Absolutely gutted by the result, in an ideal world there'd have been both captains hands on the trophy imo, but that's by-the-by now, thought we definitely edged it in the match, but England performed better over the whole tournament.
I wonder whether there'll be another rule change incoming re the countback (not as likely though since it wasn't one of the 'senior' nations on the receiving end)? I heard that this was the first WC where the possibility of a shared trophy was removed, but not sure.
Lots of wee quirks to the rules came out in this game, always nice to see a bit of head-scratching going on- I'm still a bit bemused that England were all out, but still managed to win!
Surely depends on 'throw or act'. The act was the ball hitting the bat, which happened after they crossed. But the throw may have been before they crossed. From the quote above it's not clear whether you consider the throw or the act .
I’m still a bit bemused that England were all out, but still managed to win!
So was I at first, but I can only assume that as they had fully completed their 50 overs they had completed their innings (on any ball during a game, for a run-out, the fully completed runs before the run-out are added to the team's score). So, in this instance, they had scored their 241st run (the run-out run would have been their 242nd) so the total was equalled and, as they didn't have to face another ball, they didn't need another player to come in to face it.
Surely depends on ‘throw or act’. The act was the ball hitting the bat, which happened after they crossed. But the throw may have been before they crossed. From the quote above it’s not clear whether you consider the throw or the act .
The "act" refers to the fielder, not the batsman. Here, we're talking about four overthrows that should be added to any runs completed, and any runs where the batsmen had crossed at the point the ball was thrown. It seems that they had not crossed for the second run at that point.
Interestingly, I'm sure I saw one of the umpires signal five at the time so I don't know why six runs were added to the score.
I’m still a bit bemused that England were all out, but still managed to win!
Yeah, but that was an artifact of the rules. Wood attempted a suicidal second run off the last ball because there was no reason not to. Similarly, Archer went for a swing and a miss because there was another wicket in hand. Had the wickets in hand been applied in the event of a tie, then Archer would've defended and Wood would not have run for the second. Leaving the two sides locked at 241-8!
Yeah, but that was an artifact of the rules. Wood attempted a suicidal second run off the last ball because there was no reason not to. Similarly, Archer went for a swing and a miss because there was another wicket in hand. Had the wickets in hand been applied in the event of a tie, then Archer would’ve defended and Wood would not have run for the second. Leaving the two sides locked at 241-8!
Or maybe Archer would have nibbled a single and we ended up on 242.... 😉
Following the overthrow logic above, if they had only run 1 more(rather than a boundary), then they would have only gotten 2 runs total, despite having run 3 as the throw happened before they crossed on their second. Doesn’t sound right when you look at it that way
Doesn’t sound right when you look at it that way
Is the batsman still allowed to run after the ball hits his bat?
Is the batsman still allowed to run after the ball hits his bat?
The etiquette is that you don't, but sure there is anything in the laws.
New Zealand were pretty unlucky and we were exceedingly lucky to emerge winners, it is fair to say that there was considerable confusion in my part of the crowd as to how the super over worked, I came to the right conclusion for the wrong reason as I thought it was dependent upon boundaries in the super over, not the whole match.
The etiquette is that you don’t, but sure there is anything in the laws.
Correct - but I don't think they did run. The umpires had no choice but to award a four as it crossed the boundary rope.
Is the batsman still allowed to run after the ball hits his bat?
Yes - the etiquette is not to, but this is not always followed - the usual result in club cricket is a lot of aggro or even a punch up if the game is close. The ball is still live. I believe that if the ball deflected off of the bat and went into the stumps with the batsman short of his ground, he would be out - so this could have worked the other way with Stokes if that had happened!
Yes – the etiquette is not to, but this is not always followed
even in the final over of the world cup final Stokes was observing this, had his hands up in apology as the ball was running off to the rope (ie not attempting a run and telling archer - who would have had his back to the ball not to run again)
Good honest cricket
Following the overthrow logic above, if they had only run 1 more(rather than a boundary), then they would have only gotten 2 runs total, despite having run 3 as the throw happened before they crossed on their second.
The relevant law only applies if the ball crosses the boundary so would not be in point in this example.
Ah thanks.
Still, I’m sure you could find 20 1 run discrepancies given/not given in the match. Wides/NB, “1 short” runs etc.
BBC R5L have been replaying the last half hour just now. Still makes the hair on the back of the neck go up
Still, I’m sure you could find 20 1 run discrepancies given/not given in the match. Wides/NB, “1 short” runs etc.
Totally agree. Add onto this decisions for out/not out, etc and the game is potentially littered with poor decisions. Play to the umpiring decisions on the day - there's little point dissecting the game after the event.
It was a fantastic effort by England and both teams deserve massive credit for a great final. And top marks to New Zealand - they have been very gracious in defeat, and that should be applauded.
Play to the umpiring decisions on the day – there’s little point dissecting the game after the event.
It was a fantastic effort by England and both teams deserve massive credit for a great final. And top marks to New Zealand – they have been very gracious in defeat, and that should be applauded.
Amen.
Amen +1
Play to the umpiring decisions on the day – there’s little point dissecting the game after the event.
Nah, it's all part of the appeal.
Nah, it’s all part of the appeal.
I agree to an extent, what the question highlights to me is the astonishing speed that Stokes covered the ground, having been run out on Saturday I only wish I had some of that.
So what next for Morgan? 2020 WC in 2020 and then OBE and retire into coaching? Seems to be a fantastic strategist, motivator and man manager.
So what next for Morgan?
lump Jacob Rees-Mogg in the mouth ?
Good Morning everybody... Vital game for England Women, they need to win this test to keep competition alive
Morning, evereeeeeebodeeee.
Toss won, England batting first. Roasting day at Lord's by the look of it.
Oh. Erm.
Holy crapola.
Oops
Thank God for that. An English summer wouldn't be complete without a hideous collapse at Lords.
This may not last long
*makes infrequent foray into stickball thread* #FairWeatherFan
😀
😁
No need to worry peeps, here’s the man to get us out of this mess.
Coming in at No 10 I believe.
Hope the last men keep it neat and don't delay lunch.
This isn't looking too good for me spending Friday at Lords!
Two day test, anyone?
Two day test, anyone?
I'd rather that than 20 overs on Friday and not getting my money back...
Bugger! Just got in from work, I thought this started tomorrow, this is first I’ve thing I’ve seen about it today 😣
Looking slightly better now. Leach to open against the Aussies? 🙂
Leach to open against the Aussies?
Yeah, why not... He seems infinitely better qualified than the more conventional options!
Though why oh why when England have the most successful opening pair in the history of One Day Cricket (and it's proven they work especially well together, but not so much individually), why mess with the format? I'd rather have 100-150 runs on the board at the fall of the 1st wicket even if there's only 20 overs gone, than more overs and much less runs!
Oh that was a shame. He deserved a 100!
Oh, look away for a bit and there's another collapse!
*makes another infrequent foray into stickball thread*
Not bad this cricket lark is it? 😀
I’m learning to 💚 it. 🇮🇪
This is just the kind of morale booster we need ahead of the Ashes. 🙂
