ICC Cricket World Cup - Part 4

by alfie Thu 11 Jul 2019, 5:08 pm

First topic message reminder :

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:
alfie wrote:Good to see Morgan handling the short ball. Has seen Behrend - orff...now taking to Lyon.

Keep the foot down lads I fancy an "early" night

Alfie I'm afraid this is the worst thing I have seen posted all World Cup.

I do my best Whistle

by Gooseberry Mon 15 Jul 2019, 1:03 pm

alfie wrote:Joking basically , Olly. Though some radio stuff here in Melbourne is being a bit provocative ...

Still not convinced. Mr Taufel may be on the laws committee but presumably didn't write that law. And I think there is still room for interpretation as to the "act" by the fielder. In practical terms there is simply no way an umpire , unaided by technology , is going to judge the precise release of a ball by a fielder and measure it against the position of the batsmen...considering at that time he has no reason to expect an overthrown boundary to result ! So if that is the intention of the law it is a complete nonsense .
The law also mentions "completed runs" (which Stokes' second was) as an additional matter beside "the run in progress" . I think it clearly needs amending for clarity and common sense.
I agree if you are to disallow the second run then the batsmen must change ends , by the way . So with Rashid on strike England were certainly scuppered

The "run in progress" in this case is only counted if they have crossed before the "act". So the only ambiguity is what the act is, but its pretty obvious it means the throw when you take it in context. Stokes' run wasnt completed at the time the "act" was taken, its exactly that case thats discussed ...it only stands if they had crossed already, which they hadnt. The only case for making it 6 runs is if you consider the act of fielding to be the ball hitting him, which just doesnt stand to me.
As you say its near impossible to umpire in real time, but so are front foot no balls and wides for height.
Bearing in mind who one of the umpires was in this game I guess we got off pretty lightly with a one run screw up (which was payed back in the super over with that wide call).

The simplest solution is to change the rule and treat it as if the ball had reached the boundary off the bat. If youve run more than 4 before it hits the rope you score them, otherwise you get capped at 4. I really don't like that you get bonus runs for people trying to run you out.

by GSC Mon 15 Jul 2019, 1:09 pm

I think to me it's all kinda reactionary to something that is probably going to settle what 1 in 1000 matches?

as I say, the tie breaker for the tie breaker is never going to fair to everyone

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Mon 15 Jul 2019, 1:26 pm

Clearly the best option in case of a tied super over, is another super over, but the opposition get to choose the batsmen and bowlers they face/have bowl at them.

by Gooseberry Mon 15 Jul 2019, 1:31 pm

Or a penalty shoot out.

Yeah moaning about the super over tie break is a bit much but the overthrow and deflection rules come into play fairly often.

And even deciding on a tie game ignoring wickets standing isnt THAT rare.

I'm not disputing the result ( as England won) but there are some oddities in the laws that have been highlighted in getting to the tied tie

by Duty281 Mon 15 Jul 2019, 1:58 pm

About 8 million watched the game on TV in England, according to viewing figures. A peak of 4.5 million on Channel Four and about 3-4 million overall on the three Sky channels that were showing the game (Sky One, Sky Sports Main Event, Sky Sports Cricket). Obviously, that doesn't include the numbers who watched it in bars and pubs and the like.

I think 8 million was about the peak number for Ashes 2005 coverage, as well.

by compelling and rich Mon 15 Jul 2019, 1:59 pm

Duty281 wrote:About 8 million watched the game on TV in England, according to viewing figures. A peak of 4.5 million on Channel Four and about 3-4 million overall on the three Sky channels that were showing the game (Sky One, Sky Sports Main Event, Sky Sports Cricket). Obviously, that doesn't include the numbers who watched it in bars and pubs and the like.

I think 8 million was about the peak number for Ashes 2005 coverage, as well.

bbc reporting similar numbers for the tennis final. would imagine the numbers would have been bigger without the clashes with the tennis and F1

by Gooseberry Mon 15 Jul 2019, 2:03 pm

How many in &Wales?

by alfie Mon 15 Jul 2019, 2:53 pm

Gooseberry wrote:
alfie wrote:Joking basically , Olly. Though some radio stuff here in Melbourne is being a bit provocative ...

Still not convinced. Mr Taufel may be on the laws committee but presumably didn't write that law. And I think there is still room for interpretation as to the "act" by the fielder. In practical terms there is simply no way an umpire , unaided by technology , is going to judge the precise release of a ball by a fielder and measure it against the position of the batsmen...considering at that time he has no reason to expect an overthrown boundary to result ! So if that is the intention of the law it is a complete nonsense .
The law also mentions "completed runs" (which Stokes' second was) as an additional matter beside "the run in progress" . I think it clearly needs amending for clarity and common sense.
I agree if you are to disallow the second run then the batsmen must change ends , by the way . So with Rashid on strike England were certainly scuppered

The "run in progress" in this case is only counted if they have crossed before the "act". So the only ambiguity is what the act is, but its pretty obvious it means the throw when you take it in context. Stokes' run wasnt completed at the time the "act" was taken, its exactly that case thats discussed ...it only stands if they had crossed already, which they hadnt. The only case for making it 6 runs is if you consider the act of fielding to be the ball hitting him, which just doesnt stand to me.
As you say its near impossible to umpire in real time, but so are front foot no balls and wides for height.
Bearing in mind who one of the umpires was in this game I guess we got off pretty lightly with a one run screw up (which was payed back in the super over with that wide call).

The simplest solution is to change the rule and treat it as if the ball had reached the boundary off the bat. If youve run more than 4 before it hits the rope you score them, otherwise you get capped at 4. I really don't like that you get bonus runs for people trying to run you out.

Why don't you like extra runs for fielding errors , Goose ? It's like that argument that the ball should become dead when a throw hits the stumps (without running anyone out ) so preventing any extra runs. Never seen the sense of that : you attempt a run out (reward) you may concede runs (risk) just like bowling with six slips ...might gain a wicket...might give away boundaries. Sure it's unlucky - as in this case - but luck is part of the game and we should not try to legislate it out.

As to capping the overthrows : what do you do when there are two overthrows ? ie , the back up on the first throw also takes a shy at the stumps and sends it away... Rare perhaps but it happens all right...have seen more than one seven scored just that way. Even in Test Matches.

Umpires took long enough to make final signal yesterday so presumably they considered the circumstances and made what they thought was the correct ruling ? So disagreed either on interpretation or the facts of the case. Or were they just catching their breath Smile

Maybe they should have a chat with Mr Taufel .

by GSC Mon 15 Jul 2019, 3:14 pm

I think Giles accurately sums up my opinion on it

Asked whether it mattered to him, Giles said: "Not really."

He added: "You could argue the last ball that [Trent] Boult bowled was a full toss on leg stump and if Stokes' hadn't just been looking for two he probably would've banged it out of the ground anyway.

"We are world champions; we have got the trophy and we intend to keep it."

by alfie Mon 15 Jul 2019, 3:25 pm

GSC wrote:I think Giles accurately sums up my opinion on it

Asked whether it mattered to him, Giles said: "Not really."

He added: "You could argue the last ball that [Trent] Boult bowled was a full toss on leg stump and if Stokes' hadn't just been looking for two he probably would've banged it out of the ground anyway.

"We are world champions; we have got the trophy and we intend to keep it."

Fair enough ! I will drop the nitpicking... Smile

(But I've already had some Australian work colleagues trying to tarnish the England win over this so it's a bit of an annoying glitch!)

by king_carlos Mon 15 Jul 2019, 3:34 pm

For what it matters, i.e. not at all, I'd argue the 'act' in this regard is deflection from Stokes.

This high profile instance means that the ambiguity in the writing of that law will likely be cleared up.

The umpires judged it was 6 runs within the ambiguity of that law. That's their job to do.

I agree with the sentiment of Giles response in this instance.

by KP_fan Mon 15 Jul 2019, 3:50 pm

There is growing furor in media worldwide to retrospectively grant 5 runs for deflection & grant the world cup to NZ.
This would be insane in cricket, although in Olympics medals have been retrospectively assigned to some-one else, when the winner was found to have taken drugs.

It is what it is.....and lets move on & remember this as a great game of cricket.

by alfie Mon 15 Jul 2019, 3:57 pm

KP_fan wrote:There is growing furor in media worldwide to retrospectively grant 5 runs for deflection & grant the world cup to NZ.
This would be insane in cricket, although in Olympics medals have been retrospectively assigned to some-one else, when the winner was found to have taken drugs.

It is what it is.....and lets move on & remember this as a great game of cricket.

Growing furor ? In what media ? Certainly not any serious cricket publication. You can't overturn an umpiring decision after a game has been played ...apart from anything else a changed ruling affects what comes next ...which is obviously unknowable !

by GSC Mon 15 Jul 2019, 4:28 pm

when kpf says worldwide he means on twitter and his own head

by Eyetoldyouso Mon 15 Jul 2019, 4:33 pm

"(But I've already had some Australian work colleagues trying to tarnish the England win over this so it's a bit of an annoying glitch!)"

At least Morgan didn't instruct Archer to bowl underarm.

by **Dolphin Ziggler** Mon 15 Jul 2019, 4:51 pm

I see SportsBet have refunded all bets in Australia for those who backed New Zealand as they feel it was disgusting and we cheated.

It’s such a PR move, but I’ve alteady had some Aussies message me about how amazing it is or how they’ve done it cos they could get sued as the result was so ambiguous.

I’ve tried to explain that they are absolutely taking the bait of what is a classic buy into Aussie competitive games ahead of the Ashes.

by VTR Mon 15 Jul 2019, 5:23 pm

You know you've won something when the Aussies start throwing around words like "cheat" and "ordinary". Sour grapes, love it

by KP_fan Mon 15 Jul 2019, 6:58 pm

alfie wrote:
KP_fan wrote:There is growing furor in media worldwide to retrospectively grant 5 runs for deflection & grant the world cup to NZ.
This would be insane in cricket, although in Olympics medals have been retrospectively assigned to some-one else, when the winner was found to have taken drugs.

It is what it is.....and lets move on & remember this as a great game of cricket.

Growing furor ? In what media ? Certainly not any serious cricket publication. You can't overturn an umpiring decision after a game has been played ...apart from anything else a changed ruling affects what comes next ...which is obviously unknowable !

NZ's coach has asked for the cup to be shared and CI Headlines carries this story.
SMH is more subtle in suggesting .......a Number of prominent Indian media are more overt

and I am wondering if there is a way of going back so far as first semi-final and reversing it king

by VTR Mon 15 Jul 2019, 7:10 pm

Let's go even further and award the 2005 Edgbaston Test to Australia, as that ended with an umpiring error

by JDizzle Mon 15 Jul 2019, 7:19 pm

VTR wrote:Let's go even further and award the 2005 Edgbaston Test to Australia, as that ended with an umpiring error

Just better null and void every Test match pre DRS, just in case.

by GSC Mon 15 Jul 2019, 7:20 pm

nah I want a thorough investigation of every match that has ever been played for uncalled wides and no balls

by KP_fan Mon 15 Jul 2019, 7:26 pm

Looks like the popular sentiment of most Eng supporters is not to share the trophy? Whistle

by VTR Mon 15 Jul 2019, 7:32 pm

Damn right. That was huge drama and elation in the moment of victory. No way I want that rewritten

Also that CI article, the NZ coaches mainly bemoaning the super over being used at all, and the boundary countback being something that exists. As in if you can't separate them after 50 overs each, call it a tie.

by Gooseberry Mon 15 Jul 2019, 7:51 pm

We already have to share it with wales

by Gooseberry Mon 15 Jul 2019, 8:05 pm

Imagine how ordinary you must be to get beaten with 18 overs to spare

by robbo277 Mon 15 Jul 2019, 10:57 pm

England won.

The umpires may have made a mistake with the Stokes call. They may have made a lot of mistakes. They do that, they're fallible.

Guptill knew if he could hit the final ball for 2 runs he'd win the World Cup. 1 and he'd lose. He hit it for 1. The umpires and the match referee called that one correctly at least.

The rules do feel unsatisfactory, and maybe they need changing. But they are the rules.

Agree 100% with Giles. It's our cup. We're not sharing it. We're not giving it back. You can all have a chance to win it off us in 4 years.

by Pie Mon 15 Jul 2019, 11:42 pm

Taylorman wrote:Quite hilarious end to a fantastic match.
- first the Boult step over
- then the flukey four free runs at the most critical point
- then the fact that england are ALL OUT when going for the win, yet get to bat again
- The boundaries rule applies (where apparently a boundary is worth more than 4 singles, that 3 dot balls, obviously England had more, is more attacking? Yet all out versus not all out isnt superior?
- then the so called tie breaker has NZ starting on a one run deficit for the same reason. Ok to have some winning rule on tie break when scores are even over 300 balls but 6?

man, one for the ages, every single anomoly in that last few overs went in the favour of the one team, and if any single one of them had not, its likely a different result.

Hilarious way to win. England tie getting run all out, NZ tie the same way, and lose.

Great fun though. Doubt theres been a ore exciting one dayer that that.

And fitting a kiwi provides a major part of the win.

Anyway, great match, well done England, certainly wasnt their players that caused the very weird outcome, both teams did their best, it felt like nothing was going to split them, no matter what was thrown at them.

Just glad the underdog kiwis in both semi and final come out with their heads held high.

Amazing, amazing match.

Not really, you lost Laugh

But as a true Kiwi you will always find a way to make it about NZ

by Pie Mon 15 Jul 2019, 11:44 pm

If NZ or Aus had won in these circumstances they would have told us how they made their luck, its the rub of the green, dont be a whiner etc. Boot. Other. Foot.

Suck it up Princesses.

by VTR Tue 16 Jul 2019, 10:06 am

I've just read (well gave up a few sentences in) some utter garbage article that NZ won. It actually said "show a hundred people the scores 241-8 and 241 all out and all hundred will say NZ won". Other than the vast majority who would correctly call that a tie, its a great article!

by alfie Tue 16 Jul 2019, 10:30 am

This stuff does get tiresome...

I must admit I was not fond of the "most boundaries" tie break rule...though it was set well in advance , and fits far better with the ethos of the ODI game than looking at wickets lost . Neither do I really like the super over , which seems to me better suited to settling t20 matches or one-off ODIs. Just doesn't seem quite right to have two bats and one bowler settle a 48 match tournament in twelve balls...but that's what was prescribed in advance.
To be honest I'd sooner have final tie resolved by either round robin position , head to head , or net run rate...all of which mean England would have won this.
Sharing the trophy is arguably fairer but not something that appeals to the modern audience and I can't see it ever being adopted.

I do wish Stokes had just hit Boult's first three balls for six so we might be spared all this twittering garbage ; but it made for riveting viewing so I guess there is good and bad to all results...

by Gooseberry Tue 16 Jul 2019, 10:35 am

VTR wrote:I've just read (well gave up a few sentences in) some utter garbage article that NZ won. It actually said "show a hundred people the scores 241-8 and 241 all out and all hundred will say NZ won". Other than the vast majority who would correctly call that a tie, its a great article!

I agree with that tbf, but its not what the rules say. And again it would've cleared a lot more up if England needed 4 off that last ball.

But with the rules as are England won, without cheating.

by **Afro** Tue 16 Jul 2019, 10:55 am

All this stuff about wickets lost is nonsense. Decisions are made in the game based on the rules you are playing to.

If wickets lost had been a determining factor, then so many decisions made could have been different - not going for the extra runs that ran Rashid and Wood out, Plunkett and Archer not having a slog on the last ball of an over and blocking instead, Archer targeting the stumps rather than a bouncer on his last delivery in the NZ innings.

The rules may well need changing, but that can't be done retrospectively or be used as an argument against the result in a game played to those rules

by robbo277 Tue 16 Jul 2019, 11:20 am

If we’re doing wickets do we mean in the match or the super over? What is overlooked is that NZ lost more wickets in the super over. 15-0 plays 15-1. Why? Because they were chasing a winning run and had a player run out. Much like England were in their innings.

As I’ve said, 100 ways to settle a tied super over and they’re all unsatisfactory. That includes sharing the trophy. 1 ball left in the tournament, the equation was made clear and NZ couldn’t get over the line. It’s fine margins, but that’s sport.

I’d say all this is being brought up by fans and media, often non-NZ as well. The NZ team have publicly said all the right things and been model sportsmen, regardless of how disappointed they may feel privately.

by Hoggy_Bear Tue 16 Jul 2019, 1:08 pm

Just one comment on the 5 or 6 run debate. We've all seen boundaries from overthrows over the years. Now I may be wrong, but I can't recall any instant where the batsmen were not, also, awarded the value of the runs they had completed before the ball crossed the boundary. Nor can I recall the umpires checking to see if the batsmen had crossed at the time the ball was bowled. Now the actual wording of the Law can be debated, but surely precedent dictates that 6 runs awarded was the correct decision.

by Hoggy_Bear Tue 16 Jul 2019, 1:28 pm

Should read, of course "time the ball was thrown"

by dummy_half Tue 16 Jul 2019, 1:48 pm

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Just one comment on the 5 or 6 run debate. We've all seen boundaries from overthrows over the years. Now I may be wrong, but I can't recall any instant where the batsmen were not, also, awarded the value of the runs they had completed before the ball crossed the boundary. Nor can I recall the umpires checking to see if the batsmen had crossed at the time the ball was bowled. Now the actual wording of the Law can be debated, but surely precedent dictates that 6 runs awarded was the correct decision.

I agree with the above. Let's modify the situation slightly, with the ball striking the stumps (obviously with Stokes safe in his ground) and ricocheting away to the boundary. No-one would be arguing that the second run doesn't count because the ball was thrown before the batsmen crossed. Stokes is as much part of the playing area as the stumps, and so a deflection off him or the bat should count the same as a deflection off the stumps. The second run was completed at the time of the last action involving the ball (i.e. it striking Stokes's bat).

by sirfredperry Tue 16 Jul 2019, 6:10 pm

Interesting what Stokes said about the last ball of the main innings. England needed two to win. He was concerned that if he went for a big hit he would be caught and that would be it.

He probably though that he would at least make contact and they would try to scramble two. In the event he got a full toss. Now if England had needed, say, four or six to win - as they might have done had they not had the fortunate ricochet-off-the-bat incident - he would have had a mighty swing as nothing less would have done.

Of course, he felt he'd not done enough as he came in to the pavilion after failing to secure the win. But what if he'd had an air shot. We would now have been having a go at him as the villain.

He was actually thinking straight. Secure at least the tie and hope to go for the win. Not go for a death-or-glory shot.

by VTR Tue 16 Jul 2019, 6:37 pm

Definitely, then we saw NZ do exactly the same in their super over. They hit a six then tried to scramble the rest

by Sponsored content