looking forward to following these boys

Could build something special from here, just need to find some batsmen

Really proud of the never give up attitude, we set a modest target and never gave up, England got off to a flier and we hung in there and clawed it back. Even England’s super over looked to tough but we gave it a real crack- so proud of the boys but also devastated for them
 
Wellington Warrior

Wellington Warrior

Most boundaries is a really shitty way to determine a winner of a World Cup......

Surely if both sides are tied after a super over then the title should be shared.... or use wickets as a more meaningful tiebreak (which is what it used to be).
 
eudebrito

eudebrito

|-|
Contributor
have a weird relationship to the cricket team, support them and want them to do well, but its real bandwagon stuff, the endless 5 odi tours with nothing on the line other than world ranking points and filling in broadcasting hours for india just suck the life out of something used to be pretty passionate about as a kid. also T20 is a curse.

Amazing game, the boundaries rule is stupid, but Gup and Neesh knew all along what they needed, not like it was sprung on them. Umpires were being very clear, broadcaster was not doing a good job of WHY was 15 not enough to play on?

When you have no idea what players should bat for you (srsly my suggestion was Williamson and CDG?) and you choose one of them for his running between wickets – that’s a worry. Did well to get it to the last ball.

Conditions are so huge in the game these days, had it been dead flat ENG would’ve clobbered us out of it, so kudos to the hosts for a variable surface. So many fine margins, fielding has come so far, the run outs were clutch.

Boult overbalancing was the game then and there, yeah stokes got extremely lucky with the deflection but he would’ve been on strike with 7 off of 2 required still doable. Make that catch, it was over, just had a bad feeling from that point on.

Full credit to the boys for not moaning and holding their heads up, its easy to be praised for your sportsmanship when your winning, bit harder when all these little things start going against you.

Tired AF at work, no regrets trying to watch the whole thing instead of just getting up at 5 for the end.
 
Beastmode

Beastmode

Just another day in paradise
Contributor
Well done to the black caps!!

Still annoyed I dozed off and missed one of the greatest games of cricket ever ?!!!
 
BiggerD

BiggerD

Well done Black Caps..
What a game.. stayed up through till the end
The "Bat of God" according to Ben Stokes , for those 4 over throws of his bat which swung the game in England's favour

BTW here is a picture of a young Ben Stokes supporting the Warriors.
I can see where he gets his inspiration to fight on now. ;)


41289
 
  • Wow
Reactions: shuffle
bruce

bruce

Contributor
I think we have a scandal developing of under arm proportions.

The ICC have been asked to explain why the umpires gave 6 for the overthrow involving Stokes. The rules appear quite clear that he should only have been awarded 5 runs. If that had been the case, no draw, we won fair and square.

It goes something like this, when an overthrow occurs the only runs counting extra for a boundary are those COMPLETED before the fielder throws the ball. Guptill was the fielder and clearly the second run was not completed before he threw the ball. So they England were due 1 run, plus the boundary i.er. 5 runs.

Sounds strange?

Not really, if a batsmen hits the boundary with a shot he gets 4 or 6, no extra runs for those he ran while the ball was on the way to the boundary.

It is just the same for an overthrow. Once an overthrow is made and if it reaches the boundary. it is only added to the runs completed before the overthrow.

I thought it quite confusing at first, but in hindsight it is not and those umpires must have known this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beastmode
bruce

bruce

Contributor
The gods were not kind to us yesterday.

It just wasn’t meant to be...that’s all I know.. no point crying over spilt milk.... England didn’t cheat like em’ Aussies with the under arm..
Just to clarify...those who watched the whole of the underarm game were less concerned about the actual final delivery than the much earlier brilliant catch in the outfield by Martin Snedden. Richie Benaud described it as one of the bets he had ever seen. The batsmen was Greg Chappell. He refused to walk, for some reason so the umpires game him not out. The reason was because neither of them saw the catch, they were watching to make sure the batsmen grounded their bats while running!!! :rolleyes: Talk about a rort. The ACB did not want NZ to win that day, end of story.

I don't believe the umpires didn't know the rule about over throws, it seems so basic. However England would have erupted if the Kiwis had won that game.
 
Hardyman's Yugo

Hardyman's Yugo

I think we have a scandal developing of under arm proportions.

The ICC have been asked to explain why the umpires gave 6 for the overthrow involving Stokes. The rules appear quite clear that he should only have been awarded 5 runs. If that had been the case, no draw, we won fair and square.

It goes something like this, when an overthrow occurs the only runs counting extra for a boundary are those COMPLETED before the fielder throws the ball. Guptill was the fielder and clearly the second run was not completed before he threw the ball. So they England were due 1 run, plus the boundary i.er. 5 runs.

Sounds strange?

Not really, if a batsmen hits the boundary with a shot he gets 4 or 6, no extra runs for those he ran while the ball was on the way to the boundary.

It is just the same for an overthrow. Once an overthrow is made and if it reaches the boundary. it is only added to the runs completed before the overthrow.

I thought it quite confusing at first, but in hindsight it is not and those umpires must have known this.
Just a bit of luck bruce that’s all, all winning teams tend to get one and that was ours. The batsmen observed the etiquette of not running after the deflection, unfortunate for you it went for a 4.

I don’t know what the ruling is nor whether Stokes had made his ground, doesn’t matter now though
 
Rizzah

Rizzah

Stop Being Shit
Contributor
Still heartbroken for those guys, especially after the clarification of the actual rules around the '6' runs.
We really missed those half chances during the 50 overs.

A super over is a terrible way to decide a finals match.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tajhay and Sledge
bruce

bruce

Contributor
Still heartbroken for those guys, especially after the clarification of the actual rules around the '6' runs.
We really missed those half chances during the 50 overs.

A super over is a terrible way to decide a finals match.
It is crap from 20 overs. In the old days it was loss of wickets.
The batsmen observed the etiquette of not running after the deflection, unfortunate for you it went for a 4.
It isn't etiquette, it is in the rules. Black and white.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
I don’t know what the ruling is nor whether Stokes had made his ground, doesn’t matter now though
'We're not perfect': Taufel admits World Cup umps got it wrong
Former leading umpire Simon Taufel has confirmed that England should only have been awarded five runs – not six – off the third-last ball of their innings in the World Cup final, but stressed it would be unfair to suggest the umpiring error cost New Zealand the trophy in one of the most remarkable cricket matches ever played.
England claimed their first World Cup title in thrilling circumstances at Lord's, ending 44 years of misery in the prestigious one-day tournament and sending a nation into raptures. Their match against the Black Caps was tied after both sides had batted 50 overs, and then again after a super over. The hosts ultimately prevailed on a count of boundaries scored, which is the tiebreaker used to split teams in the event of a tied super over.
Chasing 242 for victory, England needed nine from the final three balls of their regulation 50-overs. All-rounder Ben Stokes struck the ball into the deep off the third-last ball, and scampered back for a second run.
But a throw from New Zealand's Martin Guptill ricocheted off Stokes' bat as the batsman dived home, running away for four overthrows. England were awarded six runs.
However, according to Law 19.8, pertaining to an "overthrow or wilful act of fielder", Stokes should only have been credited for five runs.
"If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side, and the allowance for the boundary, and 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," the law says.
Replays showed that Stokes and non-striker Adil Rashid hadn't crossed at the time of the throw.
Retired Australian umpire Taufel, named International Cricket Council umpire of the year every year from 2004 to 2008, stood in the 2011 World Cup final, and is a member of the MCC Laws subcommittee. He was also the ICC's manager of umpire performance and training as recently as 2015.
Taufel defended officiating umpires Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus, who were in the middle for the chaotic finish, but confirmed they had made a mistake.

"There was a judgment error on the overthrow," Taufel told The Age and Sydney Morning Herald.
"The judgment error was the timing of when the fielder threw the ball. The act of the overthrow starts when the fielder releases the ball. That's the act.
"It becomes an overthrow from the instant of the throw."
Taufel explained that the umpires had a raft of things to consider every ball.



"In this particular case, the umpires have got a lot on their plate, because like every ball, they've had to watch the batsmen complete the first run, they've had to watch the ball being fielded, to understand how it's in play, whether the fielder's done the right thing. Then they've got to look to see when the ball is released, in case there is an overthrow. And that happens every delivery of the game. And then they've got to back to see where the two batsmen are.
"They've then got to follow on and see what happens after that, whether there is a run out, whether there's an 'obstructing the field', whether the ball is taken fairly. There's multitudes of decisions to be taken off the one delivery. What's unfortunate is that people think that umpiring is just about outs and not outs. They forget we make 1000s of decisions every match.
"So it's unfortunate that there was a judgment error on the timing of the release of the ball and where the batsmen were. They did not cross on their second run, at the instant of the throw. So given that scenario, five runs should have been the correct allocation of runs, and Ben Stokes should have been at the non-striker's end for the next delivery.
"We're not perfect. You've got the best two umpires in the elite panel doing the final. They're doing their best like the other two teams are. This is just part of the game.
"I think it's unfair to say that the World Cup was decided by that one event. There's a lot of 'what ifs' and 'what should bes' and 'what could bes' that happen off those 600-plus deliveries. That's the nature of sport.”



The ICC has been contacted for comment.
New Zealand captain Kane Williamson was gracious when he was asked about the overthrow incident after the Black Caps' heartbreaking defeat, describing it as an "uncontrollable" part of the game.
"The rule has been there for a long time," Williamson said. "I don't think anything like that's happened (before) where you now question it.
"There were so many other bits and pieces to that game that were so important."
Stokes, for his part, immediately raised his hands to apologise for the incident, with the England allrounder clearly having no intention to deflect the ball.
"I wasn't celebrating," England captain Eoin Morgan said. "It is not something you celebrate or cheer."
Morgan said the victory meant the world to England.
"There wasn't a lot in that game. I'd like to commiserate with Kane (Williamson). The fight, the spirit they showed. I thought it was a hard, hard game. This has been a four-year journey. We've developed a lot over those years, particularly the last two. To get over the line today means the world to us," he said.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
IMO this is just as bad as the Under Arm incident. Blame the umpires in the field, but what about the third umpire? WTF was he doing? We woz robbed. Also I have to say how impressed I was with the Kiwis after the game.They were livid, polite but livid. None of this smiles and cuddles we see from our Warriors. Just saying like.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tajhay
tajhay

tajhay

🏉
It was nothing like the under arm. Claiming so is disrespecting the spirit the game was played in by both teams. Well done to England. We had our chances to win. They just edged us on the night, and had a few strokes of luck to help them. Cant be sour grapes about that. We need to get the chip off the shoulder if we keep considering that the world is against us.
 
Rizzah

Rizzah

Stop Being Shit
Contributor
Ol Bruce loves an outrage.
The game wasn't lost by that decision; they still had balls to spare so could have made up the shortfall.
We missed out on quite a few chances in regular time - that's where it was lost.
Boult's catch that went for six was a critical one.
 
Hardyman's Yugo

Hardyman's Yugo

It is crap from 20 overs. In the old days it was loss of wickets.

It isn't etiquette, it is in the rules. Black and white.
Don’t know about that.

However, have done a bit of train spotting this morning and find the 4 is added to completed runs, and run in progress assuming the players have crossed when the ball is thrown. 6 was therefore correct

41291
 
  • Love
Reactions: bruce

Similar threads

Defence
Replies
62
Views
2K
Hardyman's Yugo
Hardyman's Yugo
Hardyman's Yugo
Replies
1
Views
442
matiunz
matiunz
Beastmode
Replies
305
Views
13K
Miket12
Miket12
Sup42
Replies
51
Views
3K
john nick
john nick
tajhay
Replies
5
Views
918
Trugoy
Trugoy