England v New Zealand

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
westend2016
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:29 am
Been Liked: 3 times
Has Liked: 2 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by westend2016 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:57 am

That's what sport is all about
Great for our country
ENGLAND had the luck. New Zealand ( population 4 and a half million) were unbelievable.
Just a point though from an ex umpire here. When the ball hit the Ben stokes bat and went to the boundary it should have been given as 5 not 6 !
Why because at the point of the throw they had not crossed for the second.
Virat Kolhi would have created world war 3 on the field
Just saying
This user liked this post: levraiclaret

ClaretTony
Posts: 67438
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32242 times
Has Liked: 5255 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by ClaretTony » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:59 am

westend2016 wrote:Just a point though from an ex umpire here. When the ball hit the Ben stokes bat and went to the boundary it should have been given as 5 not 6 !
Why because at the point of the throw they had not crossed for the second.
I'd agree with you had they not crossed, but they had crossed and Stokes had either completed that second run or was very close to.

westend2016
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:29 am
Been Liked: 3 times
Has Liked: 2 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by westend2016 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:11 am

Mr Scholes it's when the ball is released from the hand of the thrower

claret wizard
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:20 am
Been Liked: 261 times
Has Liked: 90 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by claret wizard » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:28 am

That point was made on the SKY coverage later on in the evening. It should have been 5 runs, 1 run and 4 overthrows.

However, Stokes probably would have put the last ball over the rope rather than prodding it away for a safe 1 and hoping NZ misfielded for the 2nd.
This user liked this post: Quickenthetempo

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 10846
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 5522 times
Has Liked: 208 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by TheFamilyCat » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:30 am

Buttler was able to pick up runs as soon as he came in and was scoring at around a run a ball all through his innings. No other English batter, even Root who is normally excellent at it, could work the ball to keep ticking over.

Buttler made it look very easy by comparison.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by nil_desperandum » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:30 am

Spijed wrote:Unless it's the modern philosophy of attacking sport, such as encouraging teams to attack more (goals in football) and a bigger incentive for teams to hit boundaries.
Possibly, but I'm a bit old-fashioned, and it's generally been considered that taking wickets is the most attacking form of cricket. (Bowl the opposition out as cheaply as possible)
I think you're probably correct though and the rules have been changed because sponsors etc want to encourage more big hitting.

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Spijed » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:50 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Possibly, but I'm a bit old-fashioned, and it's generally been considered that taking wickets is the most attacking form of cricket. (Bowl the opposition out as cheaply as possible)
I think you're probably correct though and the rules have been changed because sponsors etc want to encourage more big hitting.
20/20 cricket has probably changed everything in that respect. Fans want to see bigger sixes from the likes of Stokes and Gayle.

ClaretTony
Posts: 67438
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32242 times
Has Liked: 5255 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by ClaretTony » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:22 am

westend2016 wrote:Mr Scholes it's when the ball is released from the hand of the thrower
Sixty years of watching and playing cricket and I don't know the rules - so it should have been five and we should have lost by 1 run.

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Spijed » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:28 am

ClaretTony wrote:Sixty years of watching and playing cricket and I don't know the rules - so it should have been five and we should have lost by 1 run.
I'm very surprised no-one has picked up on this on any of the news channels.

westend2016
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:29 am
Been Liked: 3 times
Has Liked: 2 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by westend2016 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:33 am

Hey Tony they took so long to restart the game after that incident which led me to believe something is not quite right
ROD TUCKER( 3RD UMPIRE) SHOULD HAVE PICKED THIS UP AND RELAYED IT TO THE ON FIELD UMPIRES
BECAUSE A VIEW OF THE THROW IS CLEARLY BEFORE THE 2ND RUN IS COMPLETE
JUST SAYING

ClaretTony
Posts: 67438
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32242 times
Has Liked: 5255 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by ClaretTony » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:35 am

westend2016 wrote:Hey Tony they took so long to restart the game after that incident which led me to believe something is not quite right
ROD TUCKER( 3RD UMPIRE) SHOULD HAVE PICKED THIS UP AND RELAYED IT TO THE ON FIELD UMPIRES
BECAUSE A VIEW OF THE THROW IS CLEARLY BEFORE THE 2ND RUN IS COMPLETE
JUST SAYING
There was a long debate over it but I just thought they'd come to the correct decision. As it happens, if the fielder had reached it before it got to the boundary we'd have scored 2 because they, rightly, opted not to run again.

claret wizard
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:20 am
Been Liked: 261 times
Has Liked: 90 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by claret wizard » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:40 am

Also, on the SKY highlights package, the long ones, they didn't even show the overthrow sequence. They show Stokes 6 and 9 runs from 3 balls then suddenly it cuts to 3 runs from 2. Very weird last night as my wife had been listening on the radio and wanted to see the incident, and it wasn't there. I know it's on the BBC website, just thought it weird SKY didn't include it.

westend2016
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:29 am
Been Liked: 3 times
Has Liked: 2 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by westend2016 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:43 am

Yes that's right Tony. Very hard on the Kiwis I thought they were a great example on how to behave in a pressure cooker situation

Rileybobs
Posts: 16689
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6903 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Rileybobs » Mon Jul 15, 2019 11:52 am

Unbelievable decision if true. Of course, Stokes would have played the last shot differently so there’s no way of knowing whether this would have affected the outcome. I’d be mightily aggrieved if I was a kiwi though.

I think people are overthinking the reasoning behind the most boundaries being the final determining factor. It is so extremely unlikely that the game will ever be decided by this that it will not cross any team’s mind to try and score more boundaries than their opposition.

upanatem
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:09 pm
Been Liked: 80 times
Has Liked: 96 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by upanatem » Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:15 pm

Oh, no. This is becoming as complicated as Brexit!

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by tiger76 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:39 pm

upanatem wrote:Oh, no. This is becoming as complicated as Brexit!
Not you as well,JRM is already in hot water,quite rightly for his daft tweets,https://uk.yahoo.com/sports/news/jacob- ... 48416.html

What is it with this guy he has to allow brexit to overshadow a great sporting event,and a historic victory for English cricket,the bloke's a cretin.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by dsr » Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:43 pm

tiger76 wrote:Not you as well,JRM is already in hot water,quite rightly for his daft tweets,https://uk.yahoo.com/sports/news/jacob- ... 48416.html

What is it with this guy he has to allow brexit to overshadow a great sporting event,and a historic victory for English cricket,the bloke's a cretin.
Who, upanatem or Jacob Rees-Mogg? JRM told an unfunny joke. End of story. Not worth vitriol and abuse, all it's worth is a shake of the head and a raissed eyebrow.

joey13
Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 1767 times
Has Liked: 1230 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by joey13 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:45 pm

Umpires decision is final , regardless of the fact it’s right or wrong, ie Roy given out in semi-final

Tricky Trevor
Posts: 8328
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
Been Liked: 2439 times
Has Liked: 1979 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Tricky Trevor » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:16 pm

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but with all the chat we’ve had about technology in sport;how good are the lights in the stumps? No interference with the action and gives an instant decision.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by nil_desperandum » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:20 pm

Rileybobs wrote: I think people are overthinking the reasoning behind the most boundaries being the final determining factor. It is so extremely unlikely that the game will ever be decided by this that it will not cross any team’s mind to try and score more boundaries than their opposition.
Well I agree with your 2nd sentence, but I think the little debate we were having was as to why the rules have changed so that the emphasis is more on striking the ball to the boundary, whereas historically you always got the advantage if you took more wickets.
I seem to recall quite a few instances where the team batting 2nd only had to equal the first innings to win due to having lost less wickets, and they effectively blocked the last bowl rather than risking a scoring shot or run.
(Of course yesterday that would have mean't that Stokes would have had to score 2 from the last ball since NZ had only lost 8 wickets.)

Tricky Trevor
Posts: 8328
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
Been Liked: 2439 times
Has Liked: 1979 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Tricky Trevor » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:36 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Well I agree with your 2nd sentence, but I think the little debate we were having was as to why the rules have changed so that the emphasis is more on striking the ball to the boundary, whereas historically you always got the advantage if you took more wickets.
I seem to recall quite a few instances where the team batting 2nd only had to equal the first innings to win due to having lost less wickets, and they effectively blocked the last bowl rather than risking a scoring shot or run.
(Of course yesterday that would have mean't that Stokes would have had to score 2 from the last ball since NZ had only lost 8 wickets.)
We lost 4 wickets in the last 8 balls chasing the win. Different rules, different attitude. They would have known the score.

edison
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:56 pm
Been Liked: 345 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by edison » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:42 pm

I thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought it'd be easy to watch as a neutral but found myself getting very nervous in the final few overs and again in the super over. A deserved victory, and of course we are all claiming Morgan here.
This user liked this post: Rick_Muller

BennyD
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 am
Been Liked: 1338 times
Has Liked: 757 times
Location: Nantwich

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by BennyD » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:51 pm

It states at the point of throw OR act; the throw wouldn’t have gone to the boundary so the act, or point at which the ball was deflected to the boundary, was well after they had crossed. Therefore, I believe, the correct number of runs were given. Also, when the NZ fielder stepped onto the rope and gave away 6, the run in progress should also have counted. Marginal decisions will always make such sport a thrilling spectacle and forever should. However, it’s good to see an Australian (Taufel) so concerned about playing sport by the rules.
Last edited by BennyD on Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

edison
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:56 pm
Been Liked: 345 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by edison » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:54 pm

Fine margins - had he relayed that throw on the boundary before taking a look to see where he was. Still, it all added to the excitement and drama.

BigChaCha
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:45 pm
Been Liked: 253 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by BigChaCha » Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:57 pm

That was like watching Barcelona v Burnley on a crappy 2nd division pitch!

The game was only saved by the last 10 overs and super over. Up until then, the pitch was the exact opposite of what we should be producing for a world cup final!

Even if I was a neutral I would of wanted England to win... New Zealand are the antithesis of the beautiful game and the perfect example of anti-cricket... a bit like we have been in the past to be honest.

AndyClaret
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
Been Liked: 217 times
Has Liked: 543 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by AndyClaret » Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:04 pm

I'm just glad we didn't win with the deflection, at least with it going to the super over it gave New Zealand a second chance, they were excellent BTW.

Tricky Trevor
Posts: 8328
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
Been Liked: 2439 times
Has Liked: 1979 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Tricky Trevor » Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:04 pm

BennyD wrote:Also, when the NZ fielder stepped onto the rope and gave away 6, the run in progress should also have counted.
Are you sure? I’ve never seen a 7, except via overthrows. To my mind a six is a six.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:05 pm

Tricky Trevor wrote:Are you sure? I’ve never seen a 7, except via overthrows. To my mind a six is a six.
Correct.

ClaretTony
Posts: 67438
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32242 times
Has Liked: 5255 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by ClaretTony » Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:11 pm

BennyD wrote: Also, when the NZ fielder stepped onto the rope and gave away 6, the run in progress should also have counted.
Surely once the fielder touches the boundary ads it immediately becomes a six and would not include any runs taken by the batsmen.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:13 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Surely once the fielder touches the boundary ads it immediately becomes a six and would not include any runs taken by the batsmen.
Same thing when it is on the deck --it is a four no matter how many the batsmen run

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by dsr » Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:23 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Surely once the fielder touches the boundary ads it immediately becomes a six and would not include any runs taken by the batsmen.
You're right. If the fielder has control of the ball and then deliberately knocks it over the boundary, then the four can become five because the batsman's run will count. This could happen when the fielder is trying to stop the batsmen from changing ends, eg. at the end of an over when he wants no. 11 on strike so tries to turn a 1 into a 4 - he can't do it by kicking the ball over the boundary because of this rule.

This would never apply to a 6. If the fielder is trying to stop a boundary 4 or a boundary 6, and gets his hand to it but fails to stop it, the runs already run by the batsmen don't count on top.

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Spijed » Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:51 pm

ClaretTony wrote:Surely once the fielder touches the boundary ads it immediately becomes a six and would not include any runs taken by the batsmen.
That must be the case as there will be many times when the batsmen cross before the ball ends up a six.

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Spijed » Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:54 pm

dsr wrote:You're right. If the fielder has control of the ball and then deliberately knocks it over the boundary, then the four can become five because the batsman's run will count. This could happen when the fielder is trying to stop the batsmen from changing ends, eg. at the end of an over when he wants no. 11 on strike so tries to turn a 1 into a 4 - he can't do it by kicking the ball over the boundary because of this rule.

This would never apply to a 6. If the fielder is trying to stop a boundary 4 or a boundary 6, and gets his hand to it but fails to stop it, the runs already run by the batsmen don't count on top.
Also, I presume a fielder is under no obligation to stop a ball going for a four if they want to keep a batsman at one end?

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17930
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3845 times
Has Liked: 2066 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Quickenthetempo » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:01 pm

How far do we go back to with the cameras? Check every delivery for no balls etc?

There's been at least one controversial decision in every game.

dsr
Posts: 15139
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by dsr » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:08 pm

Spijed wrote:Also, I presume a fielder is under no obligation to stop a ball going for a four if they want to keep a batsman at one end?
That's right. I've seen a fielder standing by a ball watching it roll to the boundary hoping it would go for 4 so the next over would start with the number 11 on strike. The batsmen had completed their run and were standing at their respective ends hoping the ball would stop. If it had reached, it would have been 4 and the batsmen would have gone back to where they started; but the ball stopped so the fielder had to throw it in and they got their single.

Tricky Trevor
Posts: 8328
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
Been Liked: 2439 times
Has Liked: 1979 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Tricky Trevor » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:21 pm

dsr wrote:That's right. I've seen a fielder standing by a ball watching it roll to the boundary hoping it would go for 4 so the next over would start with the number 11 on strike. The batsmen had completed their run and were standing at their respective ends hoping the ball would stop. If it had reached, it would have been 4 and the batsmen would have gone back to where they started; but the ball stopped so the fielder had to throw it in and they got their single.
Distant memory: the umpire could give a five and allow the batsmen to cross in that situation. Ashy will know.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:31 pm

Tricky Trevor wrote:Distant memory: the umpire could give a five and allow the batsmen to cross in that situation. Ashy will know.
Ashy doesn't definitely know, however, the batsmen can't really be penalised for not running because, as was seen yesterday in the later over, Stokes refused a run to keep the strike.

Batsmen can be penalised if they deliberately run short runs in order to circumvent the Laws, however,I have never seen an example of this.
I am working from distant memory too!
This user liked this post: Tricky Trevor

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Spijed » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:47 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:Batsmen can be penalised if they deliberately run short runs in order to circumvent the Laws, however,I have never seen an example of this.
What's the point of running a short run when you might as well just stay in your crease?

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10273
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1942 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:50 pm

Spijed wrote:What's the point of running a short run when you might as well just stay in your crease?
If you are running two or three.

westend2016
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:29 am
Been Liked: 3 times
Has Liked: 2 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by westend2016 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:05 pm

Just another matter
Yes it should have been 5 runs given
With Rashid on strike not stokes for the next ball because the batsmen did not cross at the point of the throw
Should play it again!

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by nil_desperandum » Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:16 pm

Spijed wrote:What's the point of running a short run when you might as well just stay in your crease?
Not quite, because youd be hoping to get a 2 if the umpire isnt eagle-eyed, and of course you would still get any runs completed.
I think this rule is written so as to cover a subtle difference.
One short- the batter has apparently "accidentally" not grounded his bat, so the umpire subtracts a run, (whether it be a 2,3 or whatever.)
No run, when the umpire considers that the batter has quite deliberately run short in order to gain a yard or two. I. E. Cheating.
This user liked this post: Ashingtonclaret46

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:19 pm

westend2016 wrote:Just another matter
Yes it should have been 5 runs given
With Rashid on strike not stokes for the next ball because the batsmen did not cross at the point of the throw
Should play it again!
Haha ---some people are just happy to accept life as it is --win or lose.
The only reason that any of us know that is because it was on TV, had it not been, nobody would have been any wiser.
More to the point, the people that matter did not find anything wrong with it or, they could not be sure about it. The players accepted the onfield decision which is the way any game should be played.
England had all the luck going in this particular game ---I just hope that they haven't used it all when The Ashes series starts.

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10273
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1942 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:21 pm

westend2016 wrote:Should play it again!
Every weekend. Forever.
This user liked this post: Rick_Muller

BennyD
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 am
Been Liked: 1338 times
Has Liked: 757 times
Location: Nantwich

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by BennyD » Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:29 pm

Tricky Trevor wrote:Are you sure? I’ve never seen a 7, except via overthrows. To my mind a six is a six.
It wasn’t a 6 until the fielder touched the rope, it was a catch.

ClaretTony
Posts: 67438
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32242 times
Has Liked: 5255 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by ClaretTony » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:30 pm

BennyD wrote:It wasn’t a 6 until the fielder touched the rope, it was a catch.
And when he touches the top it’s a 6

Local cricketer
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 5:46 pm
Been Liked: 412 times
Has Liked: 87 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Local cricketer » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:48 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:How far do we go back to with the cameras? Check every delivery for no balls etc?

There's been at least one controversial decision in every game.
I imagine you watch for no balls down The Arberies stood in line shouting out with a can in your hand

Elizabeth
Posts: 4379
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
Been Liked: 1250 times
Has Liked: 1367 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Elizabeth » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:53 pm

I loved the way England's last batsman came out. Practising short sprints on his way to the crease, telling the world he was ready for the quick sprint that would be needed to win the World Cup. He would be the man.
Then he was run out by a mile

Quickenthetempo
Posts: 17930
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
Been Liked: 3845 times
Has Liked: 2066 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Quickenthetempo » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:18 pm

Local cricketer wrote:I imagine you watch for no balls down The Arberies stood in line shouting out with a can in your hand
Umpires have a hard enough job as it is in the local leagues.
That's why there's a shortage.

Hibsclaret
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
Been Liked: 1234 times
Has Liked: 490 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by Hibsclaret » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:27 pm

As usual the rule is ambiguous regarding the overthrow. What on earth does “or act” mean?

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3952 times

Re: England v New Zealand

Post by nil_desperandum » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:37 pm

Hibsclaret wrote:As usual the rule is ambiguous regarding the overthrow. What on earth does “or act” mean?
It stipulates a throw or act by the fielder, so I take that to mean any action by the fielder that propels the ball.
So he might, for example, deliberately kick it over the boundary or at the stumps.
I agree though that it's not very clearly worded and as we saw yesterday open to interpretation.

Post Reply