Cricket Thread

[WaterboySA]

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...judgement-awarding-six-runs-says-simon-taufel

On cricinfo....not that it changes anything, congrats England, hard luck NZ.....

 

[ncurd]

Whilst Taufel is certainly a leading figure an as noted part of the MCC committee that make up the laws. That is still not a official statement on behalf of the ICC or the Umpire's in the game.

It is very likely they got it wrong but unless its an official statement its still one persons interpretation against those of the people officiating the match.

 

[ncurd]

What is interesting and could of made a far bigger impact on the game rather than the one run is that the striker would of changed for the second to last ball.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Or you could say that boundaries are an indication of the risks a team has taken in actively trying to win the game and should be rewarded.

I don't think it does particularly indicate that, and if it does I don't see why "risk" is particularly admirable and should be rewarded any more than safe cricket. Quick singles are risks, slower balls are risks, slips instead of fielders in the ring are risks. Looking at it another way, fielders in the ring are risks, as you risk an edge dropping into the space where a slip would be, forward defensive shots risk getting behind the run rate. Etc etc etc

Anyway, they've already been rewarded, with 4 or 6 runs in the game. Fundamentally if both teams have scored the same amount of runs then there is no reason one team should be "rewarded" for scoring them in a different way, which has arbitrarily been decided to be a "better" way.

(Except for England Vs New Zealand yesterday, obviously)

What is interesting and could of made a far bigger impact on the game rather than the one run is that the striker would of changed for the second to last ball.

That is interesting, I hadn't considered that

 

[Zapphod]

I don't think it does particularly indicate that, and if it does I don't see why "risk" is particularly admirable and should be rewarded any more than safe cricket. Quick singles are risks, slower balls are risks, slips instead of fielders in the ring are risks. Looking at it another way, fielders in the ring are risks, as you risk an edge dropping into the space where a slip would be, forward defensive shots risk getting behind the run rate. Etc etc etc

Anyway, they've already been rewarded, with 4 or 6 runs in the game. Fundamentally if both teams have scored the same amount of runs then there is no reason one team should be "rewarded" for scoring them in a different way, which has arbitrarily been decided to be a "better" way.

(Except for England Vs New Zealand yesterday, obviously)

That is interesting, I hadn't considered that

This is all starting to get a bit cyclic.
The merits or failings of super overs and how runs are scored are largely irrelevant in this discussion, the only thing that really matters is whether the umpires were right or wrong to award six runs instead of five.
If they were wrong then England lost by one run and super overs and count backs are unnessesary, if they were right then it doesn't matter whether the winner was determined by who could hop on one leg the longest as long as both teams knew it beforehand it was fair and England won.

 

[ncurd]

I'm just pointing out their logic rather than agreeing with it.

 

[ncurd]

This is all starting to get a bit cyclic.
The merits or failings of super overs and how runs are scored are largely irrelevant in this discussion, the only thing that really matters is whether the umpires were right or wrong to award six runs instead of five.
If they were wrong then England lost by one run and super overs and count backs are unnessesary, if they were right then it doesn't matter whether the winner was determined by who could hop on one leg the longest as long as both teams knew it beforehand it was fair and England won.

Except as pointed out if they were awarded 5 runs instead 6 it would changed the last 2 balls completely. So you can't definitively say it would of been a loss by 1 run, still a tie it a win for England. Let's remember it was a rank ball last up that normally would be creamed for 4 but Stokes was premeditated to at least secure a tie by 1 run. If he required 2 or 3 he may of looked for boundary and the win. But that would of required him to be on strike for last ball as if it was 5 Rashid should of faced the 5th and Boult almost certainly doesn't deliver the same exact ball.

Way too many variables to say if it was the wrong call NZ were robbed by a bad Umpiring decision.

As noted it was the ball where Taylor stood on the boundary that probably cost them the match far more.

 

[ncurd]

Just as a note in Tom Smith's reading the explanantion definitively says it's at the point of release. So it was the wrong call.

 

[ncurd]

Should also say in addition on reflection I don't agree with the having to cross part of rule as long as both batsman are out the cease attempting a run all completed runs should count. Just like normal overthrows.

 

[Zapphod]

Way too many variables to say if it was the wrong call NZ were robbed by a bad Umpiring decision.

Never said we were robbed, that would be somewhat hypocritical after spending much of the prematch saying we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I was simply pointing out that without an umpiring mistake England didn't win as we have no way of knowing the result of the final ball, it could have been six runs or just as equally no runs or even a wicket there are millions of possible scenarios of which 50% favour the other team so the game effectively became meaningless after that point, it was the critical moment.
All other mistakes made before that by the players are factored into every ball that was played after the mistake so stepping on the boundary was already resolved as the batsman was awarded the runs.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I don't think it does particularly indicate that, and if it does I don't see why "risk" is particularly admirable and should be rewarded any more than safe cricket. Quick singles are risks, slower balls are risks, slips instead of fielders in the ring are risks. Looking at it another way, fielders in the ring are risks, as you risk an edge dropping into the space where a slip would be, forward defensive shots risk getting behind the run rate. Etc etc etc

Anyway, they've already been rewarded, with 4 or 6 runs in the game. Fundamentally if both teams have scored the same amount of runs then there is no reason one team should be "rewarded" for scoring them in a different way, which has arbitrarily been decided to be a "better" way.

(Except for England Vs New Zealand yesterday, obviously)

That is interesting, I hadn't considered that

I absolutely agree. But to me the biggest reason why the boundaries statement makes no sense is because neither team tried to get more boundaries just in case the game and then super over ended in a tie. Which means the "rules were the same for both teams" argument is simply not a valid argument.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Should also say in addition on reflection I don't agree with the having to cross part of rule as long as both batsman are out the cease attempting a run all completed runs should count. Just like normal overthrows.

i think iv'e agreed with and or liked most of your posts in this thread....but you're starting to grasp at straws to make the win 100% legitimate, nothing wrong with just accepting most people are now agreeing it was the wrong call and leave it at that, it was the wrong call but the result stands...gutting

all the talk of, but it would have been different person on strike and if they had has one more run to get so he would have probably hit a four rather than what ever he did is...a little desperate...they fell one run shot of winning it outright...im sure they were trying to score more....i dont think needing more runs would have somehow given them the motivations to score more...otherwise they would have been hitting sixes all day and won it in 30 overs

to think that anything other than the most likely outcome with two balls left would be falling one run shot is a little fanciful...yes, other outcomes are possible....but some are more likely than others

its gutting...but the result stands....two things we have to live with

 

[ncurd]

Nah that sentiment I absolutely disagree with most likely result 1 run short? You haven't watched anywhere near enough limited overs Cricket. It's a potential result yes but I'd say with Rashid at the crease requiring 4 from 2. Most likely either he smacks it for 4 or 6, clean bowled or caught in the deep. And I'd say the most likely is latter two.

There is a small chance Rashid takes a single on the ball putting Stokes on strike and there is absolutely no way he looks to run 2 to tie or three to win.

You have to remember the first single was only an attempted 2 to keep Stokes on strike with minor hope of a misfield.

I'd say two singles in that situation is the least likely result. But I think an NZ win is still the most likely result if the correct call was made.

What I'm talking about is psychology of what is required to win or tie and how diffrent requirements mean diffrent shot selection.

Say this if England require 6 of the last ball do you honestly think Stokes plays the same shot he played?



On the law I'm happy to say I disagree with it but that's the law and it was incorrectly applied. NZ can feel slightly hard done by but it wasn't the point they lost. Taylor screwed up 2 balls before in what is pretty regulation thing for a top side to do these days. Difference between a catch or 6 at that stage utterly massive.


And I know how it feels https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-somerset-final-friends-provident-t20-2010
Final of T20 domestic, if Somerset had appealed in the last run due to some weird law with the runner he'd have been given out and they would of won. The umpire stood there awaited the appeal and Somerset just walked off while Hampshire celebrated.

 

[Five Meters Out]

It's definitely the "bat ricochet" that is the most galling. It wasn't poor bowling/fielding and it wasn't great batting. It was just pure luck that made it 3 to get off two balls and not 7 off two balls. I'd have preferred and ending where Stokes cracked a couple of towering sixes.

 

[ncurd]

Oh yeah absolutely I can see why that element is galling. It's the law and it's utterly a freak thing to happen. But you need some luck how times do batsman's instead of dragging the ball on does it miss, bamboozle the keeper and it go for 4. You need think of the incident more in those kind of terms.

And yes I'd rather see Stokes try to hit two 4's or 6's to win it. And if we lost well I'd given up 4 overs before. I'd much rather the result wasn't a tie it's it's actually frustrating that for the last ball playing for the tie was the most sensible thing to do rather than going for the win.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

you've lost me sorry, really galling when someone is so patronising as to actually say the words, if you disagree with me you cant have watched enough cricket and then to be that patronising when agreeing in principle

everything else you'd said suggested, at least me me, that you were saying if that didn't happen then they would have done something else to get over the line, if we're agreeing the most likely outcome would be some form of not making it then what does it matter?

theres a saying, no idea who said it first but i love it..."you knew what i meant and agreed?...then why be a jerk?...dont be a jerk"

I was more than happy to sit back and be gutted in my guttedness...do we really need to all be on here trying to justify the result?...if we cant see that the reason people are talking about this is because it was more than likely the wrong call, it was something out of the players direct control (like the catch on the boundary), and the last "moment" before the end of the regular game..then i see very little value in this thread

 

[ncurd]

You were claiming the most likely result of those 2 balls would of been exactly the same result as a near certainty, despite the required runs being different and a completely different person at the crease.

If I came across as patronising it's because you came across as naive to believe that would be the case.



As to discussing this yeah I'm a little more than miffed that yet again England have won something but someone wants to tell me one little mistake that was made that favoured them and therefore would of 100% totally lost when nobody actually damn well knows what would of happened. I wouldn't mind if this didn't happen every damn time England win an international match and if you don't believe me look at every damn England rugby thread on this forum when they win.

FFS mistakes are made it's not like someone was given out when they were clearly in. It was 1 damn run, it had a bearing on the result sure but who would of come out on top anyone's bloody guess. Yes I think NZ would of done so but that's my guess nobody actually knows and it was no way a certanity.

I engaged in the discussion because I have a genuine interest in the laws of a sport and what should of happened. Not because I think there is any merit in the what ifs, why's and maybes if it had been given correctly. It's absolutely futile to work it out because nobody can.


UGH I'm tired and suffering from insomnia.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

thats my point, if you agree the result more than likely would have been a NZ win then why argue all the other stuff? I never once said it was an 100% certainty, i took it very much at face value...one run less...bugger

the only reason to then elaborate on all other possibilities i can see is to trivialise that moment and its possible importance, theres not petition (that ive seen), no complaint lodged with the ICC, as far as ive seen its just people saying.."looks like a bad call cost us...****"

god forbid people might just have to accept England was lucky and move on, people talk about sore loosers all the time. how about sore winners? not only have we won, lets make sure those guys that already fell **** about loosing suffer a bit more

you've betrayed you're own bias on the matter, talk of "yet again England have won something but someone wants to tell me one little mistake that was made that favoured them "...it did...literally...you got one more run in a game that can be decided by one run with only two more chances to score runs...other invalid criticisms of England wins (i dont know which ones you're specifically refering too)...have no actual relevance to this result other than in you head

Stokes seems like he has the right idea, not offering to hand back the trophy or anything but said himself he's apologised to Kane multiple times because he knew it was a moment that turned the game

does anyone accept people can disagree with someone opinions and not be wrong/naive/inexperienced anymore? your experience isn't fact, the hubis is staggering

 

[Zapphod]

The thing is Stokes has nothing to apologise for he didn't hit the ball on purpose if any apology is due it is from the umpires for getting it wrong, this is not like the Aussie underarm incident as no players from either team did anything wrong.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

agreed, stokes did nothing wrong, i took it as a sympathy thing more than anything, like when anyone tells you they're having a **** day "i'm sorry to hear that", he just knows its **** and as much as he'll/they'll take the win they know it makes it just slightly worse for the black caps to take