1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

ODI World Cup 2019

Discussion in 'Cricket' started by Up the Guts, Mar 11, 2019.

  1. Finsbury Girl Vay Wilson (31)

    Likes Received:
    583
    The way it ended certainly wasn't ideal. Hard luck kiwis, at least the real world cup awaits!

    Boy I hope we flog the poms in the ashes now.
  2. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,178

    I hope we absolutely fucking pants those guys.
    Froggy, Penguin and RugbyReg like this.
  3. waiopehu oldboy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    5,030
    There's now a cricinfo writer suggesting that the six runs England got when the ball deflected off Stokes' bat & went for overthrows should only have been five as the batsmen hadn't crossed when Guptill threw the ball, the relevant Law being:

    "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."

    I'd suggest that in this case the "act" is the ball hitting Stokes' bat, by which time the batsmen had crossed therefore the run they're completing counts. What say the cricket umpires on here?
    barbarian likes this.
  4. Up the Guts Geoff Shaw (53)

    Likes Received:
    2,942
    ^^^
    Interesting one. I’m going to guess English supporters, the ICC, and officials involved will define act the way you have so as to avoid further controversy. You could easily make a case for it to go the other way and is probably just another example of all the decisions going in favour of England.

    Edit: upon reading up on this further ‘act’ refers to wilful act of the fielder (NOT a batsmen or umpire) that causes the ball to cross the boundary (as opposed to overthrows). E.g. a fielder may kick the ball over the boundary to keep a certain batsman on strike. In this case then the act is Guptil throwing the ball and the BCs may have a case to make (not that they will, they’re too nice).
  5. Finsbury Girl Vay Wilson (31)

    Likes Received:
    583
    Yeah Simon Taufel reckons it was a mistake by the umpires.

    #Justice4Kane
    Up the Guts likes this.
  6. Up the Guts Geoff Shaw (53)

    Likes Received:
    2,942
    Ironic that they gave the man of the series award to Kane, the guy who held his team together by working the ball into gaps and not trying to hit boundaries.
    Derpus likes this.
  7. Derpus Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    3,544
    Its mental that one kind of run is worth more than another. It's just not cricket, as they say.
  8. cyclopath Phil Waugh (73)

    Likes Received:
    15,140
    Why is anyone surprised if the ICC fuck yet something else up?
    They spend much of their time contorting themselves to the will of the BCCI that their heads are well up where the sun don't shine.
    They leave discipline regarding illegal acts (ball tampering, for example) to home cricket boards who have been woefully inconsistent in handing out penalties.
    I've spoken to a fair few people today, none of whom supported one team or other in the final, who all thought the concocted formula was quite bizarre. Why not play until a conclusion - 5 overs each or something - what are the odds of being tied then? Very small I would wager.
    That said, teams should have known it, I guess, so there can be no complaints. Except if the 6 runs was really 5. ;)
    And finally, although it pains me to say it, England have been the best team for some time, so maybe fair enough? I do feel sorry for the Black Caps though.
  9. waiopehu oldboy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    5,030
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/crick...ve-got-five-runs-not-six-after-that-overthrow

    I may be splitting hairs here but to my mind there are two acts, the first being the throw which doesn't cause the overthrow & the second being the ball contacting Stokes' bat which does. I'm comfortable with Stokes being awarded six for it, it just feels right in a cricket sense.

    Yeah, I've never seen a teams total boundaries on a scorecard, only runs & wickets. I'm gunna wildly speculate that the person who devised the tie-breaker was a batsman.
  10. Up the Guts Geoff Shaw (53)

    Likes Received:
    2,942
    ^^^

    I think the key is that the 'act' is the defined as the act of the fielder and doesn't relate to the opposition or umpires, so the act is Guptil, the fielder, throwing the ball. Interestingly, if it's awarded 5 runs then Rashid is also on strike and Stokes doesn't have a chance to finish the match.

    Also pretty funny that Stokes, who played the winning hand for England, is a Canterbury boy. Apparently, his Dad was going for the BCs but wanted his son to play well.
  11. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,178
    Just checking in: still feeling salty that the Kiwis were robbed. What a farcical process to arrive at the champion of a world event. Might as well toss a fucking coin.
    Up the Guts and Derpus like this.
  12. Brumby Runner Rod McCall (65)

    Likes Received:
    5,362
    Or the result when they went head to head in the round robin?
    Froggy likes this.
  13. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    23,861

    I agree completely that "most boundaries" was a pretty nonsensical way to resolve the tied super over.

    Having a second super over if the first one is tied seems like a much better option particularly when we're talking about the World Cup Final. That said, in the 11 super overs there have been in international T20 cricket before this, there's never been a tie. This was the first ODI super over. Most boundaries in the match has been the standard way of deciding the winner in T20 super overs though. That has happened 5 times.
  14. barbarian Nick Farr-Jones (63)

    Likes Received:
    9,601

    I think they were shafted, but I don't think they were robbed. Maybe semantics, but still.

    Ultimately they knew what they had to do, and didn't do it. They had chances to put the game away and did not do that. Certainly they got the wrong end of a few calls, but none were shockers IMO.

    Take the Stokes deflection 5 vs 6 debate - it's all a hypothetical. Instead of needing 3 off 2, they need 4 off 2 with Rashid on strike. It's certainly harder but far from impossible.

    I define 'robbed' as being a definitive thing - 'they would have won if not for decision X'. I don't think the Kiwis can claim that.
    .
  15. RugbyReg George Smith (75)

    Likes Received:
    13,707
    Was the countback on the most number of 4s in the game or the tournament?

    I think the kiwis scored the 2nd lowest number of fours in the tournament? Or at least were towards the bottom.

    Shows how relevant that statistic is with regards 'the best team'.
  16. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    23,861

    In the match.
    RugbyReg likes this.
  17. Froggy Alex Ross (28)

    Likes Received:
    909
    There are just so many fairer ways to decide, it's like they drew the winner out of a hat.
    Who had the most wickets in hand, who won when they met during the round robin, who finished with the most points in the round robin, another super over etc etc. They may as well have said we'll give it to the team with the tallest wicket keeper!!! Amazing.
  18. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    23,861

    Another super over is definitely preferable for a match of this importance.

    In some ways, the tie break method of deciding who wins a tied super over doesn't matter that much. Before the super over happens both teams are clear on where they stand and one team knows that they have to score an extra run to win. Whatever your countback method, it's a cruel way to decide it. I think it is reasonable from a consistency perspective that there is a blanket rule that just applies to that match.
    barbarian likes this.
  19. Up the Guts Geoff Shaw (53)

    Likes Received:
    2,942
    I can more understand in t20 cricket the boundary rule where teams are playing defensively to stop boundaries. In ODI cricket it’s still a legitimate tactic to encourage the drive early on and concede boundaries in the hope of getting an edge or leaving your mid on or off up and encouraging a batsman to take on the spinner.
  20. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    23,861

    Make it least wides bowled then or something. Whatever it is, it's a sucky way to lose such an important game but barring having a second super over, it probably doesn't matter what that countback method is. You're deciding that one teams just needs to tie it and the other needs to win by a run. Both teams know where they stand before it happens.

Share This Page