England v New Zealand
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:29 am
- Been Liked: 3 times
- Has Liked: 2 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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
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
-
- Posts: 67891
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32536 times
- Has Liked: 5277 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: England v New Zealand
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 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.
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:29 am
- Been Liked: 3 times
- Has Liked: 2 times
Re: England v New Zealand
Mr Scholes it's when the ball is released from the hand of the thrower
-
- Posts: 985
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:20 am
- Been Liked: 264 times
- Has Liked: 90 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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.
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
-
- Posts: 10915
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
- Been Liked: 5560 times
- Has Liked: 208 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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.
Buttler made it look very easy by comparison.
-
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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)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.
I think you're probably correct though and the rules have been changed because sponsors etc want to encourage more big hitting.
Re: England v New Zealand
20/20 cricket has probably changed everything in that respect. Fans want to see bigger sixes from the likes of Stokes and Gayle.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.
-
- Posts: 67891
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32536 times
- Has Liked: 5277 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: England v New Zealand
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.westend2016 wrote:Mr Scholes it's when the ball is released from the hand of the thrower
Re: England v New Zealand
I'm very surprised no-one has picked up on this on any of the news channels.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.
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:29 am
- Been Liked: 3 times
- Has Liked: 2 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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
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
-
- Posts: 67891
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32536 times
- Has Liked: 5277 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: England v New Zealand
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.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
-
- Posts: 985
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:20 am
- Been Liked: 264 times
- Has Liked: 90 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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.
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:29 am
- Been Liked: 3 times
- Has Liked: 2 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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
-
- Posts: 16892
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6963 times
- Has Liked: 1483 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: England v New Zealand
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.
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.
Re: England v New Zealand
Oh, no. This is becoming as complicated as Brexit!
-
- 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
Not you as well,JRM is already in hot water,quite rightly for his daft tweets,https://uk.yahoo.com/sports/news/jacob- ... 48416.htmlupanatem wrote:Oh, no. This is becoming as complicated as Brexit!
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.
Re: England v New Zealand
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.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.
Re: England v New Zealand
Umpires decision is final , regardless of the fact it’s right or wrong, ie Roy given out in semi-final
-
- Posts: 8526
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
- Been Liked: 2472 times
- Has Liked: 2009 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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.
-
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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.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.
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.)
-
- Posts: 8526
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
- Been Liked: 2472 times
- Has Liked: 2009 times
Re: England v New Zealand
We lost 4 wickets in the last 8 balls chasing the win. Different rules, different attitude. They would have known the score.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.)
Re: England v New Zealand
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
-
- 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
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.
Re: England v New Zealand
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.
Re: England v New Zealand
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
- Been Liked: 217 times
- Has Liked: 543 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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.
-
- Posts: 8526
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
- Been Liked: 2472 times
- Has Liked: 2009 times
Re: England v New Zealand
Are you sure? I’ve never seen a 7, except via overthrows. To my mind a six is a six.BennyD wrote:Also, when the NZ fielder stepped onto the rope and gave away 6, the run in progress should also have counted.
-
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
- Been Liked: 1831 times
- Has Liked: 2633 times
- Location: Ashington, Northumberland
Re: England v New Zealand
Correct.Tricky Trevor wrote:Are you sure? I’ve never seen a 7, except via overthrows. To my mind a six is a six.
-
- Posts: 67891
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32536 times
- Has Liked: 5277 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: England v New Zealand
Surely once the fielder touches the boundary ads it immediately becomes a six and would not include any runs taken by the batsmen.BennyD wrote: Also, when the NZ fielder stepped onto the rope and gave away 6, the run in progress should also have counted.
-
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
- Been Liked: 1831 times
- Has Liked: 2633 times
- Location: Ashington, Northumberland
Re: England v New Zealand
Same thing when it is on the deck --it is a four no matter how many the batsmen runClaretTony wrote:Surely once the fielder touches the boundary ads it immediately becomes a six and would not include any runs taken by the batsmen.
Re: England v New Zealand
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.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.
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.
Re: England v New Zealand
That must be the case as there will be many times when the batsmen cross before the ball ends up a six.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.
Re: England v New Zealand
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?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.
-
- Posts: 18095
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3870 times
- Has Liked: 2073 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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.
There's been at least one controversial decision in every game.
Re: England v New Zealand
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.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?
-
- Posts: 8526
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
- Been Liked: 2472 times
- Has Liked: 2009 times
Re: England v New Zealand
Distant memory: the umpire could give a five and allow the batsmen to cross in that situation. Ashy will know.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.
-
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
- Been Liked: 1831 times
- Has Liked: 2633 times
- Location: Ashington, Northumberland
Re: England v New Zealand
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.Tricky Trevor wrote:Distant memory: the umpire could give a five and allow the batsmen to cross in that situation. Ashy will know.
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
Re: England v New Zealand
What's the point of running a short run when you might as well just stay in your crease?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.
-
- Posts: 10327
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3341 times
- Has Liked: 1963 times
Re: England v New Zealand
If you are running two or three.Spijed wrote:What's the point of running a short run when you might as well just stay in your crease?
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:29 am
- Been Liked: 3 times
- Has Liked: 2 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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!
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!
-
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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.Spijed wrote:What's the point of running a short run when you might as well just stay in your crease?
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
-
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
- Been Liked: 1831 times
- Has Liked: 2633 times
- Location: Ashington, Northumberland
Re: England v New Zealand
Haha ---some people are just happy to accept life as it is --win or lose.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!
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.
-
- Posts: 10327
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3341 times
- Has Liked: 1963 times
Re: England v New Zealand
Every weekend. Forever.westend2016 wrote:Should play it again!
This user liked this post: Rick_Muller
-
- 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
It wasn’t a 6 until the fielder touched the rope, it was a catch.Tricky Trevor wrote:Are you sure? I’ve never seen a 7, except via overthrows. To my mind a six is a six.
-
- Posts: 67891
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32536 times
- Has Liked: 5277 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: England v New Zealand
And when he touches the top it’s a 6BennyD wrote:It wasn’t a 6 until the fielder touched the rope, it was a catch.
-
- Posts: 2347
- Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 5:46 pm
- Been Liked: 412 times
- Has Liked: 87 times
Re: England v New Zealand
I imagine you watch for no balls down The Arberies stood in line shouting out with a can in your handQuickenthetempo 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.
-
- Posts: 4406
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:13 am
- Been Liked: 1259 times
- Has Liked: 1368 times
Re: England v New Zealand
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
Then he was run out by a mile
-
- Posts: 18095
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3870 times
- Has Liked: 2073 times
Re: England v New Zealand
Umpires have a hard enough job as it is in the local leagues.Local cricketer wrote:I imagine you watch for no balls down The Arberies stood in line shouting out with a can in your hand
That's why there's a shortage.
-
- Posts: 3962
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1240 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: England v New Zealand
As usual the rule is ambiguous regarding the overthrow. What on earth does “or act” mean?
-
- Posts: 7312
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: England v New Zealand
It stipulates a throw or act by the fielder, so I take that to mean any action by the fielder that propels the ball.Hibsclaret wrote:As usual the rule is ambiguous regarding the overthrow. What on earth does “or act” mean?
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.