WC FINAL: England v New Zealand Lords London July 14 2019 (Result - Tie)

[edabomb]

I actually wasn’t ware of the rule, but reading it, it’s hard to see how technically it could be six. I don’t know if it’s just sloppily written or what, but on any fair reading it says it should’ve been five not six.

Of course precedent is an entirely different matter.

Yup. It's always includes the run being taken because the throws that deflect for four are generally from the in field so it's a given the batsmen have crossed before the throw is made. I can't remember an outfield throw ever deflecting for 4 so it's more a case of a very rarely seen scenario catching people out.

I don't understand with all that time why they didn't go upstairs. It would have been 5 runs and Rashid on strike - whole game changes.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Simon Taufel says it should’ve been five, not six

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/ump...ll-overthrows-simon-taufel-mcc-icc/2019-07-15

 

[Iafeta]

lol just bury that dagger further Simon. Incompetent ICC buffoons

 

[jargan83]

According to something I saw on Cricinfo a week ago, If the game had been rained out the sides would have shared the trophy with no ridiculous count backs of referrals to the league stage of the tournament.

Yet some moron at the ICC decides that we’ll award the biggest prize in world Cricket to the side that hits the most boundaries.

Fittin in an age where the bowler can beat the batsman all ends up but the ball goes for 6 if the batsman gets the slightest bit of bat on it.

 

[simmo1]

Simon Taufel says it should’ve been five, not six

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/ump...ll-overthrows-simon-taufel-mcc-icc/2019-07-15

The rule makes sense actually - ie. Hypothetically, they shouldn't be able get 7 runs if they managed to run a 3rd before the ball crossed the rope.

 

[shiznit]

According to something I saw on Cricinfo a week ago, If the game had been rained out the sides would have shared the trophy with no ridiculous count backs of referrals to the league stage of the tournament.

Yet some moron at the ICC decides that we’ll award the biggest prize in world Cricket to the side that hits the most boundaries.

Fittin in an age where the bowler can beat the batsman all ends up but the ball goes for 6 if the batsman gets the slightest bit of bat on it.

To be fair to the poms... the rule existed before a ball was bowled in the tournament and if we won the WC based on that rule I probably wouldn’t give a f**k about it...

I feel a wee bit for the poms and their fans because any time they quite rightly celebrate a historic achievement for them they are catching scorn from the majority of the cricket world for something that wasn’t their fault.

I think at the end of the day England will be listed as champions and all the rest of this stuff will end up a footnote in the history books... one hell of a footnote but a still just a footnote...

 

[shiznit]

Here’s a question for kiwi fans...

What’s the chances that Kane is still the captain at the next World Cup?

You’d think he should be still in his prime... so he should be in the team...

but he took the reigns in 16 and by the time the next World Cup it will be 8 years in charge.

That’s a long time to be captain... Fleming was captain for like a decade... but I can’t think of many who have captained that long.

Ponting?? He captained in the 03 and 07 WC’s.

 

[69-05-41]

Umpire Errorsmuch will be standing by his mailbox waiting for his knighthood to arrive. Gives Taylor out to a ball clearly missing, then fails to give Roy out first ball when clearly hitting. ICC is a farce, even by NRL standards.

 

[Slackboy72]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/world-cup-umps-got-it-wrong-taufel-20190715-p527g9.html

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/48991962

England don't care. Any way they can cheat they will.
NZ should take this to the CAS.

 

[JJ]

What's disappointing is they didn't go upstairs to check - the game was obviously close at that stage, and as Taufel, others, and pictures have shown - it should have been 5...

It is what it is, and everyone gets that - but they go upstairs to check run outs, and Ferguson's catch - given the rules nobody knew about apparently in some ways boundaries are more important than wickets... so clearly it should have been looked at

 

[AlwaysGreen]

The nice guys of cricket have accepted the result. Why can't their supporters ?

Are they not nice?

 

[Pommy]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/world-cup-umps-got-it-wrong-taufel-20190715-p527g9.html

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/48991962

England don't care. Any way they can cheat they will.
NZ should take this to the CAS.

Lol how did England cheat? You also haven’t really read what was said in those links either. If 5 was given it’s a different game and would have played out differently.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

There needs to be an investigation.

If there was a scoring error then the result is overturned and NZ are named winners.

You can't just pip pip jolly good show lads.

 

[Pommy]

There needs to be an investigation.

If there was a scoring error then the result is overturned and NZ are named winners.

You can't just pip pip jolly good show lads.

Yeah that’s totally going to happen.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Yeah that’s totally going to happen.

;-)

 

[Pommy]

Can someone explain to this family what streaking actually is.

http://www.ladbible.com/news/news-p...cket-world-cup-final-20190714?source=facebook

If you’re not going to actually streak stop wasting our time with your attention whoring shenanigans.

 

[jargan83]

What's disappointing is they didn't go upstairs to check - the game was obviously close at that stage, and as Taufel, others, and pictures have shown - it should have been 5...

It is what it is, and everyone gets that - but they go upstairs to check run outs, and Ferguson's catch - given the rules nobody knew about apparently in some ways boundaries are more important than wickets... so clearly it should have been looked at

Given they go up to the 3rd umpire just to check a no ball and just about everything else you would think the umpires would have the ability to check it.

 

[JJ]

Here’s a question for kiwi fans...

What’s the chances that Kane is still the captain at the next World Cup?

You’d think he should be still in his prime... so he should be in the team...

but he took the reigns in 16 and by the time the next World Cup it will be 8 years in charge.

That’s a long time to be captain... Fleming was captain for like a decade... but I can’t think of many who have captained that long.

Ponting?? He captained in the 03 and 07 WC’s.

Think it's entirely on whether Kane wants to be captain - he's still growing in the role.

Plenty have been test captains for a decade, I think

Windies - Goodard, Lloyd, Richards, Lara

Many Aussies, some broken e.g., Bradman (war), Simpson (WSC) Chappell (being a dick), and Border
NZ has had Reid and Flem

I'm focused on tests, I guess - and historically perhaps there haven't been the same demands - but to me Williamson will be in the job until he retires (test and ODI anyway) - the long running recent ones (1970 on to parrallel the WC era) have either been the best player in a weak or developing side (Lara, Border, Fleming) and had long careers and/come to the role early - Williamson will likely be out best bat as long as he plays, his position in the side won't be questioned... and he seems to have a leadership style, and I think is serious about improving (we saw that in the last few games)

 

[shiznit]

Think it's entirely on whether Kane wants to be captain - he's still growing in the role.

Plenty have been test captains for a decade, I think

Windies - Goodard, Lloyd, Richards, Lara

Many Aussies, some broken e.g., Bradman (war), Simpson (WSC) Chappell (being a dick), and Border
NZ has had Reid and Flem

I'm focused on tests, I guess - and historically perhaps there haven't been the same demands - but to me Williamson will be in the job until he retires (test and ODI anyway) - the long running recent ones (1970 on to parrallel the WC era) have either been the best player in a weak or developing side (Lara, Border, Fleming) and had long careers and/come to the role early - Williamson will likely be out best bat as long as he plays, his position in the side won't be questioned... and he seems to have a leadership style, and I think is serious about improving (we saw that in the last few games)

Yeah I think when I look back at Flem... he probably didn’t hit his real stride as a captain until 5 or 6 years into his reign.

I remember a tour of Australia in particular where his captaincy shined.

Maybe Kane does the same...

 

[JJ]

Yeah I think when I look back at Flem... he probably didn’t hit his real stride as a captain until 5 or 6 years into his reign.

I remember a tour of Australia in particular where his captaincy shined.

Maybe Kane does the same...

I hope so - his captaincy has been ok, I think - his "leadership" really good, I don't see him not being the captain, but there might be a time when he's had enough

My immediate hope is that the restore Neesham to the test all-rounders spot - he's a cut above Colin with the bat, and fielding - and in most conditions his bowling is more useful... guess that's another thread though...