General Cricket World Cup 2019

matiunz

matiunz

This year yet?
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.

Yeah the decision was potentially wrong but it’s hard to say what would have happened had only 5 runs been awarded.
For instance stokes may have pushed for a four rather than trying for 2s maybe winning it outright.
Was a freak occurrence but I personally thought it should have only been 4 runs, as it was pointed out to me- if a batsman hits a 4 the runs he got before it crossed the boundary aren’t counted so why should they in this instance?
 
Hardyman's Yugo

Hardyman's Yugo

'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.
And apologies because I should have read you post first:banghead: before commenting. OK if the batsmen hadn’t crossed we owe you one. Karma for that time Andy Haden ‘fell’ out of the line out in 1978
 
bruce

bruce

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.
Bullshit. You obviously weren't watching. They had no chance until that over
[/QUOTE]
For instance stokes may have pushed for a four rather than trying for 2s maybe winning it outright.Bullshit. You weren't watching either and you don't know the rules.
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.
You didn't read my post so get your facts right.

The real injustice of the underarm was not the final "under arm"ball but the ignoring a fair catch about an hour beforehand.

In this case the umpires must have known the rule on overthrows, it is so clear. They, or the third umpire should have sought clarification of the timing of the throw, which was obvious anyway because the ball reached Stokes as he completed his run, so must have started before. Finally the score keeper should have asked the umpire.

At best it was incompetence, at worst, which I suspect, England just had to win that game. Rant over.
 
wallacenz

wallacenz

Its taken me a few days to get over the result but there is no shame in that performance from anyone at all. Mistakes were made by all involved but they produced one of the greatest games ever.

You could argue that NZ deserved that trophy just as much as England and I dont think anyone would have a reasonable argument to deny that. In the end the game was a complete draw.

If the Warriors produced a grand final performance like that and it ended in a draw I'd be proud.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
Mistakes were made by all involved but they produced one of the greatest games ever.
It was a great game.

No shame on NZ at all. If I were English I would have that hollow feeling, maybe a little similar to that owed to the French after the 2011 RWC final ;) .

If I were any of the umpires I would hang my head in absolute shame.
 
Hardyman's Yugo

Hardyman's Yugo

It was a great game.

No shame on NZ at all. If I were English I would have that hollow feeling, maybe a little similar to that owed to the French after the 2011 RWC final ;) .

If I were any of the umpires I would hang my head in absolute shame.
England had a couple of balls still to face, if they had needed 4 instead of 3 then they would have approached it differently to the push and run tactic. They could quite easily have knocked a 4

Speaking of balls, if my auntie had been born with them she’d be my uncle. Stuff happens, you can’t always break a game down to one incident
 
Hardyman's Yugo

Hardyman's Yugo

Don't worry Hardyman's Yugo most kiwis are gracious in defeat. Congratulations once again.
Cheers, noted and wholeheartedly agree about Kiwis

I can assure you I would not be taking the polite sporting approach if it was your Antipodean neighbours. I’d be pissing myself laughing:D:D:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: matiunz and tajhay
matiunz

matiunz

This year yet?
Contributor
For instance stokes may have pushed for a four rather than trying for 2s maybe winning it outright.Bullshit. You weren't watching either and you don't know the rules.

Woah calm down old fella, I was up watching it live with some fine gentlemen here if you bothered to read the posts (noticed you weren’t here btw).
Not sure what you mean by not knowing the rules? Needing 3runs from 3 balls you’d be silly to risk a boundary vs trying to sneak singles, needing 6 or so for 3 balls your forced to risk going for a boundary.
Yes it was a rough call but it’s impossible to assume that things would have gone exactly the same had the call gone the other way.
Yes it’s tough to swallow but it’s cringey to see some being completely graceless losers can’t help but wonder if roles had been reversed and we had won if you’d have a problem with the rules?
 
matiunz

matiunz

This year yet?
Contributor
Bullshit. You obviously weren't watching. They had no chance until that over
You didn't read my post so get your facts right.

The real injustice of the underarm was not the final "under arm"ball but the ignoring a fair catch about an hour beforehand.

In this case the umpires must have known the rule on overthrows, it is so clear. They, or the third umpire should have sought clarification of the timing of the throw, which was obvious anyway because the ball reached Stokes as he completed his run, so must have started before. Finally the score keeper should have asked the umpire.

At best it was incompetence, at worst, which I suspect, England just had to win that game. Rant over.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah it was the wrong run count awarded, but if you watched the game like you have accused many here of not doing you’d know the third umpire did check the incident, but the focus was on whether Stokes intentionally interferes with the ball (making him out) or if it was accidental(then the overthrows counted) it was ruled accidental (which I believe to be 100% correct) they completely missed the timing of the throw.
 
Hardyman's Yugo

Hardyman's Yugo

World Cup team of the tournament
1. Jason Roy (England) - 443 runs at average of 63.28
2. Rohit Sharma (India) - 648 runs at 81.00
3. Kane Williamson, capt (New Zealand) - 578 runs at 82.57
4. Joe Root (England) - 556 runs at 61.77
5. Shakib Al Hasan (Bangladesh) - 606 runs at 86.57, 11 wickets at average of 36.27
6. Ben Stokes (England) - 465 runs at 66.42, seven wickets at 35.14
7. Alex Carey (wk) (Australia) - 375 runs at 62.50, 20 dismissals
8. Mitchell Starc (Australia) - 27 wickets at 18.59
9. Jofra Archer (England) - 20 wickets at 23.05
10. Lockie Ferguson (New Zealand) - 21 wickets at 19.47
11. Jasprit Bumrah (India) - 18 wickets at 20.61

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48987405
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
You didn't read my post so get your facts right.

The real injustice of the underarm was not the final "under arm"ball but the ignoring a fair catch about an hour beforehand.

In this case the umpires must have known the rule on overthrows, it is so clear. They, or the third umpire should have sought clarification of the timing of the throw, which was obvious anyway because the ball reached Stokes as he completed his run, so must have started before. Finally the score keeper should have asked the umpire.

At best it was incompetence, at worst, which I suspect, England just had to win that game. Rant over.

Yeah it was the wrong run count awarded, but if you watched the game like you have accused many here of not doing you’d know the third umpire did check the incident, but the focus was on whether Stokes intentionally interferes with the ball (making him out) or if it was accidental(then the overthrows counted) it was ruled accidental (which I believe to be 100% correct) they completely missed the timing of the throw.
[/QUOTE]
Yes they spent a long time chatting without thinking of the obvious rule. Dumbo hat wards to them both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: matiunz
bruce

bruce

Contributor
You feel sorry for him? because he looked
pretty dam happy on the stage with the trophy...
Any reasonable person can see that as a very hollow victory. I am so pissed off I am going to support the Baggy Caps in the Ashes, which I don't normally do. Stokes admission made me have a rethink, for a short time, now I love my Aussie cousins, for the Ashes anyway.
 

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