Cricket World Cup
- Thread starter Garno
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Phlebas
Burbling Pixie
Firstly, on the five/six, the umpires made their decision after discussion on field. That’s that. The decision was made ande binding.
However, if you are interested, the ambiguity arises from Law 19.8, titled "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.”
This is copied from the MMC website. The Laws may have changed since Mike last played.
The footage shows that, at the moment the ball was thrown (ie released) by the New Zealand fielder, Stokes and Rashid had not yet crossed for their second run.
However, is the throw the defining point, or is it the subsequent act (ie the striking of the ball on Stokes' bat), at which point they had actually crossed. So the boundary 4 is not in question, but whether the runs actually run were 2 or one is.
The umpire who has said (on ESPN, picked up elsewhere) he thinks the on field umpires were wrong is Simon Taufel. Good umpire, now on the MCC's laws sub-committee. But it whereas the correcteness of the on field decision isn’t clear cut, once the decision was made then it is final.
So now you know. Or at least you know my understanding.
And the method of determination of the tied super over was in the rules of play since the start of the competition, to cover a very unlikely outcome. That is all there is to it.
However, if you are interested, the ambiguity arises from Law 19.8, titled "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.”
This is copied from the MMC website. The Laws may have changed since Mike last played.
The footage shows that, at the moment the ball was thrown (ie released) by the New Zealand fielder, Stokes and Rashid had not yet crossed for their second run.
However, is the throw the defining point, or is it the subsequent act (ie the striking of the ball on Stokes' bat), at which point they had actually crossed. So the boundary 4 is not in question, but whether the runs actually run were 2 or one is.
The umpire who has said (on ESPN, picked up elsewhere) he thinks the on field umpires were wrong is Simon Taufel. Good umpire, now on the MCC's laws sub-committee. But it whereas the correcteness of the on field decision isn’t clear cut, once the decision was made then it is final.
So now you know. Or at least you know my understanding.
And the method of determination of the tied super over was in the rules of play since the start of the competition, to cover a very unlikely outcome. That is all there is to it.
ZippityNZ
Established Member
We was robbed........ 
whiskywill
Established Member
A good win but isn't it time top stop calling it the England X1. The "English" Barbadian, the New Zealanders, The South Africans and the Irish captain should, at the very least, be given some credit.
Oh, and will we have to endure the ear bashing about the win for the next fifty years just like the football world cup?
Oh, and will we have to endure the ear bashing about the win for the next fifty years just like the football world cup?
MikeG.
Established Member
ZippityNZ":3b0yn72t said:We was robbed........
Console yourself with the thought that you still hold the Rugby world cup.............for now.
Phlebas
Burbling Pixie
whiskywill":3kx4jdo0 said:
Hum. Let me see. In the Kiwi world cup squad, De Grandhomme was born in Harare. Ish Sodhi was born in Ludhiana. Colin Munroe was born in Durban.
Would you like to clarify what point you are making?
Oh, and it is the England and Wales XI, the England and Wales Cricket Board.
And in case you think I am making a partisan point, I am Scottish.
But you are right about that soccer ball world cup that seems to be mentioned rather a lot.
MikeG.
Established Member
whiskywill":39g1pmhj said:
Could you just run through the Welsh rugby team using the same logic, please?
Then you might point out anyone who has played for a country (at any sport) without fulfilling the qualifying criteria. Then we can put this pointless conversation to bed and get on with discussing the sport.
MikeG.
Established Member
ZippityNZ
Established Member
whiskywill
Established Member
Phlebas":2w59jflm said:
My point is that there was no mention of the contribution made by the other nationalities or of the "correct" title of the cricket board during the conglaturatory outpourings. I at no time suggested that they should not have been playing for "England"
I know nothing about rugby. I assume you are implying that there are some members of the Welsh rugby team who are not Welsh.
