| Cricket WC 20:12 - Jun 12 with 13645 views | Nigeriamark |
Big win by the Aussies today. Not yet halfway through but already looking like a 5 horse race with NZ, Oz, India, England & WI's going for the 4 qualifying places. Huge game on Friday between us against the WIs , and with Afghanistan & Sri Lanka up next a win would set us up nicely. Wouldn't like to see us in 4th after 6 games with our last three being India, the Aussies & NZ
SA have choked earlier than normal & other than the game against us Pakisan seem to have lost their discipline. SL only have 4 points because of 2 washouts so I don't expect any of these 3 to challenge. Afghanistan & Bangladesh were always unlikely to challenge although the latter are always good for a shock
All in all a decent start to the tournament and I for one am happy it has not been the batters tournament as predicted. Let's hope for the weather to clear up & for some close matches over the next 5 weeks |  | | |  |
| Cricket WC on 17:17 - Jul 16 with 983 views | wimborne_dale |
| Cricket WC on 00:43 - Jul 15 by kiwidale |
Cricket is a simple game or it was. The two main objectives being to score runs and to take wickets. Results are generally arrived at by a pretty simple formula one way to win is to score more runs than them the other way to win is to take 10 wickets thus preventing them scoring more runs than us either way the result is the same. In the event of a tie as was the case in question another way to determine a result is needed it can be as simple and as obvious as the team that takes the most wickets wins, see list of main objectives. If you don't like that method as is the case there are other options some having more merit than others. It can be as silly as the team that wins the toss -there are many instances of games being decided by the toss of a coin- or the team that bowls more dot balls or bowls more maidens or score more boundaries, the last three examples are as silly as each other. Its been mentioned on this thread that the rule used was to encourage positive cricket, which begs the question when did the art of fast bowling become negative? Try telling that to the great exponents of fast bowling over the years, when did the sight of a fast bowler knocking the castle over become negative? Try telling the greatest bowler of all time of any variety Shane Warne that he was killing the game with his negative approach or try telling James Anderson that the the sooner he retires the game will become more positive and entertaining. [Post edited 15 Jul 2019 4:14]
|
Rather than the team winning the toss, in the event of a tie surely there is more merit in giving priority to the team losing the toss. The toss can play a big part as sometimes conditions favour the team batting first (or second). So it would be reasonable that the team winning the toss needs one more run. [Post edited 17 Jul 2019 11:34]
|  |
| |
| Cricket WC on 03:17 - Jul 17 with 871 views | kiwidale |
Nothing will change the result nothing I say or think will alter that and that should be the end of the matter. However it seems that more than 48 hours after the game ended nobody fully understands the rule regarding overthrows. It's become clear that during the game nobody including me knew the rules regarding overthrows which is strange seeing that the rule in question has been part of the game since the year dot. The two umpires (this is conjecture on my part) did not fully understand or interpret the rule regarding overthrows correctly, nor did the match adjudicator or match referee. The NZ players were in the dark otherwise they would have questioned the extra run awarded to England and the press did not know until the issue was raised post match. I have yet to hear officially what the rule actually means and I'm not holding my breath. I have read the rule in question it seems quite clear but apparently its "open to interpretation" it might mean one thing today and another tomorrow depending on the umpires interpretation. Just why the rule in question needs any interpretation other than the obvious one is a mystery.
This is the wording of the rule in question. According to law 19.8 "If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the willful 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 pertinent part is the last bit... " together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act... "Replays show that when Guptill threw the delivery in from the boundary, Stokes and his partner Abdul Rashid had not crossed over for the second run when running down the pitch, nor had Stokes reached the crease at the striker's end when the ball deflected off his bat, meaning that according to the law, England should have been awarded five runs, not six. It is clear that the batsmen did not cross or come close to crossing when attempting the second run when the fielder Guptil returned the ball. The ICC have been quick to clarify the situation with "No comment from ICC on overthrow issues in World Cup final" [Post edited 17 Jul 2019 4:08]
|  |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Cricket WC on 06:34 - Jul 17 with 834 views | D_Alien |
| Cricket WC on 03:17 - Jul 17 by kiwidale |
Nothing will change the result nothing I say or think will alter that and that should be the end of the matter. However it seems that more than 48 hours after the game ended nobody fully understands the rule regarding overthrows. It's become clear that during the game nobody including me knew the rules regarding overthrows which is strange seeing that the rule in question has been part of the game since the year dot. The two umpires (this is conjecture on my part) did not fully understand or interpret the rule regarding overthrows correctly, nor did the match adjudicator or match referee. The NZ players were in the dark otherwise they would have questioned the extra run awarded to England and the press did not know until the issue was raised post match. I have yet to hear officially what the rule actually means and I'm not holding my breath. I have read the rule in question it seems quite clear but apparently its "open to interpretation" it might mean one thing today and another tomorrow depending on the umpires interpretation. Just why the rule in question needs any interpretation other than the obvious one is a mystery.
This is the wording of the rule in question. According to law 19.8 "If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the willful 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 pertinent part is the last bit... " together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act... "Replays show that when Guptill threw the delivery in from the boundary, Stokes and his partner Abdul Rashid had not crossed over for the second run when running down the pitch, nor had Stokes reached the crease at the striker's end when the ball deflected off his bat, meaning that according to the law, England should have been awarded five runs, not six. It is clear that the batsmen did not cross or come close to crossing when attempting the second run when the fielder Guptil returned the ball. The ICC have been quick to clarify the situation with "No comment from ICC on overthrow issues in World Cup final" [Post edited 17 Jul 2019 4:08]
|
As stated in many places both on here and wider media, it would appear the umpires made a mistake, just as they are prone to do with other decisions (lbw, no ball, wides etc.) that might change the outcome of a game. Equally, such errors can't be changed in retrospect
The ambiguity lies in the law you've quoted not involving the instance of the throw accidentally hitting Stokes' bat
Hope that clears it up, once and for all
[Post edited 17 Jul 2019 6:45]
|  |
| |
| Cricket WC on 09:19 - Jul 17 with 762 views | kiwidale |
| Cricket WC on 06:34 - Jul 17 by D_Alien |
As stated in many places both on here and wider media, it would appear the umpires made a mistake, just as they are prone to do with other decisions (lbw, no ball, wides etc.) that might change the outcome of a game. Equally, such errors can't be changed in retrospect
The ambiguity lies in the law you've quoted not involving the instance of the throw accidentally hitting Stokes' bat
Hope that clears it up, once and for all
[Post edited 17 Jul 2019 6:45]
|
Actually it doesn't clear it up once and for all you have just added more confusion. There is nothing in rule 19; 8. about a throw hitting anything bat or otherwise to constitute overthrows, however rule 19; 8. clearly states that the instance the fielder throws the ball the batsman must have crossed or no run is awarded. I see no ambiguity in the wording of the rule. The ball in question hit Stokes bat resulting in four overthrows which is a correct decision nobody is saying otherwise, its the runs prior to the ball hitting the bat that are in question. It was clearly one run not two. [Post edited 17 Jul 2019 9:39]
| |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Cricket WC on 10:44 - Jul 17 with 710 views | D_Alien |
| Cricket WC on 09:19 - Jul 17 by kiwidale |
Actually it doesn't clear it up once and for all you have just added more confusion. There is nothing in rule 19; 8. about a throw hitting anything bat or otherwise to constitute overthrows, however rule 19; 8. clearly states that the instance the fielder throws the ball the batsman must have crossed or no run is awarded. I see no ambiguity in the wording of the rule. The ball in question hit Stokes bat resulting in four overthrows which is a correct decision nobody is saying otherwise, its the runs prior to the ball hitting the bat that are in question. It was clearly one run not two. [Post edited 17 Jul 2019 9:39]
|
If it makes you feel any better, imo the umpires should've called 'dead ball' after it hit Stokes' bat, and awarded two completed runs
Makes no difference whatsoever | |
| |
| Cricket WC on 11:42 - Jul 17 with 674 views | wimborne_dale |
Re law 19.8 "If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the willful 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."
This strikes me as a bad law. In a marginal case, the umpire would often have to be looking two ways at once to know whether or not the batsmen had crossed at the moment of the throw. This works fine for umpires with two heads. | |
| |
| Cricket WC on 12:31 - Jul 17 with 640 views | DiddyDave |
| Cricket WC on 11:42 - Jul 17 by wimborne_dale |
Re law 19.8 "If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the willful 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."
This strikes me as a bad law. In a marginal case, the umpire would often have to be looking two ways at once to know whether or not the batsmen had crossed at the moment of the throw. This works fine for umpires with two heads. |
There were two umpires with one head each,but neither were expecting this one in a million event to happen. In the old days,correct me if I`m wrong,if a ball went to the boundary as an overthrow,it was a four,no matter how many runs the batsmen had made. Yes/no? The crossing of the batsmen in this situation is a rule that you`d have to be a Rhodes Scholar to remember,so no criticism to either of the umpires there. Nobody knew the ruling,even in the bunker or they would surely have informed the umpires of it. Just an an unfortunate anomaly that cost NZ the win. | | | |
| Cricket WC on 14:07 - Jul 17 with 618 views | wimborne_dale |
| Cricket WC on 12:31 - Jul 17 by DiddyDave |
There were two umpires with one head each,but neither were expecting this one in a million event to happen. In the old days,correct me if I`m wrong,if a ball went to the boundary as an overthrow,it was a four,no matter how many runs the batsmen had made. Yes/no? The crossing of the batsmen in this situation is a rule that you`d have to be a Rhodes Scholar to remember,so no criticism to either of the umpires there. Nobody knew the ruling,even in the bunker or they would surely have informed the umpires of it. Just an an unfortunate anomaly that cost NZ the win. |
Agreed Diddy, but I still think it's a bad rule. The two umpires with one head each would have to be somehow neurologically synchronized to make the rule workable as it stands. With VAR it could work but I think the rules should be universal, i.e. they should be applicable to the village green as well as the world cup.
I don't remember a time when an overthrow to the boundary counted as four no matter how many runs the batsmen had previously made. Before my time possibly.
While we're on the subject, perhaps the law makers could look at the situation where the ball accidentally deflects of the bat while the batsman is in the act of taking a run. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cricket WC on 14:34 - Jul 17 with 605 views | D_Alien |
| Cricket WC on 14:07 - Jul 17 by wimborne_dale |
Agreed Diddy, but I still think it's a bad rule. The two umpires with one head each would have to be somehow neurologically synchronized to make the rule workable as it stands. With VAR it could work but I think the rules should be universal, i.e. they should be applicable to the village green as well as the world cup.
I don't remember a time when an overthrow to the boundary counted as four no matter how many runs the batsmen had previously made. Before my time possibly.
While we're on the subject, perhaps the law makers could look at the situation where the ball accidentally deflects of the bat while the batsman is in the act of taking a run. |
I agree, and my preference would be to call a 'dead ball' as previously stated
It was notable that Stokes made no attempt to run after it'd deflected off his bat, realising it would've been unfair | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
