[Series Thread] World Cup 2019

zimbos_05 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:03 pm

Looks like England were awarded one run too many. Stokes and Rashid had not crossed when Guptill threw the ball that deflected off his bat for four.

I'm quite sure we've seen plenty of overthrows like that in cricket. I disagree with Taufel's take. If the overthrows hadn't occured, Stokes and Rashid would have completed 2 runs (provided no run outs, which Stokes' bat blocked inadvertently). The overthrows went for 4 extra runs. 4 + 2 = 6. Thus the umpires awarded the logically correct number of runs to England. This is just people's pro-underdog bias in trying to clutch at straws to support NZ, over England, IMO.

The real issue is should those 4 extra runs have been counted and since it always has, you can't change the rules now just because its a final or just because you need NZ to win. Stokes didn't intentionaly obstruct the ball and so its all kosher.

But 5 runs vs 6 runs is really pathetic way excuse here.

Another legitimate criticism is the boundary count thing. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Because at the end of the day runs are runs, and I think who hit more boundaries is a cheap way to decide who wins a game. It should rather be wickets lost in the original 50 over innings, in which case NZ would have won (8 vs 10).

Kriterion_BD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:11 pm

zimbos_05 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:03 pm

Looks like England were awarded one run too many. Stokes and Rashid had not crossed when Guptill threw the ball that deflected off his bat for four.

I'm quite sure we've seen plenty of overthrows like that in cricket. I disagree with Taufel's take. If the overthrows hadn't occured, Stokes and Rashid would have completed 2 runs (provided no run outs, which Stokes' bat blocked inadvertently). The overthrows went for 4 extra runs. 4 + 2 = 6. Thus the umpires awarded the logically correct number of runs to England. This is just people's pro-underdog bias in trying to clutch at straws to support NZ, over England, IMO.

The real issue is should those 4 extra runs have been counted and since it always has, you can't change the rules now just because its a final or just because you need NZ to win. Stokes didn't intentionaly obstruct the ball and so its all kosher.

But 5 runs vs 6 runs is really pathetic way excuse here.

Another legitimate criticism is the boundary count thing. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Because at the end of the day runs are runs, and I think who hit more boundaries is a cheap way to decide who wins a game. It should rather be wickets lost in the original 50 over innings, in which case NZ would have won (8 vs 10).

How can you disagree with Taufel’s take ??? Guptill either threw it before or after they’d crossed, it’s not up for interpretation.

Personally I don’t understand why they count runs that have been deflected off the batsman it should just be dead ball imo

The boundary count tie breaker was also a joke, why not have a second Super over?

Perhaps they way to look at it is that the Final was tied but England won the tournament? Whatever you think the result is or should have been, one couldn't have asked for a better final. CWC Final don't always deliver, this one delivered more than any ODI game I have ever seen.

foreignfield wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:53 pm

Hats off, again, to the Kiwis and how they handled the defeat.

+1000.

Kane Williamson, take a bow.

CrimsonAvenger wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:42 am

foreignfield wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:53 pm

Hats off, again, to the Kiwis and how they handled the defeat.

+1000.

Kane Williamson, take a bow.

I said to my son when he was having a go at the tv - 'having the character of Williamson is worth more than the trophy.'

Jemisi wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:56 am

I said to my son when he was having a go at the tv - 'having the character of Williamson is worth more than the trophy.'

Absolutely!

The only guy comparable that comes to mind is Rahul Dravid. Extremely rare gems as far as character is concerned.

jaybro wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:16 am

You can argue the rule is wrong but you can't argue that to the letter of the law, that is the rule they got the call wrong!!! End of story move on

I'm just saying had it been awarded as 5 runs, that would in a sense be unfair to England, because the arm release thing is never factored in on other instances of overthrows. I've never heard the commentators mention it, or the 3rd umpire look at replays of the throw, in determining how many runs are credited during an overthrow. Nor should they, IMO. Were it 5 runs awarded to Bangladesh in this situation, I'd have screamed that its an ICC conspiracy ( :D ).

The incorrect ruling may have been made on field, but it resulted in the mathematically sound conclusion in the end.

The real issue should be deciding a game on boundaries. That is ridiculous, and had Bangladesh lost on a boundary count, I'd call it bullshit. You might as well use a coin toss to determine the winner.

Best situation would have been to keep having super overs until one side finally wins. Its an 8 hour game, whats another 15 minutes?

NZ and England have both been awesome. Well done to both.

My wife says England finished third to NZ's fourth. That would be a better basis to split them than the stupid boundaries.

Boundaries is a ludicrous way to decide a tie in the Final. If anything England should have won due to the fact they finished higher in the points table. A wonderful final which concludes a wonderful tournament. I am a big fan of this format and hope it stays. Both the CWC Qualifying tournament and the CWC itself provided a lot of excitement. England also a great host in terms of packing the venues, no empty behemoth stadiums like you get in the subcontinent.

The fans are good

How can number of boundaries decide a WC winner is beyond me! That over throw hitting Stokes bat was quite pathetic as well.

NZL deserved to win this, pretty much robbed.

Anyways good this for English cricket, they played some good cricket over the last 4 years and even in this WC they pretty much won 4 must win games in a row to win the trophy, so we'll done in the end.

Honestly England are deserved champions, and I am saying this as a New Zealander. England beat New Zealand, India, and Australia on their way to the final.