Fair play, even for stickball*, that was exciting. 😀

*only joking really, amazing day of sport for both sets of stickballists!!

Amazing entertainment, a real “where were you moment”. Roll on the ashes! Can’t help (this being cricket and not football) but feel a bit sorry for NZ after the 4 overthrows off Stokes’ bat. I wouldn’t be surprised if the rules are reappraised once the dust has settled.

I’ll be honest here. At 86-4 I thought England had blown it especially with the top order falling so easily. NZ set some very good fields and bowled very well, actually more than very well, in the same way that they beat India in the semi.

What a match though, what a match.

palpitation city ! 😀

Oh my kiddy aunt! So my kids decided to have a melt down with 3 overs left. I managed to drag it out to 50 overs when my wife threatened divorce if I didn’t help put the kids to bed.
Put the TV on pause for 45 minutes to come back to the most tense 15 minutes if my life.
Got to feel for NZ, they would if won if it wasn’t for that freak throw on to Stoke’s bat.

NZ must be gutted. They drew in the match and drew in the suoer over but somehow that’s a loss- WTF!

I would have been OK with a draw, and in the Tennis!

Amazing entertainment, a real “where were you moment”. Roll on the ashes! Can’t help (this being cricket and not football) but feel a bit sorry for NZ after the 4 overthrows off Stokes’ bat. I wouldn’t be surprised if the rules are reappraised once the dust has settled.

Equally crucial was the 6 given when the fielder stepped onto the boundary. I felt he could have done better. It felt like an unnecessary step. I might have to look at it again.

Got to feel for NZ, they would if won if it wasn’t for that freak throw on to Stoke’s bat.

or Guptill’s review of a plumb lbw

or Boult standing on the boundary for the catch

or Roy’s misfield

or…..

ifs, buts and maybes, it went to the wire and was an amazing game

Intense one of those great sporting moments.

What a match! What a rollercoaster! I feel emotionally drained just having watched that – some of it from the other room as looking was too much to bear!

The Kiwis need to tour here every summer, the battles with England are becoming stuff of legends.

Now I’ve come down a bit I don’t know if I’m happy with the result being decided like that, after all NZ lost fewer wickets, I think maybe that should’ve decided it 😕

Nah, it’s a simple game….. 50 overs, who scores the most.

everybody knows the rules beforehand, but as a team it’s probably easier to keep a track of the number of wickets than the number of boundaries scored. Seems odd as if it had gone to duckworth lewis due to rain then wickets would have been part of the equation.

But the DLM has to take into account run rate throughout an innings and amount of wickets taken will reflect in the potential for more runs. In this situation both teams completed their 50 overs.

exactly, wickets is a tangible and understandable part of the equation being more “entertaining” less so.

Bit of an anti climax in the end.
RM.

just rewatched the highlights…..and a couple of things I missed in the excitement.

With 3 to win off two balls in ‘normal time’ Stokes dug a yorker out to long on and they ran two (one counting) because Rashid was run out. If the Kiwi’s had thrown to the keeper’s end Stokes would have been run out by half a pitch! He was still in the picture for the umpires review of the Rashid run out; Boult could even have thrown to Latham and got him out still.

and then on the last ball – Stokes had already decided he was going to get bat on ball, bunt it anywhere and push for two knowing that one would at least get them to the super over. WORST    PREMEDITATION    EVER

It was a leg stump knee high full toss. If he’d played it on its merits it would have gone into the top tier!!

Such a shame the end of the game should be marred by two terrible bits of cricket 😉

I don’t know if I’m happy with the result being decided like that, after all NZ lost fewer wickets, I think maybe that should’ve decided it

it was super harsh on NZ and they would have been worthy winners, but I’m not sure about this – the way a team views remaining wickets is very different depending on whether they bat first or are chasing. Boundaries, not so much.

Still though. What a match! What an absolutely, incredibly ridiculous finale to a world cup!

I still can’t quite believe it happened…

Well that was reasonably tight – Lords was a tad too raucous though.

Well that’s the 1st cricket match I really enjoyed.

Great stuff.

It was nice for an English team to get a bit of luck for once.

Apparently the overthrows from Stokes’ bat should have been five not six(!) According to Simon Taufel (one of the all time great umpires) the second run that was as a result of the batsmen actually running should not have counted as they had not crossed at the time the ball was thrown….!!

Honestly, I don’t know if he is right or not – even having played cricket for 20+ years I don’t know the rule on that – and neither did anyone in the NZ team by the look of it!

@dannyh – that’s the first time I have heard this – is it just one individual’s opinion or is anyone else in agreement?

@johndoh

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jul/15/england-ben-stokes-mistake-umpire-cricket-world-cup-final-six-runs-new-Zealand

Law 19.8 of the MCC rulebook states: “If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side and the allowance for the boundary and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.”

I played hundreds (somewhere around the 600-700 by a rough estimate) of games from the age of 12-33 and never came across this!

Yeah I have seen the article, I was just wondering if anyone else has come out supporting his opinion (not that it can change the outcome surely).

^ I haven’t seen anyone else’s opinion, but Taufel serves on the ICC committee that decides the laws, so…

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