World Cup 2019

Where do I start?

I thought that the 1975 final was the best ODI game I ever saw.......until today. It just goes to show that it is a better game when bowlers have a sniff.

NZ made better use of the new ball but the Buttler / Stokes partnership was telling. It got England into the game.

Buttler made it look a different game. He is special.

Commissions to NZ, they have an exceptional captain. If he had been backed up by some of his batsmen, he would have been celebrating tonight.

The last sentence of your first paragraph sums it up really.

PeterCS wrote:

furriner wrote:

PeterCS wrote:

JGK wrote:Amazing in that in two epic sporting events going on at the same time the better side/player lost both at the death.

Nah, in the cricket, The Good Guys were cheated out of it at the SF stage ...

Try and be gracious please.  Instead of being...well whatever you're trying to do.

Just quoting Marty's standard moral-victory tag ... (about the Aussies) ...

skully's name is not Marty

Well we could hardly have asked for a more dramatic match. Well done, England. It's been a long wait.

Congratulations to the Poms on tieing better than the Snoozies

Our only hope for the Ashes is Paine may be a better captain than Smith. Not a great recommendation, but......

embee wrote:Congratulations to the Poms on tieing better than the Snoozies

There is some talk The the deflected overthrow boundary should have only been 5 runs in total.

Interesting. They could just call a ball dead if it hits a batsman during a run in progress but at the conclusion of the run in progress.

A World Cup final, 2 ties and a win in the same game, Mayfair, Victoria and Covent Garden afterwards and a 7 am finish back home just now. Trafalgar Square last night at 10 pm was also truly epic. As long as a cricket ball is essentially round, we'll never ever get a game as good anywhere on earth. Now for the Ashes, we're at Lords and The Oval this series. Bring it on.

Big Dog wrote:Seems a most unsatisfactory way to decide a world cup. Why can't they just have another super over?.

Or decide it on group position, like when you tied with the Yarps in 1999?

Hopefully we will follow that example and not lose another game for three World Cups...

Now Simon Taufel says it should have been 5 runs AND Rashid should have been on strike.

Well, you have to ride your luck with umpiring decisions as well I suppose. If the umpire had spotted Kasprowicz’s hand was off the bat at Edgbaston in 2005, we’d probably now be over 30 years without winning the Ashes.

As a future rule change it would seem fair to call dead ball if a throw hits the batsman/bat, assuming it doesn’t then deflect onto the stumps and run him out.

What I said. The ball becoming dead as the batsman is safe would prevent the fielders exploiting the situation. My reading of the rule as it was applied this morning is that the decision was justifiable whereas calling five runs would have caused more controversy but have been within the rules. They obviously allows lawyers on the rules committee.

JGK wrote:Now Simon Taufel says it should have been 5 runs AND Rashid should have been on strike.

The Law needs a re-write

The on field umpires applied the "intention" of the Law
Simon Taufel is applying the Law as it written
When a ball becomes an "overthrow" is not defined


They re-wrote the run out Law to cover a batsman not being grounded after he had made his ground and not attempting a further run
(You could be many metres behind the crease and jump in the air and if the wicket is broken you would have been out )

so Law as written is what should be used

What exactly does the Law say?

What’s Simon T. Awful doing these days? He retired so young, I always expected him to make a comeback. Still, it’s not as if they’re short of Aussie umpires at the moment.

taipan wrote:What exactly does the Law say?

9.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

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.

Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.

Thanks. I was watching the tennis at the time. I assume they had crossed, so 6 was the correct decision.

No. That be the problem. "Wilful act" is I'll defined.

taipan wrote:Thanks. I was watching the tennis at the time. I assume they had crossed, so 6 was the correct decision.

They hadn't crossed.

They hadnt crossed when the ball was thrown

They had crossed when the ball hit stokes bat

But that's not the point. That particular piece of happenstance should not have been in play when it came to adjudication. It was the "wilful act" bit muddying the waters. You're right about the rewrite. The current wording makes the infield fly rule look comprehensible.

The infield fly rule is a simple piece of legislation

taipan wrote:The infield fly rule is a simple piece of legislation

But open to interpretation and a heap of controversy when adjudicated on the field. Also the subject of law school disertations, though that may say more about us law schools than the rule itself.