Cricket World Cup

[Notts1874]

43 minutes ago, Shaggy2 said:

Still can’t understand why you get six because you’ve completed two runs and then an honest mistake by the “attacking” team results in effectively a second strike and the ball goes for four? Time and again there’s a run completed before the ball reaches the boundary, but you don’t get 5. 

That “six” was like accidentally scoring when trying to give the ball back at football. Arguably, England should’ve accepted a dot ball from the next delivery. Suppose sportsmanship goes out the window when a World Cup is on the line. 

Congratulations to England, the rules say they won and that’s that. We won the darts!

Overthrows. Its been in the rules since day dot. If Stokes was looking towards the fielder it wouldn't have been given as six.

 

Its not bad sportsmanship to play to the rules.

[Boris]

56 minutes ago, Shaggy2 said:

Still can’t understand why you get six because you’ve completed two runs and then an honest mistake by the “attacking” team results in effectively a second strike and the ball goes for four? Time and again there’s a run completed before the ball reaches the boundary, but you don’t get 5. 

 

Think of it like overthrows.

 

56 minutes ago, Shaggy2 said:

That “six” was like accidentally scoring when trying to give the ball back at football. Arguably, England should’ve accepted a dot ball from the next delivery. Suppose sportsmanship goes out the window when a World Cup is on the line. 

Congratulations to England, the rules say they won and that’s that. We won the darts!

 

Disagree.  It wasn't deliberate, just one of those things.

[SE16 3LN]

Great Sport 

[Justin Z]

20 minutes ago, Shaggy2 said:

Still can’t understand why you get six because you’ve completed two runs and then an honest mistake by the “attacking” team results in effectively a second strike and the ball goes for four? Time and again there’s a run completed before the ball reaches the boundary, but you don’t get 5. 

That “six” was like accidentally scoring when trying to give the ball back at football. Arguably, England should’ve accepted a dot ball from the next delivery. Suppose sportsmanship goes out the window when a World Cup is on the line. 

Congratulations to England, the rules say they won and that’s that. We won the darts!

 

The law I think says something about once a fielder has thrown the ball, a separate scoring phase can occur. Whereas when running a single before the initially batted ball goes for four, no fielder has made a throw yet, so that's why it's not five. Basically, in what happened yesterday, you've earned two batted runs, and if through what 99.99999999% of the time is the fielding team's fault (overthrows), a boundary then occurs, an extra four on top of what was already run makes sense.

 

Yes, an extremely unlucky thing to happen--for an accurately thrown ball to have hit Stokes' bat and gone all the way to the boundary--and maybe it should be treated differently than a throw that misses everything and ends up hitting the boundary, but that's how the law's been written for a good century and a half. It's such a vanishingly rare thing to happen I don't think anyone has ever felt the need to even look at it, much less change it.

 

However, was the law misapplied? Because apparently there's a caveat to all this . . .

 

From an article on ESPN Cricinfo that has a helpful video where you can see:

 

"According to Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.

 

The law states: 'If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side, and the allowance for the boundary, and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.' "

 

 

[Shaggy2]

Thanks for the answers. I never said it was anything other than accidental and within the rules. I just think that if you “accidentally” benefit, sportsmanship should come into play somehow. 

Having said that, I hate to think what my thought process would be if a goalkeeper error allowed Hearts to score in a cup final whilst attempting to return the ball after an injury stoppage. Would I want Hearts to allow Hibs or Celtic to walk the ball into the net to cancel out our luck??? It’s within the rules not to, as shown with Aston Villa v Leeds, I think, and the scummy Scunthorpe guy. 

[Shaggy2]

32 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

The law I think says something about once a fielder has thrown the ball, a separate scoring phase can occur. Whereas when running a single before the initially batted ball goes for four, no fielder has made a throw yet, so that's why it's not five. Basically, in what happened yesterday, you've earned two batted runs, and if through what 99.99999999% of the time is the fielding team's fault (overthrows), a boundary then occurs, an extra four on top of what was already run makes sense.

 

Yes, an extremely unlucky thing to happen--for an accurately thrown ball to have hit Stokes' bat and gone all the way to the boundary--and maybe it should be treated differently than a throw that misses everything and ends up hitting the boundary, but that's how the law's been written for a good century and a half. It's such a vanishingly rare thing to happen I don't think anyone has ever felt the need to even look at it, much less change it.

 

However, was the law misapplied? Because apparently there's a caveat to all this . . .

 

From an article on ESPN Cricinfo that has a helpful video where you can see:

 

"According to Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.

 

The law states: 'If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side, and the allowance for the boundary, and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.' "

 

 

Cat amongst pigeons there. 😀

[Justin Z]

4 minutes ago, Shaggy2 said:

Cat amongst pigeons there. 😀

 

Haha! "Unfair under the rules" or not though, you're right--it's something they need to look at now that something this crazy has happened under the current regime, especially since the law is confusing enough that it might've been misapplied by international umpires in a World Cup final!

[Boris]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

The law I think says something about once a fielder has thrown the ball, a separate scoring phase can occur. Whereas when running a single before the initially batted ball goes for four, no fielder has made a throw yet, so that's why it's not five. Basically, in what happened yesterday, you've earned two batted runs, and if through what 99.99999999% of the time is the fielding team's fault (overthrows), a boundary then occurs, an extra four on top of what was already run makes sense.

 

Yes, an extremely unlucky thing to happen--for an accurately thrown ball to have hit Stokes' bat and gone all the way to the boundary--and maybe it should be treated differently than a throw that misses everything and ends up hitting the boundary, but that's how the law's been written for a good century and a half. It's such a vanishingly rare thing to happen I don't think anyone has ever felt the need to even look at it, much less change it.

 

However, was the law misapplied? Because apparently there's a caveat to all this . . .

 

From an article on ESPN Cricinfo that has a helpful video where you can see:

 

"According to Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.

 

The law states: 'If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side, and the allowance for the boundary, and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.' "

 

 

 

CRICInfo trying to stir it IMO.

 

Using ACT as the key term - i.e. the ricochet off of Stoke's bat.

 

By that time Stokes had crossed and had made his ground.

 

TBF, the article does mention this possibility.

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, Shaggy2 said:

Cat amongst pigeons there. 😀

 

Keep lawyers, especially yank ones out of sports!! 

[SE16 3LN]

2 hours ago, Shaggy2 said:

Thanks for the answers. I never said it was anything other than accidental and within the rules. I just think that if you “accidentally” benefit, sportsmanship should come into play somehow. 

Having said that, I hate to think what my thought process would be if a goalkeeper error allowed Hearts to score in a cup final whilst attempting to return the ball after an injury stoppage. Would I want Hearts to allow Hibs or Celtic to walk the ball into the net to cancel out our luck??? It’s within the rules not to, as shown with Aston Villa v Leeds, I think, and the scummy Scunthorpe guy. 

Nah mate, it was more like a deflection in football, it happens. Its luck not sportsmanship. You can't give the other team a walk in goal because a shite shot is deflected in at the other end. Yesterday was pure sporting drama to be enjoyed, if you don't feel like that why bother with sport at all.

[Shaggy2]

6 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

Nah mate, it was more like a deflection in football, it happens. Its luck not sportsmanship. You can't give the other team a walk in goal because a shite shot is deflected in at the other end. Yesterday was pure sporting drama to be enjoyed, if you don't feel like that why bother with sport at all.

Can’t deny it was dramatic. I spent almost all my time at work listening to it and bantering back and forth with my English cousin and it was a lot of fun. Easy to say it’s enjoyable if your team wins. However, that was way more lucky/unlucky than a deflected shot in football. I think the truth lies somewhere in between our arguments. I think there’s an unfairness in playing the ball twice in the same play, intentional or otherwise. I think the two runs should count but the ball dead as soon as it strikes the bat for the second time. 

As I said, congratulations to England. I would say they were my favourite team in a past life. Up until they went way OTT in celebration of the 2005 Ashes. A game only two teams feckin play and the squad got MBEs and Vaughan an OBE! 

[Locky]

17 hours ago, been here before said:

Not really a cricket fan but watched it from England needing about 45 to win. Brilliant entertainment, thouroughly enjoyable. Backwards and forwards, to and fro never sure literally until the last ball who would win.

 

Crazy way for England to score 6 with the Kiwi fielder hitting it off the English batsmans bat as he was stretching for the crease.

 

Just goes to show that truly great sport is the best thing in the world. No theatre, book, film or work of art could provide that level of drama and excitement nor those feeling of euphoric highs or cataclysmic lows*.

 

 

One day cricket is a great format. I still dont reckon I could sit through a whole Test match.

 

* does not apply to tennis, snooker or golf as they're abject shite no matter what happens.

I agree on Golf, and Tennis to a point as I don't mind Wimbledon, but gotta love the Snooker.

 

My interest in cricket has grown massively over the years. I listened to everyone when I was younger say that it's shite and bought into that myself. Only after I decided to give it a try, did I realise what an interesting and even exciting sport it can be. I'm glad yesterday proved that.

[Justin Z]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

 

CRICInfo trying to stir it IMO.

 

Using ACT as the key term - i.e. the ricochet off of Stoke's bat.

 

By that time Stokes had crossed and had made his ground.

 

TBF, the article does mention this possibility.

 

Yeah, but I do agree with the article's reasoning that since the law isn't referencing the batsmen at all up to that point, it's talking about the acts of fielders.

 

3 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Keep lawyers, especially yank ones out of sports!! 

 

 

No argument here!

[Boris]

13 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Yeah, but I do agree with the article's reasoning that since the law isn't referencing the batsmen at all up to that point, it's talking about the acts of fielders.

 

 

 

I took "the act" to mean the ball striking whatever to alter its course.

 

That said, interpretation was never my strong suit at school...

[Justin Z]

Just now, Boris said:

 

I took "the act" to mean the ball striking whatever to alter its course.

 

That said, interpretation was never my strong suit at school...

 

Ironically, in law school we were taught an act has to be committed by some agent, usually a person, deliberately. The ball striking a bat is just something that has happened--it's definitionally not an act.

[Ribble]

4 hours ago, Boris said:

 

CRICInfo trying to stir it IMO.

 

Using ACT as the key term - i.e. the ricochet off of Stoke's bat.

 

By that time Stokes had crossed and had made his ground.

 

TBF, the article does mention this possibility.

 

At the point the ball connected with Stoke's bat he was short and if the contact with the bat constitutes the 'act' in the rules then Stokes had only completed 1 run at that point, meaning that it should have been 5 runs not 6 AND Stokes would have been off strike. 

[RobboM]

1 minute ago, Ribble said:

 

At the point the ball connected with Stoke's bat he was short and if the contact with the bat constitutes the 'act' in the rules then Stokes had only completed 1 run at that point, meaning that it should have been 5 runs not 6 AND Stokes would have been off strike. 

No. If it was the "act" of defelction then they had crossed and the rule credits runs completed or in the act of being completed (if they had crossed) which, with Stokes diving for the line, they clearly had at that point.

Thing that confuses me a little about taking it back to the act of the throw is that the Umpires will almost certainly have their eyes on the batsman and making sure they have the bat grounded over the line before setting off for the second run. They wouldn't often be able to keep an eye on both the batsman at the crease and the fielder in the deep to make such a call.

[Mikey1874]

41 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

At the point the ball connected with Stoke's bat he was short and if the contact with the bat constitutes the 'act' in the rules then Stokes had only completed 1 run at that point, meaning that it should have been 5 runs not 6 AND Stokes would have been off strike. 

 

Stokes not necessarily off strike. Do the rules cover that? 

 

He could have hit last 2 balls for 6 if he needed to. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Mikey1874

[willie wallace]

Talking about it on the radio today none of the guests or presenters could remember it ever happening before..

Not a surprise really.

Pity it never happened the other way around.

Would have been fun and games😃

 

 

[SE16 3LN]

4 minutes ago, willie wallace said:

Talking about it on the radio today none of the guests or presenters could remember it ever happening before..

Not a surprise really.

Pity it never happened the other way around.

Would have been fun and games😃 

 

 

Same either way surely 

[Maroon Sailor]

So New Zealand got robbed.

 

Not England's fault - just incompetent umpires

 

 

[joondalupjambo]

45 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

So New Zealand got robbed.

 

Not England's fault - just incompetent umpires

 

 

This 100%

 

[Victorian]

I think NZ may have been disadvantaged by the rules or by the rules being applied incorrectly but the circumstances would have been different if England had scored 5 or 6 runs.     A material difference in circumstances (runs required from remaining balls) means that what occured after that 6 run score is directly affected.     NZ cannot prove they would have won if 5 runs were scored instead of 6.      

 

[Maroon Sailor]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

I think NZ may have been disadvantaged by the rules or by the rules being applied incorrectly but the circumstances would have been different if England had scored 5 or 6 runs.     A material difference in circumstances (runs required from remaining balls) means that what occured after that 6 run score is directly affected.     NZ cannot prove they would have won if 5 runs were scored instead of 6.      

 

 

A pretty shitty way to miss out. Stokes would have been at the non strikers end if 5 runs had been rightly given.

 

The umpires made a mess of the biggest one day match in cricket.

[SE16 3LN]

😂 Got to love the bitter and twisted on here. 

 

No robbery just salty tears of hurt. Man up like proper Scotsman instead of acting like infant girls FFS.

[Mikey1874]

18 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

A pretty shitty way to miss out. Stokes would have been at the non strikers end if 5 runs had been rightly given.

 

The umpires made a mess of the biggest one day match in cricket.

 

Curious.

 

No one yet has confirmed if Stokes would have lost strike. Not quoted by those who quoted the rule. You don't go back to where you should have been when someone is run out or caught.

 

In any case Rashid is good player and could easily have got a single for Stokes to hit a 6 last ball. 

 

But anyway. I saw at least one no ball not given when England hit a four. So that is at least one extra run England should have got.

 

Since you mention it. 

[Kiwidoug]

I've no interest in all the what-ifs.  If I did, I would argue that Archer's 1st delivery in the final over was not a wide.

 

Nail biting, thrilling contest which could have gone either way.  Massive congratulations to both sides.

[Notts1874]

Oops😂😂😂

[Jeff]

Celebrating with Shane Lowry shortly

[Boris]

WTF????!!!!
 

Admittedly, not the first XI, but Ireland are steamrollering them!

[Adam Murray]

All out before lunch, for a paltry 85.

[Mikey1874]

Both Australian XIs playing each other dismissed for low scores too. 

 

Maybe 3 day tests this year. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Justin Z]

Oh is this the catch-all cricket thread now? Oops. I bumped another more general one.

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Oh is this the catch-all cricket thread now? Oops. I bumped another more general one.

 

I'd say a separate Ashes thread would be merited...

[RobboM]

Just a footnote to the Cricket World Cup which England won on the basis of scoring more boundaries after the score at 50 overs and the runs scored after the Super over were tied level.

The ICC cricket committee and the chief executives’ committee “agreed the super over was an exciting and engaging conclusion to the game and will remain in place”, they announced, but amended so that “in keeping with the basic principle of scoring more runs than the opponent to win, the super over will be repeated until one team has more runs than the other”

So the Super Over will carry on till one side comes out on top.

 

Decent move imo.

[Maroon Sailor]

3 hours ago, RobboM said:

Just a footnote to the Cricket World Cup which England won on the basis of scoring more boundaries after the score at 50 overs and the runs scored after the Super over were tied level.

The ICC cricket committee and the chief executives’ committee “agreed the super over was an exciting and engaging conclusion to the game and will remain in place”, they announced, but amended so that “in keeping with the basic principle of scoring more runs than the opponent to win, the super over will be repeated until one team has more runs than the other”

So the Super Over will carry on till one side comes out on top.

 

Decent move imo.

 

A Super Over plus

 

Took two teams to score the same amount of runs in a final to come up with that idea.

[ri Alban]

Something tells me the All Blacks will be looking to avenge this, by inflicting some harsh reality on the England rugby team.

[RobboM]

47 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

A Super Over plus

 

Took two teams to score the same amount of runs in a final to come up with that idea.

And they'll never, ever, ever, EVER need to use it 😂

[Maroon Sailor]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

Something tells me the All Blacks will be looking to avenge this, by inflicting some harsh reality on the England rugby team.

 

If it ends in a draw there will be some rule England get through on

[RobboM]

3 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

If it ends in a draw there will be some rule England get through on

Aye .... number of boundaries scored in the Cricket World Cup 😁

[shaun.lawson]

15 hours ago, RobboM said:

Just a footnote to the Cricket World Cup which England won on the basis of scoring more boundaries after the score at 50 overs and the runs scored after the Super over were tied level.

The ICC cricket committee and the chief executives’ committee “agreed the super over was an exciting and engaging conclusion to the game and will remain in place”, they announced, but amended so that “in keeping with the basic principle of scoring more runs than the opponent to win, the super over will be repeated until one team has more runs than the other”

So the Super Over will carry on till one side comes out on top.

 

Decent move imo.

 

Yes. 100% correct. Plainly should've been used this year too.

[JWL]

Are England still claiming they won this?

[Mikey1874]

World Cup qualifying for T20 next year on now.

 

One win, one defeat for Scotland so far.

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/scores-fixtures/2019-10-21

[shaun.lawson]

14 hours ago, JWL said:

Are England still claiming they won this?

 

Are Australia still claiming they won this in 1999?

[Mikey1874]

Scotland win 2nd game in World T20 qualifying. Won 2 Lost 1. 

 

This is to qualify for the final qualifying tournament. 

[JWL]

10 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Are Australia still claiming they won this in 1999?

 

Fair and square wasn't it?

[shaun.lawson]

15 hours ago, JWL said:

 

Fair and square wasn't it?

 

Australia v South Africa ended in a tie. Australia went through on the nonsense of net run rate. There was no super over.

 

England v New Zealand ended in a tie. England won after a super over which was also tied, having already finished above New Zealand, beaten them in the group stage game and scored a higher net run rate. In other words, there were no other methods to separate the sides which could've resulted in a New Zealand win. It's just that, when England tie a World Cup game, all hell breaks loose.

[CornhillHearts]

20 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

Scotland win 2nd game in World T20 qualifying. Won 2 Lost 1. 

 

This is to qualify for the final qualifying tournament. 

Next game v Namibia starts this morning, live updates here, if I've copied the correct link, (half asleep) 

 

https://www.t20worldcup.com/match/18192#overview

[Maroon Sailor]

4 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Australia v South Africa ended in a tie. Australia went through on the nonsense of net run rate. There was no super over.

 

England v New Zealand ended in a tie. England won after a super over which was also tied, having already finished above New Zealand, beaten them in the group stage game and scored a higher net run rate. In other words, there were no other methods to separate the sides which could've resulted in a New Zealand win. It's just that, when England tie a World Cup game, all hell breaks loose.

 

The super over was introduced so that we could have a clear winner on runs scored, which is the whole point of one day cricket.

 

New Zealand scored as many runs as England so why not share the trophy.

 

They have changed the system now anyway to avoid this farce happening again and that tells it's own story.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Maroon Sailor

[Mikey1874]

3 hours ago, CornhillHearts said:

Next game v Namibia starts this morning, live updates here, if I've copied the correct link, (half asleep) 

 

https://www.t20worldcup.com/match/18192#overview

 

Cheers.

 

Scotland about to be defeated against team that has been hammered in every other game.

 

Pitches in UAE maybe unfamiliar. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Mikey1874