Jump to content


Photo

Cricket World Cup.


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#61 Rehabilitated

Rehabilitated

    Rehabilitated

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Locationon the waters and else where

Posted 15 July 2019 - 02:16 PM

                NZ COULD BE AWARDED THE CRICKET WORLD CUP 2019

 

 

                      LATEST. Just been posted by the news media.

 

 

2019 Cricket World Cup final: Should England have got five, not six runs for  overthrows?

 

Jeepers they did everything to make sure NZ did not win the Cup !!!!

 

 

Quote

 

"As the dust settles and the analysis pours in on the "greatest ODI match of all time", Kiwi cricket fans have been left wondering just how robbed they were of their first World Cup title.
Lost in the thrilling late-match madness was one key question; were England awarded one run too many during the chaotic scenes of Trent Boult's final over to Ben Stokes?
In arguably the key moment in England's run-chase, Stokes inadvertently sent a throw from deep midwicket skimming to the third man boundary, after diving for his crease in a bid to complete his second run.

After consultation with his colleagues, umpire Kumar Dharmasena signalled six runs for the incident, meaning that England - seemingly drifting out of contention needing nine runs from three balls, now only needed three more from two.

 

However, a leading cricket expert - espncricinfo.com's Andrew Miller - claims England were awarded one run too many.

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."
A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run.

There is potential scope for ambiguity in the wording of the law, given that it references throw or "act", which may pertain to the moment the ball deflected off Stokes' bat. However, there is no reference to the batsman's actions at any other point in the Law."

 

The ICC has been approached by ESPNcricinfo for comment."

 

Hope my thread this thread has been of value and created interest, and I hope the web master archives it for reading, reference purposes, scores, results when the next world cup commences.

 

 

India are the hosts for the 2023 cricket world cup.

 

when DOES NZ HOST A WORLD CRICKET CUP.?

 

CHEERS


  • 1

©  2013 2014 2015

ADVANCING MULTIHULL SAILOR ORGANIZER NAVIGATOR.

OCEAN COMBINED CRUISER / RACER ADVANCING MEMBER.


#62 Rehabilitated

Rehabilitated

    Rehabilitated

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Locationon the waters and else where

Posted 16 July 2019 - 02:21 PM

                         Another that thinks like I do and was disgusted with the decision :::

 

                                               But rules are rules I   suppose. !!!!

 

 

            Cricket World Cup final: 2019  Boundary countback robs Black Caps of victory.

                Aussie bookmaker refunds all the people that bet on NZ to win in disgust.
                                            NZ TAB is not following suit.

       Found this: It explains the decision and that the NZ was aware of it the ruling before they played the final super over.

"The New Zealanders were devastated and deserved better. In the circumstances a shared trophy would have been fairer
                             as they somehow had to digest defeat when they did so many things right"  and so many things wrong."

                                                   Has videos to view the 6 was not a 6 and others to view.

"Trent Boult was New Zealand's choice to bowl for NZ the super over, with Stokes and Buttler reunited. They went 3, 1, 4, 1, 2, 4, with Buttler smashing the last ball to the fence to make it difficult hard for the NZ's.
Earlier Stokes and Buttler (59 off 60) hauled England up from big trouble with a stand of 110 and ENGLAND the hosts were in the box seat."

 

Lockie NZ  (3-50) was outstanding, as he was most of the tournament, to break the stand and enticed a false shot from Buttler to the NZ fielder Tim Southee near the boundary.

Then the speedster was too quick for Chris Woakes and it was all on Stokes with the wickets tumbling.
Then with 22 needed from nine, Stokes hit Neesham to the boundary, Boult not quick in his reflexes took the catch but stepped   onto the rope before he got rid of the ball. It was six, and then it came down to the final over with England needing 15 off Boult.

 

Bairstow (36) couldn't make New Zealand pay and Ferguson's pace did the trick as he enticed the opener to cut on to the stumps.
Captain Eoin Morgan (9) got a torrid time early from Ferguson and was susceptible to the short ball again.

 

Ross Taylor was the remaining recognised plus 100 batsman and possibly the last chance to get 325-plus runs in his likely cup farewell game but OH" that wasted review was costly. On 15 Taylor was struck reasonably high by a ball from the Englishman bowler Wood, umpire Marais Erasmus raised the finger and Taylor had to depart. Replays showed it clearing leg stump, it was a tough blow for the NZD's, a end to a large total to put max pressure on the POMS and was a early blow to NZ's hopes. Most probably would have caused the NZ home fans and elsewhere watching on tele to curse and vacated the TV set to make coffee and a toasted sandwich or hit the whiskey bottle cursing and mumbling under their breath to steady their nerves and language.

 

             "England did not win the Cricket World Cup final and the Black Caps did not lose it.

But the tournament had to have a winner, somehow. And in the end, what was perhaps the most dramatic ODI ever played, was decided by a curious, contentious fine-print rule."

 

The amount of boundaries hit during the day was the eventual thing separating two teams who played out a double tie - firstly in their two 50-over innings, then in the resulting Super Over.

 

Because England had hit 26 boundaries to the Black Caps' 17, it was the hosts at Lord's who prevailed with the small print interpretation rule being enforced. The umpires made sure New Zealand were aware of the rule going into the final delivery of the Super Over, taking the time to communicate with batsmen  Martin Guptill and Jimmy Neesham.

It left Guptill requiring two for victory, only to be runout on scampering back for the second.

 

 

An out dated rule in my opinion. Why should three batsman who say get 3 boundaries each then out have a part in deciding who / which team wins. When there is three in the opposing team, players with 60 plus each, possibly a 99 with no boundaries and heaps of singles and two's have no consideration in deciding who the winner is.? 

                                                                 Which is the better team?

Screwball + screwball. But the POMS in the beginning made the rules which possibly explains it.

 

                                                   Post your thoughts and opinions. 

                                 

https://www.stuff.co...keters-in-final


  • 0

©  2013 2014 2015

ADVANCING MULTIHULL SAILOR ORGANIZER NAVIGATOR.

OCEAN COMBINED CRUISER / RACER ADVANCING MEMBER.


#63 RushMan

RushMan

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 831 posts

Posted 16 July 2019 - 02:36 PM

You should be able to look at the scores and see one team has more runs than than the other team.

Keep playing super overs until there is a winner!


When I looked at the scores on Monday morning I thought that England had won because of the wicket in the super over
  • 0

#64 Puff

Puff

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,883 posts

Posted 16 July 2019 - 03:20 PM

I'd like to know why they sent Guptill out to bat in the super-over given his below average batting performance the whole series including his innings earlier that day?

 

Did they hope for a "Beaver" moment?


  • 1

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"


#65 erice

erice

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,277 posts

Posted 16 July 2019 - 04:17 PM

^

 

supposedly

 

he's the fastest between the wickets


  • 0

ACT NOW!

 

don't wait for everyone else

 

to save you from yourself


#66 Rehabilitated

Rehabilitated

    Rehabilitated

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Locationon the waters and else where

Posted 17 July 2019 - 12:37 PM

^

 

supposedly

 

he's the fastest between the wickets

 

 

Well he wasn't.

 

Boundaries were required.


  • 0

©  2013 2014 2015

ADVANCING MULTIHULL SAILOR ORGANIZER NAVIGATOR.

OCEAN COMBINED CRUISER / RACER ADVANCING MEMBER.


#67 Rehabilitated

Rehabilitated

    Rehabilitated

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Locationon the waters and else where

Posted 17 July 2019 - 12:39 PM

I'd like to know why they sent Guptill out to bat in the super-over given his below average batting performance the whole series including his innings earlier that day?

 

Did they hope for a "Beaver" moment?

 

 

Good reply and Question. Makes one Wonder.

 

Thanks for your contribution.

 

NZ Cricket CEO claims they knew the rules before they left NZ. They claim a lot on work went into the  team and campaign. Non of them seemed to handle the fast bowlers particularly STARC and Archer.

 

Did they do much practice, the NZ batsman using Lockie Ferguson before leaving leading up to the and during their practice time at the venues? What I saw on TV they where using a machine

firing balls at them, full tosses, they did not it seemed alter any dials on the machine for variation or bounce the ball in front off them and not on actual wickets with a person running at them, like Lockie F. 


  • 0

©  2013 2014 2015

ADVANCING MULTIHULL SAILOR ORGANIZER NAVIGATOR.

OCEAN COMBINED CRUISER / RACER ADVANCING MEMBER.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users