Minor gripe, don’t really understand why Sky had to have so many Southern Hemisphere leading the key commentary bits, Post Match interviews etc. Not like there’s a lack of articulate former England’s cricketers...
Understand your misgivings and I have really missed the usual Sky cricket commentary team.....particularly Bumble!. Just not the same without them and their very British humour and collective banter. In the cause of equality and respect Sky obviously had to go with a balanced team of guests throughout the tournament (many of whom were boring as fuck) and yes the balance was certainly tipped in the Southern Hemisphere direction, particularly yesterday. Another reason why I can’t wait for The Ashes to start!
Law 19.8 relates to the overthrow and states that ".......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"
Stokes and Rashid hadn't crossed at the time of the throw so we should have actually received 5 and not 6 runs.
Law 19.8 relates to the overthrow and states that ".......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"
Stokes and Rashid hadn't crossed at the time of the throw so we should have actually received 5 and not 6 runs.
Bit irrelevant now other than for conspiracy theorists.
Law 19.8 relates to the overthrow and states that ".......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"
Stokes and Rashid hadn't crossed at the time of the throw so we should have actually received 5 and not 6 runs.
Bit irrelevant now other than for conspiracy theorists.
It is irrelevant now but has nothing to do with "conspiracy theorists". It is a Law of the game and was missed. I'm sure if we had been on the receiving end the point would have come up a long time ago. For people that believe in "fate" it is another example that our name was always on the trophy.
Law 19.8 relates to the overthrow and states that ".......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"
Stokes and Rashid hadn't crossed at the time of the throw so we should have actually received 5 and not 6 runs.
Bit irrelevant now other than for conspiracy theorists.
It is irrelevant now but has nothing to do with "conspiracy theorists". It is a Law of the game and was missed. I'm sure if we had been on the receiving end the point would have come up a long time ago. For people that believe in "fate" it is another example that our name was always on the trophy.
The game has finished which is why it's irrelevant now and umpiring errors are part of sport. It was a very bizarre incident and not one I've seen before. I agree that 'fate' was our friend yesterday.
It was a genuine mistake but I imagine only conspiracy theorists would argue otherwise.
A great advert for cricket yesterday and the Kiwis showed how to lose gracefully.
The situation would have been different had Rashid been on striker for the last couple anyway. Stokes had just hit a second and was mentally knackered.
Boult would have been bowling at a right hander instead of left. Rashid could easily have hit a boundary and won it for us without the need for a super over, not like he's totally incompetent with the bat.
Law 19.8 relates to the overthrow and states that ".......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"
Stokes and Rashid hadn't crossed at the time of the throw so we should have actually received 5 and not 6 runs.
You missed out a key part of the law.
...........together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.
So yes they hadn't crossed at the point of the throw but what determines the 'act'. Surely the act is the ball hitting Stokes? In which case they had crossed and 2 runs is correct.
The situation would have been different had Rashid been on striker for the last couple anyway. Stokes had just hit a second and was mentally knackered.
Boult would have been bowling at a right hander instead of left. Rashid could easily have hit a boundary and won it for us without the need for a super over, not like he's totally incompetent with the bat.
Yes, in that situation Rashid could easily have nicked it for 4 runs. I was surprised how tired Stokes looked, I assume that was the mental pressure getting to him, as he's obviously super fit
Extraordinary that such a scenario happened in a game and situation of that importance. If it had happened in the 12th over, there would have been none of the drama
Law 19.8 relates to the overthrow and states that ".......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"
Stokes and Rashid hadn't crossed at the time of the throw so we should have actually received 5 and not 6 runs.
You missed out a key part of the law.
...........together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.
So yes they hadn't crossed at the point of the throw but what determines the 'act'. Surely the act is the ball hitting Stokes? In which case they had crossed and 2 runs is correct.
The 'act' was the fielder throwing the ball as opposed to kicking it or heading it!! i.e. as soon as it was on its way back towards the wicket.
But irrelevant as others have said - it will not and cannot change the result of course as the umpires decision on the day is final. Umpires miss things all the time - not unlike 'one short' which is missed pretty much every match.
Law 19.8 relates to the overthrow and states that ".......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"
Stokes and Rashid hadn't crossed at the time of the throw so we should have actually received 5 and not 6 runs.
Bit irrelevant now other than for conspiracy theorists.
It is irrelevant now but has nothing to do with "conspiracy theorists". It is a Law of the game and was missed. I'm sure if we had been on the receiving end the point would have come up a long time ago. For people that believe in "fate" it is another example that our name was always on the trophy.
The game has finished which is why it's irrelevant now and umpiring errors are part of sport. It was a very bizarre incident and not one I've seen before. I agree that 'fate' was our friend yesterday.
It was a genuine mistake but I imagine only conspiracy theorists would argue otherwise.
A great advert for cricket yesterday and the Kiwis showed how to lose gracefully.
Simon Taufel was a very good umpire. But he isn't any more. He was the best in the world and umpired the World Cup Final in 2011 alongside Aleem Dar. Taufel was awarded the ICC Umpire of the Year for five years. The man who ended his run was Aleem Dar, who was invited to umpire in the 2019 World Cup.
Taufel's record is unimpeachable and he was an umpire of the highest standard. So it's odd to see him criticise the umpiring of a match in which his former colleagues took charge. So it's hard to see why he has decided to overlook, for example, Law 18.1.1 in his interview published in Australian newspapers.
More importantly, Law 3.2 and, most importantly of all, Laws 2.11 and 2.12, the most important Laws of the game.
2.11 Where there is disagreement or dispute about any matter, the umpires together shall make the final decision. 2.12 An umpire may alter any decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire’s decision, once made, is final.
Taufel's comments are an interesting, but incomplete verdict on a bit of history.
This particular Law is probably the hardest to judge simply because both umpires can be in the wrong position to judge whether the batsmen have crossed in the act of throwing e.g. the umpire at the non striker's end, when it is close, cannot be sure and the square leg umpire, should the ball be coming from the leg side boundary might have his back to thrower or be looking at the thrower at the time of release and not see where the batsmen are.
Is there any provision, in televised matches, for this to be referred to the 3rd Umpire? We refer not just run outs but boundaries so why wasn't this?
When the ball hit stokes bat and went for 4 why did we also get the two runs they had run. I thougt all actual ran runs were not included when the ball goes for a boundary. I thought we should have just got 4 runs?
Also when Rashid(I think) was run out trying for a second run why did we get the first run? I again, obviously mistakenly though we got 0 runs because he was run out.
Have the rules changed on this recently or am I just a numpty?
When the ball hit stokes bat and went for 4 why did we also get the two runs they had run. I thougt all actual ran runs were not included when the ball goes for a boundary. I thought we should have just got 4 runs?
Also when Rashid(I think) was run out trying for a second run why did we get the first run? I again, obviously mistakenly though we got 0 runs because he was run out.
Have the rules changed on this recently or am I just a numpty?
When the ball hit stokes bat and went for 4 why did we also get the two runs they had run. I thougt all actual ran runs were not included when the ball goes for a boundary. I thought we should have just got 4 runs?
Also when Rashid(I think) was run out trying for a second run why did we get the first run? I again, obviously mistakenly though we got 0 runs because he was run out.
Have the rules changed on this recently or am I just a numpty?
With overthrows you get both the runs you ran AND the boundary. Not sure of the exact wording of the law
With run outs you get all the completed runs, which in this case was 1
Law 19.8 relates to the overthrow and states that ".......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"
Stokes and Rashid hadn't crossed at the time of the throw so we should have actually received 5 and not 6 runs.
If the throw had gone straight to the rope then five runs would have been the correct score off that delivery.
In this case the ball wouldn't have gone to the fence if it hadn't been middled by Stokes when diving for the crease; this was the contributory "act" and therefore six runs seems fair.
When the ball hit stokes bat and went for 4 why did we also get the two runs they had run. I thougt all actual ran runs were not included when the ball goes for a boundary. I thought we should have just got 4 runs?
Also when Rashid(I think) was run out trying for a second run why did we get the first run? I again, obviously mistakenly though we got 0 runs because he was run out.
Have the rules changed on this recently or am I just a numpty?
When the ball hit stokes bat and went for 4 why did we also get the two runs they had run. I thougt all actual ran runs were not included when the ball goes for a boundary. I thought we should have just got 4 runs?
Also when Rashid(I think) was run out trying for a second run why did we get the first run? I again, obviously mistakenly though we got 0 runs because he was run out.
Have the rules changed on this recently or am I just a numpty?
I sneakily watched the highlights on Sky again this morning - and they have omitted the 2+4 ball - i mean, wtf - this was probably one of the most crucial moments of the game !
There are points in a game, whether it be football, cricket or any other sport when you know the game is up. It is where you might leave the stadium or just resign yourself to the inevitable and slump in your seat. When you reach that point, it is pretty certain and I can't recall anything like yesterday when they ran two when they needed at least a boundary from that ball and the game was up feeling had just punched me between the eyes. I can't think of any time when I have had that feeling of defeat and it didn't turn into defeat......... apart from the six that was a catch and we had as good as lost and then it became a six again! It was unbelievable having two of those moments in the same game. Extraordinary and you have to feel for the Kiwis big time.
There are points in a game, whether it be football, cricket or any other sport when you know the game is up. It is where you might leave the stadium or just resign yourself to the inevitable and slump in your seat. When you reach that point, it is pretty certain and I can't recall anything like yesterday when they ran two when they needed at least a boundary from that ball and the game was up feeling had just punched me between the eyes. I can't think of any time when I have had that feeling of defeat and it didn't turn into defeat......... apart from the six that was a catch and we had as good as lost and then it became a six again! It was unbelievable having two of those moments in the same game. Extraordinary and you have to feel for the Kiwis big time.
It was an incredible game not just for the twists and turns, but the extraordinary incidents in the game...
As you say,....
The 2+4 ball
The catch where Bould touched the rope.
Tied match plus tied Super Over
so much Fielding and catching excellence.
First ball review v Roy, which was not out by a whisker.
I sneakily watched the highlights on Sky again this morning - and they have omitted the 2+4 ball - i mean, wtf - this was probably one of the most crucial moments of the game !
I watched them last night to show my missus that incident and they didn't show it! It was on C4 highlights though.
Focus now switches to The Ashes, which leads to the questions of should Archer and Roy be in the team? For me Roy im not convinced but Archer is a must - thing is, who does he replace? Broad? Can see bowling unit of Jimmy,Archer,Broad,Woakes and Ali with Stokes as 6th or do we go with an extra batter?
Great advice to the next generation from Jimmy Neesham who nearly became the most famous Kiwi since Edmund Hillary.
"Kids, don’t take up sport. Take up baking or something. Die at 60 really fat and happy."
Kiwis showed great dignity in defeat - neither side deserved to lose.
Agreed. They are so much more palatable than your average Aussie.
Kiwis seem much more down to earth than Aussies and don't seem to need to keep telling you how great they are. It's a bit like the difference between Canada and the US.
Comments
In the cause of equality and respect Sky obviously had to go with a balanced team of guests throughout the tournament (many of whom were boring as fuck) and yes the balance was certainly tipped in the Southern Hemisphere direction, particularly yesterday.
Another reason why I can’t wait for The Ashes to start!
Stokes and Rashid hadn't crossed at the time of the throw so we should have actually received 5 and not 6 runs.
It was a genuine mistake but I imagine only conspiracy theorists would argue otherwise.
A great advert for cricket yesterday and the Kiwis showed how to lose gracefully.
Boult would have been bowling at a right hander instead of left. Rashid could easily have hit a boundary and won it for us without the need for a super over, not like he's totally incompetent with the bat.
...........together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.
So yes they hadn't crossed at the point of the throw but what determines the 'act'. Surely the act is the ball hitting Stokes? In which case they had crossed and 2 runs is correct.
Extraordinary that such a scenario happened in a game and situation of that importance. If it had happened in the 12th over, there would have been none of the drama
The 'act' was the fielder throwing the ball as opposed to kicking it or heading it!! i.e. as soon as it was on its way back towards the wicket.
But irrelevant as others have said - it will not and cannot change the result of course as the umpires decision on the day is final. Umpires miss things all the time - not unlike 'one short' which is missed pretty much every match.
Taufel's record is unimpeachable and he was an umpire of the highest standard. So it's odd to see him criticise the umpiring of a match in which his former colleagues took charge. So it's hard to see why he has decided to overlook, for example, Law 18.1.1 in his interview published in Australian newspapers.
More importantly, Law 3.2 and, most importantly of all, Laws 2.11 and 2.12, the most important Laws of the game.
2.11 Where there is disagreement or dispute about any matter, the umpires together shall make the final decision.
2.12 An umpire may alter any decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire’s decision, once made, is final.
Taufel's comments are an interesting, but incomplete verdict on a bit of history.
Is there any provision, in televised matches, for this to be referred to the 3rd Umpire? We refer not just run outs but boundaries so why wasn't this?
BUT despite New Zealand not having the rub of the green or having any luck on finals day, the best team DID win the tournament.
England scored 1029 more runs than NZ during the WC.
England went past 300 on six out of their 11 matches.
NZ did not go past 300 on any occasion.
Kane Williamson scored 30% of all NZ runs.
The best 2 bowling averages at WC.
Archer 24.40
Plunkett 24.72
Every single player in England squad contributed in some way. Vince took 4 catches when 12th man.
Dawson and Curran worked hard as gofers !
Win in sport by anyway you can as long as it's in the rules or to the officials call.
Both the overthrow and the umpires call needs looking at BUT correct decisions as of 14/07/19.
We beat NZ in group game so I believe that after scores level twice, that 100% should come into play.
I hope cricket is the winner. 50 overs and test cricket.
When the ball hit stokes bat and went for 4 why did we also get the two runs they had run. I thougt all actual ran runs were not included when the ball goes for a boundary.
I thought we should have just got 4 runs?
Also when Rashid(I think) was run out trying for a second run why did we get the first run?
I again, obviously mistakenly though we got 0 runs because he was run out.
Have the rules changed on this recently or am I just a numpty?
With run outs you get all the completed runs, which in this case was 1
In this case the ball wouldn't have gone to the fence if it hadn't been middled by Stokes when diving for the crease; this was the contributory "act" and therefore six runs seems fair.
Ben Stokes have my babies!!!
What a man. Who on here said he wasn't the best allrounder in the world?
Although Shakib might have a word to say about that - especially as he came top of the MVP chart.
Kids, don’t take up sport. Take up baking or something. Die at 60 really fat and happy.
It was an incredible game not just for the twists and turns, but the extraordinary incidents in the game...
As you say,....
The 2+4 ball
The catch where Bould touched the rope.
Tied match plus tied Super Over
so much Fielding and catching excellence.
First ball review v Roy, which was not out by a whisker.
Archer working over De Grandhomme.
I watched them last night to show my missus that incident and they didn't show it! It was on C4 highlights though.
For me Roy im not convinced but Archer is a must - thing is, who does he replace? Broad?
Can see bowling unit of Jimmy,Archer,Broad,Woakes and Ali with Stokes as 6th or do we go with an extra batter?