View Full Version : Cricket World cup
Ultra edge!!!! , looked nothing on the ball with the normal action replay. Decent start from NZ,
NZ on tbe end of a bad decision
Ultra edge!!!! , looked nothing on the ball with the normal action replay. Decent start from NZ,
On paper it is now going England’s way.
TV seem to reckon that around 250 is a par score so NZ very much still in it.
Pressure of chasing may just be the deciding factor.
Harry Paget Flashman
14-07-19, 14:28
On paper it is now going England’s way.
TV seem to reckon that around 250 is a par score so NZ very much still in it.
Pressure of chasing may just be the deciding factor.
Would love to see England blow it but can’t see it somehow.
If Roy and Bairstow see out the first 10 overs they’ll cruise it.
England seem to be getting the luck.
Root very careless shot and got away with not edging one just before.
Nerves kicking in?
NZ bowling brilliant on a bowler friendly wicket.
You'd have to think NZ are in the driving seat now. England down on runs and NZ bowling well. It doesn't look like changing at the moment.
Don't see a way back for England now, pitch has gone, great bowling, pressure
Bluebirdman Of Alcathays
14-07-19, 16:02
Is it fair to suggest this is something of a cock-up? A free-to-air final to show everyone the swashbuckling batting of England and they prepare a seamer's pitch. Or just NZ playing really well and one of those things?
Is it fair to suggest this is something of a cock-up? A free-to-air final to show everyone the swashbuckling batting of England and they prepare a seamer's pitch. Or just NZ playing really well and one of those things?
This is a home World Cup and I have no idea why they would prepare this sort of wicket. Bowling is definitely NZ s strength.
the other bob wilson
14-07-19, 18:07
I can't believe there's not been a post in this thread in over an hour - unbelievable stuff as the game ends in a tie with the World Cup to be decided by a super over.
chrisp_1927
14-07-19, 18:10
Boult owes his team a big over here
the other bob wilson
14-07-19, 18:17
15 for England off the super over, Archer to bowl now.
I can't believe there's not been a post in this thread in over an hour - unbelievable stuff as the game ends in a tie with the World Cup to be decided by a super over.
I've been following onbbc text whilst watching tennis, how come NZ never won on losing less wickets?
Auntie Andy
14-07-19, 18:20
Don't see a way back for England now, pitch has gone, great bowling, pressure
:facepalm:
Outstanding game of cricket.
Unbelievable. Those 4 over throws off Stokes bat crucial bit of luck.
You just cannot beat the drama that sport sometimes throws up.
Outstanding entertainment.
the other bob wilson
14-07-19, 18:37
I've been following onbbc text whilst watching tennis, how come NZ never won on losing less wickets?
God knows, I feel so sorry for New Zealand, the first six in the final over was a few inches away from being a catch, then the second one came when they ran two and the throw in hit Stokes' bat and ran to the boundary for four. I also don't get why when both sides get fifteen from the super over, the team batting second loses.
Michael Morris
14-07-19, 18:38
Superb sport, drama and entertainment.
the other bob wilson
14-07-19, 18:40
This is a home World Cup and I have no idea why they would prepare this sort of wicket. Bowling is definitely NZ s strength.
My understanding is that theICC were in charge of pitch preparation for the competition.
God knows, I feel so sorry for New Zealand, the first six in the final over was a few inches away from being a catch, then the second one came when they ran two and the throw in hit Stokes' bat and ran to the boundary for four. I also don't get why when both sides get fifteen from the super over, the team batting second loses.
England won because if its a tie it goes to who hit the most boundaries during the match.
My understanding is that theICC were in charge of pitch preparation for the competition.
That would explain it.
That was so cruel on New Zealand.
Bluebirdman Of Alcathays
14-07-19, 18:43
Is it fair to suggest this is something of a cock-up? A free-to-air final to show everyone the swashbuckling batting of England and they prepare a seamer's pitch. Or just NZ playing really well and one of those things?
I had in mind that aside from not playing to England's strengths this was more an intriguing game for the purists rather than a slog-fest to bring in a new audience. But then it went nuts.
That was so cruel on New Zealand.
Pity it wasnt Australia.
England won because if its a tie it goes to who hit the most boundaries during the match.
So it’s like winning the World Cup in footy based on the fact a team has won more corners....what a sh1tty way to lose.
Been glued to it since 10:45 utterly brilliant
My kids had no interest in cricket until this world cup - they are now converts and want to go to a T20 at Glammy
Bluebirdman Of Alcathays
14-07-19, 19:00
That was so cruel on New Zealand.
Yeah very harsh on them. Players very gracious in defeat too.
Four years of preparation paid off then. Think England used up an Ashe's worth of luck today.
Four years of preparation paid off then. Think England used up an Ashe's worth of luck today.
Arthur?
Optimistic Nick
14-07-19, 19:41
Brilliant, brilliant drama. Even if you don't get cricket, you have to appreciate the theatre of what just happened, luck and all. And the mental strength to see that through is astonishing.
Amazing stuff. That is up there as one of the greatest finals I have ever seen in any sport.
Des Parrot
14-07-19, 19:42
Been glued to it since 10:45 utterly brilliant
My kids had no interest in cricket until this world cup - they are now converts and want to go to a T20 at Glammy
Same with my wife. We've been lucky to attend some great matches during the group phase and she set up a picnic today so we could watch the match (on TV) in style. Superb game. one of the greatest finales to a televised sporting events ever.
dandywarhol
14-07-19, 19:43
England had that much luck I thought it was Arsenal.
Drama, bit of controversy and outstanding entertainment.
Congratulations to both teams for providing such a thrilling and hard fought final.
I know I should feel elated but it’s more a feeling of relief and that every get out of jail free ( no pun regarding Stokes intended) card has been played.
More importantly the match entices people back into this grand old game as it is dying on its feet in many places. Maya be the decision to make it free to air and the nature of the result will kindle some more interest.
Optimistic Nick
14-07-19, 19:54
More importantly the match entices people back into this grand old game as it is dying on its feet in many places. Maya be the decision to make it free to air and the nature of the result will kindle some more interest.
I didn't actually realise it was free to air and listened to 90% of it on the radio. It was only when the commentary team mentioned it was on terrestrial telly that I turned it on and saw the last 5 overs after a brief fight with the wife who was watching the Wimbledon final (another great one it would seem). I'd have got nothing done at all today if I had realised sooner that I could watch it!
Hot Shot Hamish.
14-07-19, 19:58
Turned on the telly at 9 this morning. 12 hours later still watching it. What a fantastic final. I feel so sorry for the Kiwis but so pleased for Ben Stokes and the whole England team. And to have it available for all to watch must whet the appetite for the Ashes series.
If I was a youngster, then I'd be outside already trying to be Ben Stokes ( I,m left handed ,if not Tonight I'd be Jos Buttler).
Congratulations England
life on mars
14-07-19, 20:04
Astonishing sports final, perhaps one of the best.
NZ didn't deserve to lose as they defended a low score.
England did so well, against the odds to stay in the game.
They did the sporting thing and didn't run the the over throws that hit the bat , but the umpire gave the 6 anyway.
The game gets tied.
England hit a decent amount in the super over .
NZ lose by a yard in distance.
Astonishing.
Well done Stokes
Astonishing sports final, perhaps one of the best.
NZ didn't deserve to lose as they defended a low score.
England did so well, against the odds to stay in the game.
They did the sporting thing and didn't run the the over throws that hit the bat , but the umpire gave the 6 anyway.
The game gets tied.
England hit a decent amount in the super over .
NZ lose by a yard in distance.
Astonishing.
Well done Stokes
Unbelievable day of sport, Lewis Hamilton wins again at Silverstone has been relegated to a side show.
So it’s like winning the World Cup in footy based on the fact a team has won more corners....what a sh1tty way to lose.
A ridiculous rule, just play another over
I don't agree with your wording of it but I do find it baffling that Welsh people are going along with this. I commented in a cricket thread that a west-country cricket pundit had questioned whether West-Country cricket fans would support a team called Wales/Glamorgan in the 100 ball tournament if it wasn't going to publicise that it actually represented the West-Country too, and that I couldn't see any reason that Welsh cricketer's aren't doing so on a national level. We even had one poster on here wanting to get rid of national anthems before the game (something which is part of Welsh history) so they could feel more comfortable supporting a side that almost totally refuses to mention they represent Wales?!?!
#weareengland trending again today shows you all you need to know. If you want to support the team then at least start vocalising the need for greater representation of the W part of the ECWB. Wales deserves that at least.
(posting in this thread too because I suspect they other will be deleted by morning).
Cretin Hop
14-07-19, 22:06
Unbelievable day of sport, Lewis Hamilton wins again at Silverstone has been relegated to a side show.
Driving a car is not sport.
It’s as interesting as knitting.
Harry Paget Flashman
14-07-19, 22:44
Driving a car is not sport.
It’s as interesting as knitting.
Yet cricket is a sport but you stop half way through for a curry.
Turned on the telly at 9 this morning. 12 hours later still watching it. What a fantastic final. I feel so sorry for the Kiwis but so pleased for Ben Stokes and the whole England team. And to have it available for all to watch must whet the appetite for the Ashes series.
If I was a youngster, then I'd be outside already trying to be Ben Stokes ( I,m left handed ,if not Tonight I'd be Jos Buttler).
Congratulations England
More like WG Grace
Brilliant, brilliant drama. Even if you don't get cricket, you have to appreciate the theatre of what just happened, luck and all. And the mental strength to see that through is astonishing.
Amazing stuff. That is up there as one of the greatest finals I have ever seen in any sport.
:thumbup:
And furthermore, having played club cricket for years and watched it forever, I have never seen what happened today with that deflection off Stokes' bat which really won us the game.
I have said many times that I never played a game of cricket without seeing something I'd never seen before. But for it to happen with just 2 balls to go in a World Cup Final was simply amazing.
Cricket is the greatest sport in my opinion.
Football second.
life on mars
15-07-19, 00:02
Taking away the usual (yawn ) Wales v England issue, when this sport is good its brilliant, the England/Wales WWC (yes advertised as that in all grounds, has been superb .)
The 4 runs of Stokes bat was a surreal moment,and will be discussed /debated for years to come .
Cricketers are a shining example of how sport should be played.
The ECB are very supportive and engaging , of our country and county's cricket, and its involvement, having brought the ashes to our ground twice in recent years, it shows we are one.
Hot Shot Hamish.
15-07-19, 04:59
More like WG Grace
Twat!!:hehe::hehe:
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 07:32
The ECB are very supportive and engaging
I love cricket but his this a wind up?
Don Corleone
15-07-19, 08:34
As exciting as it was I still don’t get how England won - surely the point of cricket is to score runs and take wickets. If in the event of a tie like yesterday then it would make more sense to declare the team that had lost the least wickets the winner (NZ). Winning it on most boundaries is as someone else said like winning a football match on corner count. Just seems a strange rule, I’m sure it used to be the case that if a match was tied the team losing the fewest wickets won
As exciting as it was I still don’t get how England won - surely the point of cricket is to score runs and take wickets. If in the event of a tie like yesterday then it would make more sense to declare the team that had lost the least wickets the winner (NZ). Winning it on most boundaries is as someone else said like winning a football match on corner count. Just seems a strange rule, I’m sure it used to be the case that if a match was tied the team losing the fewest wickets won
They changes that ruling as it was a disadvantage to the team batting 2nd. England lost wickets yesterday going for the win.
You could also say NZ lost more wickets in the super over, and would have deserved to lose based on that.
To be fair the umpires explained the rules at the start and commentators made it clear that England would win on boundary count if the super over was a tie.
I don't agree with your wording of it but I do find it baffling that Welsh people are going along with this. I commented in a cricket thread that a west-country cricket pundit had questioned whether West-Country cricket fans would support a team called Wales/Glamorgan in the 100 ball tournament if it wasn't going to publicise that it actually represented the West-Country too, and that I couldn't see any reason that Welsh cricketer's aren't doing so on a national level. We even had one poster on here wanting to get rid of national anthems before the game (something which is part of Welsh history) so they could feel more comfortable supporting a side that almost totally refuses to mention they represent Wales?!?!
#weareengland trending again today shows you all you need to know. If you want to support the team then at least start vocalising the need for greater representation of the W part of the ECWB. Wales deserves that at least.
(posting in this thread too because I suspect they other will be deleted by morning).
The Welsh national anthem was the first ever sung at a rugby international and I believe the first ever sung at any sporting event.
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 08:57
I don't agree with your wording of it but I do find it baffling that Welsh people are going along with this. I commented in a cricket thread that a west-country cricket pundit had questioned whether West-Country cricket fans would support a team called Wales/Glamorgan in the 100 ball tournament if it wasn't going to publicise that it actually represented the West-Country too, and that I couldn't see any reason that Welsh cricketer's aren't doing so on a national level. We even had one poster on here wanting to get rid of national anthems before the game (something which is part of Welsh history) so they could feel more comfortable supporting a side that almost totally refuses to mention they represent Wales?!?!
#weareengland trending again today shows you all you need to know. If you want to support the team then at least start vocalising the need for greater representation of the W part of the ECWB. Wales deserves that at least.
(posting in this thread too because I suspect they other will be deleted by morning).
The South West has incredible support for cricket. Look at the players Somerset produce and the gates Somerset and Glos get for t20s. Frankly, its an absolute joke they haven't got one of the City based teams in the absolute farce that is the 100. People are attached to their country and their club/county. If you force people to support regions (look at welsh rugby) it probably won't work. This isn't the best analogy I've ever seen. I love cricket, and I am probably going to boycott the 100 because I'm so against it. After all, England have just won the world cup, and we aren't even going to play any 50 over cricket domestically! Seriously, the ECB are a disgrace at times.
The South West has incredible support for cricket. Look at the players Somerset produce and the gates Somerset and Glos get for t20s. Frankly, its an absolute joke they haven't got one of the City based teams in the absolute farce that is the 100. People are attached to their country and their club/county. If you force people to support regions (look at welsh rugby) it probably won't work. This isn't the best analogy I've ever seen. I love cricket, and I am probably going to boycott the 100 because I'm so against it. After all, England have just won the world cup, and we aren't even going to play any 50 over cricket domestically! Seriously, the ECB are a disgrace at times.
Are people that attached to the counties. I mean in Wales the county attendances are poor. For all the talk on here for wanting to support Wales in Cricket, people do not support Wales in Cricket, or Glamorgan, or their local clubs.
The franchise system works well in Australia and in Indian systems, and i do not think it will hurt to have a look at it in this country.
Im a traditional cricket fan, i support Glamorgan I attend matches, i am not a fan of the 100. However i do feel that something has to be done to attract new fans to the game, especially in Wales.
dandywarhol
15-07-19, 09:12
Umpire decision to award 6 runs for throw in that hit Stokes was wrong.The batsman hadn't crossed for the second run.So 5 runs should have been awarded and Stokes would not have been on strike.
Umpire decision to award 6 runs for throw in that hit Stokes was wrong.The batsman hadn't crossed for the second run.So 5 runs should have been awarded and Stokes would not have been on strike.
He dived into his crease the ball was deflected for 4.
They did not run for a 3rd out of sportsmanship.
The umpire had no other decision to make other than to signal a 4 plus the 2 completed runs.
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 09:19
Are people that attached to the counties. I mean in Wales the county attendances are poor. For all the talk on here for wanting to support Wales in Cricket, people do not support Wales in Cricket, or Glamorgan, or their local clubs.
The franchise system works well in Australia and in Indian systems, and i do not think it will hurt to have a look at it in this country.
Im a traditional cricket fan, i support Glamorgan I attend matches, i am not a fan of the 100. However i do feel that something has to be done to attract new fans to the game, especially in Wales.
Yes, I am, anyway! I love county cricket. They need to get the game on freeview. While cricket is behind a paywall, nobody is going to care. You can't take the Sky money and then whine that nobody can see your game. God, I hate the ECB. Colin Graves and Giles Clarke, wouldn't wish them on the Jacks :hehe:.
I am not a fan of the City based franchise but I get it. I don't think it will work though, they've alienated the core cricket fans by telling them, they don't matter, the game isn't for them etc. Also, saying its to get the best players in the world over, except that they won't now be playing because it's at the same time as our test match summer. It's already a point of ridicule in the press and on social media.
Australia has had a state system for as long as anyone can remember and India is absolutely cricket mad, so they could all play in tutus and tiaras and people would still come.
Umpire decision to award 6 runs for throw in that hit Stokes was wrong.The batsman hadn't crossed for the second run.So 5 runs should have been awarded and Stokes would not have been on strike.
Of course they crossed for the 2nd run Ben Stokes was diving in to make his ground when it hit him. It was the correct and only decision.
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 09:21
Umpire decision to award 6 runs for throw in that hit Stokes was wrong.The batsman hadn't crossed for the second run.So 5 runs should have been awarded and Stokes would not have been on strike.
As insider says, they could have kept running until the ball hit the boundary rope. The umpire was correct, and it was pretty good sportsmanship from Stokes to say, let's not run the third.
Yes, I am, anyway! I love county cricket. They need to get the game on freeview. While cricket is behind a paywall, nobody is going to care. You can't take the Sky money and then whine that nobody can see your game. God, I hate the ECB. Colin Graves and Giles Clarke, wouldn't wish them on the Jacks :hehe:.
I am not a fan of the City based franchise but I get it. I don't think it will work though, they've alienated the core cricket fans by telling them, they don't matter, the game isn't for them etc. Also, saying its to get the best players in the world over, except that they won't now be playing because it's at the same time as our test match summer. It's already a point of ridicule in the press and on social media.
Australia has had a state system for as long as anyone can remember and India is absolutely cricket mad, so they could all play in tutus and tiaras and people would still come.
I appreciate there are core cricket fans. However the game, in this area is in a downwards spiral. I dont think the ECB can sit back and let the game drift.
The money over access to tv games is a difficult one. The 100 is going to be on free to air tv.
What would we rather paid professional coaches working with children, or the ability to watch the game on tv.
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 09:29
I appreciate there are core cricket fans. However the game, in this area is in a downwards spiral. I dont think the ECB can sit back and let the game drift.
The money over access to tv games is a difficult one. The 100 is going to be on free to air tv.
What would we rather paid professional coaches working with children, or the ability to watch the game on tv.
Some games are going to be on FTA TV.
They ballsed up in 05. They should have kept it on c4 and grown the game after the hype. We might not even need the Sky money had they done it well. Ancient history now but they've got to get England on TV. Whether that's all ODIs/t20s or just the lesser sides playing England on TV, with the Ashes behind a paywall I don't know. It's an incredibly difficult decision. People don't get Sky to watch the ODIs though, in my belief, they're buying it to watch the tests. Perhaps C4 and Sky could split the revenue or something when they show games (like I presume they did for the WCF).
Some games are going to be on FTA TV.
They ballsed up in 05. They should have kept it on c4 and grown the game after the hype. We might not even need the Sky money had they done it well. Ancient history now but they've got to get England on TV. Whether that's all ODIs/t20s or just the lesser sides playing England on TV, with the Ashes behind a paywall I don't know. It's an incredibly difficult decision. People don't get Sky to watch the ODIs though, in my belief, they're buying it to watch the tests. Perhaps C4 and Sky could split the revenue or something when they show games (like I presume they did for the WCF).
With regards to the 100 and the city based system it will go one of 2 ways, it will either be a success or it will fail. Either way we will get a clear message from fans of cricket in this country, and whether it will attract new fans to the games. If it fails you still have the county system running, so no harm will be done.
With regards to the tv money, i accept it is an extremely difficult decision. The money available for local clubs and the initiatives available for clubs is much greater than it was in 2005. However children in schools have little or no knowledge of cricket and cricketers. That being said Cardiff Cricket club are currently teaching 100 children aged 5-8 through the all stars system on a Friday night and Saturday morning, and thats just 1 club alone, many others in the region host smaller schemes.
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 09:42
With regards to the 100 and the city based system it will go one of 2 ways, it will either be a success or it will fail. Either way we will get a clear message from fans of cricket in this country, and whether it will attract new fans to the games. If it fails you still have the county system running, so no harm will be done.
With regards to the tv money, i accept it is an extremely difficult decision. The money available for local clubs and the initiatives available for clubs is much greater than it was in 2005. However children in schools have little or no knowledge of cricket and cricketers. That being said Cardiff Cricket club are currently teaching 100 children aged 5-8 through the all stars system on a Friday night and Saturday morning, and thats just 1 club alone, many others in the region host smaller schemes.
The harm is, they've devalued the 50 over competition, which people still go to. How have we just won a world cup and then not even bothering with the 50 over game back home? It is lunacy.
The harm is, they've devalued the 50 over competition, which people still go to. How have we just won a world cup and then not even bothering with the 50 over game back home? It is lunacy.
The 50 over format has been constantly changing, from 40 to 50, from the pro40 to the one day cup to the Sunday League. The international game will remain the same, attendances for the one day cup for Glamorgan were not great.
The Counties want shorter format games. T20 is where they make their money, and without that money they are dependent on ECB funding, and that funding comes from SKY.
We need to answer the question of whether 9 big city based teams will bring in the crowds better than the 16 counties. Until we try that the question will remain and hang over the game.
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 09:58
The 50 over format has been constantly changing, from 40 to 50, from the pro40 to the one day cup to the Sunday League. The international game will remain the same, attendances for the one day cup for Glamorgan were not great.
The Counties want shorter format games. T20 is where they make their money, and without that money they are dependent on ECB funding, and that funding comes from SKY.
We need to answer the question of whether 9 big city based teams will bring in the crowds better than the 16 counties. Until we try that the question will remain and hang over the game.
8 City based teams isn't it? The whole thing has been an utter disaster from a PR point of view and they're going to ruin a potentially good thing. Also, the team names are the worst things I've ever seen. The Leeds Supercharges, Manchester Originals. What the hell is that :hehe:
8 City based teams isn't it? The whole thing has been an utter disaster from a PR point of view and they're going to ruin a potentially good thing. Also, the team names are the worst things I've ever seen. The Leeds Supercharges, Manchester Originals. What the hell is that :hehe:
Yeah 8 teams, i was thinking of the 9 test grounds. Its going to be put down by the traditional cricket fans, so was T20.
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 10:05
Yeah 8 teams, i was thinking of the 9 test grounds. Its going to be put down by the traditional cricket fans, so was T20.
T20 was always going to work, it's what everyone played for starters at club level for ages. Durham have lost their test status, due to the ECB making them push and then punishing them for pushing for test status.
dandywarhol
15-07-19, 11:34
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/cricket-world-cup-2019-england-new-zealand-ben-stokes-runs-super-over-a9004826.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwyLDpBRCxARIsAEENsrIn7s MaKAluUlQ9nB1SuAo8CqUg2wf-P7ILNHLWp_m--RP04UBMI38aArwtEALw_wcB
5 not 6 as I. Said
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/cricket-world-cup-2019-england-new-zealand-ben-stokes-runs-super-over-a9004826.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwyLDpBRCxARIsAEENsrIn7s MaKAluUlQ9nB1SuAo8CqUg2wf-P7ILNHLWp_m--RP04UBMI38aArwtEALw_wcB
5 not 6 as I. Said
You are correct. There is photographic evidence to show that at the point the ball was thrown they had not crossed. It should have been five runs with Rashid and not Stokes facing the strike.
You are correct. There is photographic evidence to show that at the point the ball was thrown they had not crossed. It should have been five runs with Rashid and not Stokes facing the strike.
Farcical really when you think of all the technology that has been brought into cricket with the focus on getting decisions right.
There is no excuse for such an error and the umpire should have gone upstairs straight away. They even go upstairs for things like run out appeals blatantly obvious to the naked eye that the batsmen have made their ground.
Even though I am glad that England won, I would not be happy at all if I was a New Zealander.
Would such a decision have been allowed had it been Australia the opposition and not "little" New Zealand? :shrug:
the other bob wilson
15-07-19, 13:56
Farcical really when you think of all the technology that has been brought into cricket with the focus on getting decisions right.
There is no excuse for such an error and the umpire should have gone upstairs straight away. They even go upstairs for things like run out appeals blatantly obvious to the naked eye that the batsmen have made their ground.
Even though I am glad that England won, I would not be happy at all if I was a New Zealander.
Would such a decision have been allowed had it been Australia the opposition and not "little" New Zealand? :shrug:
The catch which won England that classic test at Edgbaston by two runs back in 2005 over Australia shouldn't have been allowed, but with all that was going on you would have needed to be an exceptional umpire to have noticed why.
I'm not going to take out an Independent subscription just to read that article, what does the relevant rule say about what happened yesterday?
The catch which won England that classic test at Edgbaston by two runs back in 2005 over Australia shouldn't have been allowed, but with all that was going on you would have needed to be an exceptional umpire to have noticed why.
I'm not going to take out an Independent subscription just to read that article, what does the relevant rule say about what happened yesterday?
Apparently the batsman must have crossed at the time the ball left the fielders hand, and they hadn't. A overthrow starts when it leaves the bowlers hand.
Its not a rule i was aware of, i would have thought that as Stoke completed 2 runs on the deflection, and another 4 followed it would be the 6 runs.
Its also difficult for the umpire to judge that at that moment.
The catch which won England that classic test at Edgbaston by two runs back in 2005 over Australia shouldn't have been allowed, but with all that was going on you would have needed to be an exceptional umpire to have noticed why.
I'm not going to take out an Independent subscription just to read that article, what does the relevant rule say about what happened yesterday?
The technology from memory was nowhere near as advanced as it is today even though it was a mere 14 years ago Bob so you could forgive the umpires there.
I am not subscribing either but the gist in the article is that a "top umpire" has said that Stokes had not crossed when the throw came in and the six runs awarded should have been five and Rashid would have been on strike for the next ball.
the other bob wilson
15-07-19, 14:12
Apparently the batsman must have crossed at the time the ball left the fielders hand, and they hadn't. A overthrow starts when it leaves the bowlers hand.
Its not a rule i was aware of, i would have thought that as Stoke completed 2 runs on the deflection, and another 4 followed it would be the 6 runs.
Its also difficult for the umpire to judge that at that moment.
The wording of the law is at the bottom of this piece;-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48991962
What does "or act" mean I wonder?
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 14:13
Would such a decision have been allowed had it been Australia the opposition and not "little" New Zealand? :shrug:
Yes. Clearly. Marais Erasmus is an incredible umpire for starters. They got caught up in the carnage, everyone did. It's easy to spot it 12 hours after the game has finished.
Also, Stokes effectively blocked the last ball for a single as he didn't want to risk getting out, you could even make a point and say England might have won the game if Stokes needed a 4 off the last ball cos he'd have to play an attacking shot. I bet in the NZ innings you can find them getting away with a clear no ball, or a marginal wide etc. Sport isn't, and shouldn't be, an exact science.
Apparently the batsman must have crossed at the time the ball left the fielders hand, and they hadn't. A overthrow starts when it leaves the bowlers hand.
Its not a rule i was aware of, i would have thought that as Stoke completed 2 runs on the deflection, and another 4 followed it would be the 6 runs.
Its also difficult for the umpire to judge that at that moment. [/QUOTE]
In such an unusual scenario and in such a crucial play he could easily have gone upstairs to check and nobody would have blamed him.
In such an unusual scenario and in such a crucial play he could easily have gone upstairs to check and nobody would have blamed him.[/QUOTE]
The third umpire is watching all the time, and they were all clearly talking for a long time after the issue. I would imagine that all 3 umpires and the players were unaware of the exact ruling on this point.
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 14:24
In such an unusual scenario and in such a crucial play he could easily have gone upstairs to check and nobody would have blamed him.
How often does this happen? These are the best 3 officials in the world, it isn't a conspiracy theory. There's no guarantee Stokes doesn't take England home if they need one more to win.
Optimistic Nick
15-07-19, 14:27
He dived into his crease the ball was deflected for 4.
They did not run for a 3rd out of sportsmanship.
The umpire had no other decision to make other than to signal a 4 plus the 2 completed runs.
The test is whether they had crossed when the ball was thrown, which they clearly had not.
It's obviously a pretty obscure part of the rules so I can well see how the umpire got it wrong, but he did get it wrong. They should have had the four runs from the overthrow, plus the runs completed (1); plus the run in progress if the batters had crossed when the ball was thrown. So 5.
But these things happen. The final ball would have played out differently had Stokes needed to hit a boundary and who is to say whether he would have managed it?
The test is whether they had crossed when the ball was thrown, which they clearly had not.
It's obviously a pretty obscure part of the rules so I can well see how the umpire got it wrong, but he did get it wrong. They should have had the four runs from the overthrow, plus the runs completed (1); plus the run in progress if the batters had crossed when the ball was thrown. So 5.
But these things happen. The final ball would have played out differently had Stokes needed to hit a boundary and who is to say whether he would have managed it?
They would have needed 4 off 2 balls and 3 for the tie instead of 3 and 2.
They played the last 2 balls a sure singles with run outs going for 2s. The mentality would have been different maybe a bigger shot needed, but it still could have gone either way.
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 14:31
The test is whether they had crossed when the ball was thrown, which they clearly had not.
It's obviously a pretty obscure part of the rules so I can well see how the umpire got it wrong, but he did get it wrong. They should have had the four runs from the overthrow, plus the runs completed (1); plus the run in progress if the batters had crossed when the ball was thrown. So 5.
But these things happen. The final ball would have played out differently had Stokes needed to hit a boundary and who is to say whether he would have managed it?
No, if they got 5, Stokes would still have pushed the ball into the leg side to get 1 run. Obviously getting 5 or 6 made NO impact whatsoever on his shot selection.
The test is whether they had crossed when the ball was thrown, which they clearly had not.
It's obviously a pretty obscure part of the rules so I can well see how the umpire got it wrong, but he did get it wrong. They should have had the four runs from the overthrow, plus the runs completed (1); plus the run in progress if the batters had crossed when the ball was thrown. So 5.
But these things happen. The final ball would have played out differently had Stokes needed to hit a boundary and who is to say whether he would have managed it?
The point being it would have been Rashid on strike and not Stokes as they had only completed one run. It was a huge error by the umpires. It should have been four wanted off two with Rashid to face and not three off two with Stokes facing. They should have been aware of the rules and checked.
No, if they got 5, Stokes would still have pushed the ball into the leg side to get 1 run. Obviously getting 5 or 6 made NO impact whatsoever on his shot selection.
Stokes wouldn't have been on strike if it was 5.
J R Hartley
15-07-19, 14:34
No, if they got 5, Stokes would still have pushed the ball into the leg side to get 1 run. Obviously getting 5 or 6 made NO impact whatsoever on his shot selection.
But he wouldnt have been on strike?
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 14:34
Stokes wouldn't have been on strike if it was 5.
They'd have played tip and run with Stokes needing 2 to draw off the last. Who's to say what would have happened?
If you go through their innings, I'm sure you can find a no ball that NZ bowled that didn't get called, a wide that was harshly given or not given. These things happen.
They'd have played tip and run with Stokes needing 2 to draw off the last. Who's to say what would have happened?
If you go through their innings, I'm sure you can find a no ball that NZ bowled that didn't get called, a wide that was harshly given or not given. These things happen.
Or Boult could have clean bowled him leaving Stokes stranded at the wrong end for the final ball. We will never know but the Umpires messed up and the Kiwis to their eternal credit didn’t complain.It was a fantastic game with great sportsmanship from both sides.
Pedro de la Rosa
15-07-19, 14:44
Or Boult could have clean bowled him leaving Stokes stranded at the wrong end for the final ball. We will never know but the Umpires messed up and the Kiwis to their eternal credit didn’t complain.It was a fantastic game with great sportsmanship from both sides.
We won't. Who's to say what could have happened? Chris Gayle got caught the ball after a massive no ball vs Australia in the world cup. It should have been a free hit, and he could have got them to victory. Umpires rarely calling front foot no balls is a bigger issue in fairness. The Kiwis have taken it well, the Australian and Indian media, not so much. Wonder why that is? :hehe:
Hot Shot Hamish.
15-07-19, 15:17
I don't think they did mess up. The run didn't come from the throw, it came from the act of hitting Stokes. The rule states the run counts if the the batsmen had crossed at the time of the throw or act. That's my take on it anyway.
Stokes wouldn't have been on strike if it was 5.
I think he would have been on strike because the umpire would have signalled 1 short. You cant alter the fact that the ball reached the boundary, or the fact that they ran 2, so in order to award 5 runs hed have to signal 1 short and leave the batsmen where they are.
Haven't read this entire thread but just wanted to say, same as a lot of you I have a passing interest in a lot of sports - cricket is nowhere near my favourite and up until yesterday I did no more than keep an eye on the scores from this world cup, but that was the most dramatic, incredible end to a sporting event I've ever seen.
I genuinely still can't stop thinking about it today. Stokes having the entire world cup on his shoulders, dragging them through, that catch that turned into a six, the 2 that turned into a six, that super over. The pressure on Stokes whilst they were dropping like around him. Absolutely unreal. Sport is utterly amazing and I feel for people who don't experience the highs and dramas of it. And I say that as someone who didn't really care if England won or not
Not a massive Cricket fan, 5 day test matches bore the hell out of me, though saying that the shorter games are good ( in whatever form they take )
I often Watch my younger daughter play, she plays for the girls county team and its a decent standard
This World cup has been great to follow, of course the final few overs was great, I am up In Liverpool for the Netball World Cup and caught the last few overs in the bar of Jury Inn which is directly opposite the M&S arena where the Netball is being played, of course to improve the experience the hotel is full of Australians and Kiwi's ( inc both the netball teams ) the Bar was a great place, the Australians and Kiwi's cheering on NZ ( anything to beat the POMS ) when We won, it was good to give it back to them
Now got to beat them in the Netball aswell :thumbup:
StraightOuttaCanton
17-07-19, 03:16
Not a massive Cricket fan, 5 day test matches bore the hell out of me, though saying that the shorter games are good ( in whatever form they take )
I often Watch my younger daughter play, she plays for the girls county team and its a decent standard
This World cup has been great to follow, of course the final few overs was great, I am up In Liverpool for the Netball World Cup and caught the last few overs in the bar of Jury Inn which is directly opposite the M&S arena where the Netball is being played, of course to improve the experience the hotel is full of Australians and Kiwi's ( inc both the netball teams ) the Bar was a great place, the Australians and Kiwi's cheering on NZ ( anything to beat the POMS ) when We won, it was good to give it back to them
Now got to beat them in the Netball aswell :thumbup:
2 of my daughters played for Wales ... one at Hockey, the other Netball. It was fun watching them excel at these minority sports but as a family we all got more out of their brother playing county football.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.