Howzat - The Cricket Forum

Has to have been the most dramtic world cup final ever.

MOTM...has to be Stokes.

Just raises more questions

Thanks!

It's much easier to understand by watching and easier still by playing.

Batting



Bowling

Still think it ridiculous that the world cup is decided by boundaries hit. The two key objectives in cricket are to make runs and take wickets. So if the runs are equal it makes more sense to go by wickets...

Kiwis couldn't take a trick...

The umpires made an "error of judgement" in awarding six runs, instead of five, to England for the overthrow that hit Ben Stokes' bat and ran to the boundary...

"It's a clear mistake.. it's an error of judgment. They (England) should have been awarded five runs, not six. The judgment error was the timing of when the fielder threw the ball. The act of the overthrow starts when the fielder releases the ball. That's the act. It becomes an overthrow from the instant of the throw."

- Simon Taufel

Former ICC World Umpire of the year and currently part of the MCC's laws sub-committee that makes the rules governing cricket.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", says: "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 - which took place off the fourth ball of the last over - 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.

Taufel also said that Stokes and Rashid should have switched ends once the run was found to be incomplete - which meant Rashid would have played the fifth ball with three runs required to win. "They did not cross on their second run, at the instant of the throw. So given that scenario, five runs should have been the correct allocation of runs, and Ben Stokes should have been at the non-striker's end for the next delivery."

"How is a boundary four and three dots worth more than four singles? Not just that, this tiebreaker after a tiebreaker doesn't even differentiate between a boundary four and a boundary six. If your side hit 20 fours and no sixes, scoring 80 runs in boundaries, you are better off than a side that scored 84 boundary runs in 15 fours and four sixes. Hey, Playing Conditions, make your mind up: is scoring in boundaries good or not?

It gets more bizarre. If the teams are still tied on the total number of boundaries scored in the match after the Super Over, you look at the number of boundaries in the main match alone. If still tied, you start a countback from the last ball in the Super Over until you arrive at a delivery off which one team scored more than the other. Basically now runs scored at the end are greater than runs scored at the start.

...tennis has a tiebreaker, football has penalties - the tiebreaker should have some cricketing logic. As far as cricketing logic goes, this tiebreaker is as senseless as - if not more so than - the bowl-out. At least the bowl-out, if the teams were still tied after it, didn't rely on unrelated events earlier in the game: if it was still a tie after an over of attempts at the stumps, you didn't count the number of balls bowled at over 145kph.

...This tiebreaker of a tiebreaker has got nothing to do with one team playing better than the other. It is almost as random as a coin toss. Look at football. It doesn't say at the end of five penalties that the tie will be resolved by comparing the teams on goals scored off corner kicks. The Wimbledon final on Sunday, a few miles from Lord's, didn't stop at 12-all and 6-all in the final set and resolve the tie on backhand winners."

- Sidharth Monga

Personally i think the match should have been decided by a 2nd "super over". In the extremely unlikely event that this too ended all square then another super over until you have a winner. Pretty much anything would be better than deciding the world champions based on something as irrelevant as boundaries hit.

All credit to our jandal wearing bros across the ditch who have been very gracious in defeat.

Still trying to get my head around the fact that the kiwis scored as many runs as the poms and took more wickets and yet somehow didnt win.

So the Bowler tries to hit the sticks with a ball (one bounce, stiff armed)
The batter tries to stop the ball with the bat - not his body

If the batter hits the ball far enough he and his friend run back and forth between the sticks - as many times as they dare until the ball is back to the bowler?

Then all the rules and nuances come in to play....

.. that's probably as accurate as saying NASCAR is driving in circles as fast as you can. Haha

Try getting your head around something called 'The Rules' which on this occasion and much to your obvious pom-hating chagrin, favoured England.

Let me explain. Before any sporting contest, participating teams should familiarise themselves with 'The Rules'. We would be quite happy to read them to you if you find long words like 'Boundary' or 'Overthrow' difficult. We can make pictures available too if you'd find that easier.

Now, once familiarised with 'The Rules', each participating team agrees to be bound by them and understands that matches will be decided according to which team satisfies the stipulated winning requirement.

I know.... I know... you've been having trouble with getting your head around England teams that play to 'The Rules' ever since the 1930's. By now you should have worked it out that we're just going to keep on doing it.

It is true that Aleem Dar did make a mistake in awarding England six runs when it should have been five, but had New Zealand not used their reviews up earlier they could have challenged it and I am quite sure the score would have been adjusted. I for one wouldn't have complained. The right outcome is always desirable over self-interest.

But one has to be mindful of the pressure the umpires were under. When Aleem Dar gave six runs I am quite sure his decision was conscientiously made. He's an honest and decent man, and an excellent umpire. But under the most extreme pressure, anybody can make a mistake.

I note you quote Simon Taufel. Another Australian who probably has an anti-England agenda. Although his assessment is correct, I'm sure he didn't need any prompting to come forward with it. He would probably have been a bit more reticent had it been New Zealand being given runs incorrectly and not England.

And you've got the brass neck to call US whingers...!!!

I know how much it would stick in your throat to say 'Well played England', so I don't expect you to acknowledge that actually we did score the same number of runs (notwithstanding umpiring error) and some (not myself, but others) might argue that we did it with attacking cricket rather than nudging and nurdling singles and then attempting to hang in there.

You make the point that New Zealand took more wickets. Again, this is true, but the last two England wickets of normal play fell to run outs on the second run of the last two balls, when we were trying to win the match. The New Zealand wicket in the super over also fell in the same way. Distorted scenarios which I think wiser men than some may have taken into account when deciding on the rules for tie-break situations.


As for New Zealand.... I have the utmost respect for them as sportsmen and as people. They played a hard game, rattled England out of their comfort zone and in my opinion deserved to win. The freak stroke of good fortune that England enjoyed when the ball deflected off Stokes' bat and went for four was luck we didn't really deserve, but we'll take it. Any team would. Including your lot. And they'd laugh in our faces while they did it.

Don't play high and mighty when you know damned well you'd do exactly the same if the boot was on your foot.

I've posted on another forum, to a Kiwi who, although naturally disappointed, didn't complain about the result at all but was simply glad that he'd seen one of the truly great sporting events of the decade. I believe that their time will come. We've had to endure three defeats in world cup finals so our celebrations on this occasion were understandable.

The Lords' crowd gave the Kiwis a big hand, as did the England players. The mutual respect was there for all to see. The Kiwis took a deserved lap of honour and were applauded every inch of the way. They thanked the English crowds throughout the tournament for their support and the atmosphere they provided.

Kane Williamson gave a very composed and dignified interview to Mike Atherton after the match. He was proud of his players and had every right to be. They're a fine team and worthy opponents.

What a shame both teams couldn't win. But that's the cruelty of sport. There has to be a loser. But that can be a motivator to go one better next time. The Kiwis won't forget this. They'll want it all the more next time. I wish them good luck.

This is how sport should be. A tough contest, no quarter asked and none given. The match decided according to the rules of the competition and when it's done handshakes and friendship all round.

New Zealand are welcome back here any time. We'll be glad to see them again and I'm quite sure they'll want an opportunity to put England to the sword next time. Bring it on, I say.

Next up is the Ashes. That'll be tough too. I hope it's played in good spirit and we don't have any controversial or unpleasant incidents.

Both teams keep it clean, play hard but fair and no gloating by the victors or whingeing by the defeated.

I'm confident England will play with honour and good spirit, and will show due respect to the Australians.

I hope we get the same in return.

There are three formats to the game at international level.

Test Cricket is the highest and most challenging form of the game. Played over five days, each day's play is broken down into three sessions of two hours each. Therefore 6 hours per day over five days = 30 hours of play (with variations I won't go into here and complicate the issue)

Each team will have two innings. There are 11 players per team and the batting team must have two batsmen 'in' at all times. When 10 batsmen are given 'out' by the umpire the innings is closed (completed) and the remaining batsman is 'not out' in the scorebook (which will affect his personal batting average, but again, too complicated for now).

There is no restriction placed on fielding positions or the number of overs that can be bowled by any one bowler.

After each team has had two completed innings, the team with the most runs is the winner. If both teams have not had two completed innings by the end of the five days play, the match is declared a draw regardless of who has the most runs.

If the scores are level after two completed innings the match is declared a tie. This is extremely rare

There is no tie-breaker in test cricket.

Basically, one team has to bowl the other out twice and score more runs than them to win. It is a very tough ask.

One Day International (ODI) Played in single day with only one innings per team. Each team is allocated 50 overs (an over is six fair deliveries of the ball) and must score as many runs as possible in that time. Their opponents will then have 50 overs in which to beat their opponents score. The team with the most runs wins.

Unlike test cricket, every bowler in the bowling team can only bowl a maximum of ten overs each and the captain of the fielding team has restrictions placed on where his fieldsmen can be positioned. This is to encourage attacking cricket and high scoring.

If the batting team is bowled out within their 50 overs (say, after 45 overs) their innings is closed, but the team batting second will still have 50 overs to try to beat that score.

Twenty 20 Cricket (T20) The same as ODI, but each team is limited to 20 overs only. Bowlers are restricted to four overs each.


Now.... if you don't understand after that, allow me to give the traditional answer to Americans who want to know how cricket is played:



You have two sides, one team is in and the other is out.

Each man that’s in the side that’s in goes out, and when he’s out he comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out.

When 10 batsmen are out the team is all out except the last man remaining who is not out.

Then the team that was out comes in and the team that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.

When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.

There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out.

When both sides have been in and out twice, the team with the most runs wins.

So you gotta get in to get out.

You're pathetic. It's got bugger all to do with who won. If you think deciding a world cup based on who hit the most boundaries is fair then bully to you. I know the rules were agreed to before the world cup began you muppet. Doesn't mean I don't think the rule regarding using boundaries to separate teams is BS.



Only just to be different you are wrong. You crap on about being familiar with the rules and yet obviously you dont understand how the DRS system works. There are two components of the DRS system. Those being 'umpire review' and 'player review'. For players, they can ONLY use the DRS to challenge decisions pertaining to LBW or CAUGHT. So under the laws of the game NZ could NOT have used DRS to challenge the incorrect ruling regarding the 6 runs awarded to England.



FFS, absolutely NO one is suggesting otherwise.




You are genuinely pathetic. Simon Taufel was initially asked his opinion on the over throw ruling by a member of the Indian broadcast team. He was asked his opinion as he sits on the MCC's laws sub-committee that makes the rules governing cricket. He also won the ICC's award for best umpire 5 years in a row and was the ICC's Umpire Performance and Training Manager. So he is pretty well qualified to answer questions pertaining to the decision to award 6 runs. But because he is Australian (and anyone who reads your posts knows you have a huge chip on your shoulder when it comes to Aussies) you make a number of unfounded and laughable assumptions.



Hey, if you think deciding a world cup based on who hit the most boundaries is the result of deliberations of wise men then good for you. I think it's total bollocks and would have said so no matter who was the beneficiary of such a stupid rule.

As I stated, I don't think wickets taken should have decided the match either. IMO there should have been another super over. In the extraordinary situation where scores were still level then another super over (until we have a situation where one team has scored more runs than the other). Indeed, to me it makes more sense to have the match decided by 2 'super overs' from the outset rather than just the one.

If that were the case then the DRS would be used solely by the umpires.