Cricket Thread

[Zapphod]

While possibly true I strongly suspect there would have been much wailing nashing of teeth from England fans had the decision gone the other way so you have to expect NZ supporters would be POed about it as well.

I suspect that event will be seen as a Maradona "hand of God moment" only committed by umpires.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Having watched the replay its clear the batsman hadn't crossed when Guptil let go of the ball. However the laws aren't clear when the throw is deemed to have occurred (the law does state instant). So its purely umpire interpretation and considering all four umpire's were involved and they took their time we have to assume they got it mostly correct.

Either way as it occured on ball 4 of he over not ball 6 that would of left England requiring 4 from 2 instead of 3. Honestly if England required 2 from the last ball instead of 1 to tie Stoke would of likely played a glory shot and we'd have ended up with defintive winner.

Ifs, buts and maybes it was a key moment but 1 run didn't lose NZ the match in the instance as the game wasn't over.

On the laws I think you are stretching a bit to be honest, it takes a bit of mental gymnastics to come to any other conclusion except that the batsman must cross before the ball is released by the fielder for the run to count.

Agree that the last ball would have played out differently so we can't assume anything in terms of outcome.

 

[ncurd]

On the laws I think you are stretching a bit to be honest, it takes a bit of mental gymnastics to come to any other conclusion except that the batsman must cross before the ball is released by the fielder for the run to count.

Agree that the last ball would have played out differently so we can't assume anything in terms of outcome.

I agree what I'm saying is that in the interpretation of the law is they clearly don't define when the instant of a throw is deemed to occurs. I'd say point of release but Umpire's Erasmus, Dharmasena, Dar and Tucker are way more knowledgeable on the actual proper interpretation of the laws than myself.

I need to read the actual examples in Tom Smith's but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the actual instant throw or act is actually deemed to be the point the ball hits the boundary or when hits Stoke's.

....interesting the amount of pro cricketers who say they've never seen anything like it....like all of them.

 

[FLOBALOB]

Been thinking about the Stokes 2+4 incident and wondering whether the fielder who threw it in actually did the right thing. If he had accepted that 2 runs were going to be scored and not gone for the big throw ,that would have left England needing 7 from 2. If Stokes was run out they would have needed 8 from 2. Realistically not much difference (2x4s) . Admitedly Stokes wouldn't have been facing last 2 balls. It would have taken out the chance of any overthrows (not uncommon) and left NZ best bowler,Boult in pole position .
I know decisions are easy in hindsight but i do question whether prudent decision might have been the better bet it those circumstances. If the same situation came about again would the fielder go for the run out?.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

If anything different happened we wouldn't have had this nuts crazy spectacle. Honestly I like how it played out as it Is as much of a tie as the rules allow, the closest a game can get. But I don't want to rob England of their glory by saying it was a tie. It's a fairytale but in real life, because in real life you don't always win.

Also I'm still in shock. I finally got a few hours sleep from 5pm having been awake all night but it hasn't changed this weird surreal feeling, did all that really happen?

 

[ncurd]

Honestly getting Stokes out when England required 7 or 8 runs was by far the best thing to do. He was a set batsman with more than the ability to hit the last two balls for 4 or 6. The incoming batsman was Wood who would of been the striker who is nowhere near as good. You get that run out you seal the match. Overthrows usually cost 1 run not 4 leading to the same Math really it was just a freak incident.

England did make a mistake in the super over with Roy throwing to the wrong end, also Archer bowling a wide first up....

This was a fine a game in which such marginal incidents could of led to it going either way, I don't think there any huge howling mistakes, actually that's not true Joe root absolutely threw away his wicket in appalling fashion.

 

[Bean]

Removing the Stokes over throws element from the equation for now as that it a different argument to the mechanics of deciding who wins.

Did the rules change after the game started?
Were the rules different for the teams?
Is there any reason NZ didn't know the rules?

 

[FLOBALOB]

Honestly getting Stokes out when England required 7 or 8 runs was by far the best thing to do. He was a set batsman with more than the ability to hit the last two balls for 4 or 6. The incoming batsman was Wood who would of been the striker who is nowhere near as good. You get that run out you seal the match. Overthrows usually cost 1 run not 4 leading to the same Math really it was just a freak incident.

England did make a mistake in the super over with Roy throwing to the wrong end, also Archer bowling a wide first up....

This was a fine a game in which such marginal incidents could of led to it going either way, I don't think there any huge howling mistakes, actually that's not true Joe root absolutely threw away his wicket in appalling fashion.

I can see that , but as an ex bowler I d strongly fancy my chances of not giving away 2 fours ,as Boult would have done.

Im still scratching my head over what was going on in his head for that mad 2 minutes

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Honestly getting Stokes out when England required 7 or 8 runs was by far the best thing to do. He was a set batsman with more than the ability to hit the last two balls for 4 or 6. The incoming batsman was Wood who would of been the striker who is nowhere near as good. You get that run out you seal the match. Overthrows usually cost 1 run not 4 leading to the same Math really it was just a freak incident.

England did make a mistake in the super over with Roy throwing to the wrong end, also Archer bowling a wide first up....

This was a fine a game in which such marginal incidents could of led to it going either way, I don't think there any huge howling mistakes, actually that's not true Joe root absolutely threw away his wicket in appalling fashion.

Ross Taylor threw away his wicket too

But in seriousness the 6 in the second to last over when boult caught the ball then stood over the line before throwing it back in was massive. I reckon nerves got to him and usually he would have been more cool headed and thrown it in earlier. But it was just another necessary cog in a great game as were England's fielding errors in the super over, and the wide.

Boult almost caught stokes, next over boult bowls two good balls putting nz back on top, then stokes gets a 6 And then the bat of god 6 putting England on top, then two good balls to finish it as a tie.

Then England smashes 15 in their batting super over, with some brilliant batting against pretty good balls. England back on top considering no had to come in with fresh batsmen. Then the wide and with it a glimmer of hope. A 6, could it be, could we really do this? Then some brilliant bowling by the youngster yet the England field kept nz in it. Last ball another great one, nz can only get one to get a tie hence lose the game.

And stokes was mentally ruined, and physically ruined due to the heart rate from the Adrenalin on top of physical effort. Pretty heroic really

 

[ncurd]

Since the advent of T20 the problem is there is no batsman alive who wouldn't back himself to hit two 4's of the last two balls. Just look at the 2016 T20 final where Stokes was at the receiving end.

 

[FLOBALOB]

Since the advent of T20 the problem is there is no batsman alive who wouldn't back himself to hit two 4's of the last two balls. Just look at the 2016 T20 final where Stokes was at the receiving end.

That would make NZs 7 from 4 a doddle then.

 

[ncurd]

Didn't say it was a doddle just saying batsman would back himself to do it. I'm just saying I think Guptil did the right thing at that time and what happened was a freak incident he couldn't have known would happen.

 

[Reiser99]

Having thought about it rationally England were incredibly lucky and I can sympathise greatly with NZ fans who feel they should have won. Even with the luck of the boundary off the bat and Boult stepping on the rope, you also have the luck that when deciding the rules, those in charge decided that if the super over is tied then whoever hits the most boundaries wins. For me this feels very arbitrary and they picked a stat that was extremely unlikely to be tied. The could very easily have been a rule above that said the side that lost the least wickets. It doesn't change the result and while I'm happy for England, I will admit in my heart that New Zealand deserved to win.

Also I feel more should be made of how gracious the New Zealand team and especially Kane Williamson were in defeat. Almost everyone else would have blamed those unlucky incidents or technicalities. Another example was Guptill immediately signalling six to the umpires when Boult stepped on the boundary rope. They really set an example, not only to everyone else who plays cricket, but the rest of the world on how to play sport in general.

 

[Every Time Ref]

It was as arbitrary an outcome as is possible, let's be honest! Most boundaries? What a weird niche stat to choose - fewest wickets lost seems much more logical to me.

I'll take it though!

 

[ncurd]

Boundaries is supposed to promote 'aggessive' batting where as wickets doesn't it requires to think conservatively if a tie is one but its horlicks but the same can be said of wickets, England would of won the match if they scored 1 run more despite then having lost 1 more wicket Its still pretty arbitrary. No matter which way you spin it any statistical measure to determine a tie is ****.

You might as well say the loser of the toss wins.

For me it has to be shared honours or continued super overs.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

For sure we rode our luck, but luck's a part of sport.

Yesterday was our day, others won't be. Just happened to get the rub of the green on the biggest possible stage.

Williamson and his team will have been pretty sore, but handled themselves very well. Little you can do when the sporting gods are against you.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Boundaries is supposed to promote 'aggessive' batting where as wickets doesn't it requires to think conservatively if a tie is one but its horlicks but the same can be said of wickets, England would of won the match if they scored 1 run more despite then having lost 1 more wicket Its still pretty arbitrary. No matter which way you spin it any statistical measure to determine a tie is ****.

You might as well say the loser of the toss wins.

For me it has to be shared honours or continued super overs.

I don't think shared honours is right in a knockout tournament, the point of the format is to eliminate competitors at every stage until you are left with one winner, so I do think you have to find ways to separate them somehow.

I agree with the statistical measures being Horlicks ... I just think wickets is better than boundaries because wickets are directly relevant to the score while boundaries are just HOW you score.

Basically, the best way to do it is a continuation of the game as it exists in normal time, like extra time in football/rugby/etc. Infinite super overs would probably be the closest to that cricket can offer. I quite liked @themole25's suggestion of continuing only with the not out batsmen, although that does raise the question of what to do if a team is all out. Do they forfeit? Or do we do last man standing? That would be a truly mental way to decide a World Cup final, Ben Stokes facing up and only able to score in boundaries or 2s...

 

[ncurd]

I think infinite super overs but you can't use people already used. If no batsman was out in the over you can use your third batter in the subesquent super over. If you've used everyone you can re select people.

Yes that does mean eventually your wicket keeper is going to bowl.

 

[die_mole]

if everyone's out the other team should get the other batsmen

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I agree with the statistical measures being Horlicks ... I just think wickets is better than boundaries because wickets are directly relevant to the score while boundaries are just HOW you score.

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.

The super over concept was OK, but maybe 2 overs a side, one from either end would be better.