Cricket World Cup 2019

[staninoodle 174]

14 hours ago, whiteowl said:

It's ambiguous.

 

Law 19.8 - overthrow or wilful act of fielder:

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;

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.

 

Does the act mean when the ball struck Stokes bat? As that's what caused the boundary otherwise it would have been collected safely by the NZ keeper.

 

Doesn't really matter anyway, rule 2.11 overrules it - The umpires decision is final.

 

Also, had they given 5 runs, who knows how the game might have ended. Fairly sure Stokes would not have prodded the last ball (a full toss on his legs) out to try and grab a double, he'd have launched it into orbit and won the game outright. So many variables.

 

 

But having 5 runs,Ben Stokes would be the non striker.

When the throw comes in from Guptil they clearly havent crossed,umpires made a mistake,all be it in the heat of the moment,in reality it should have gone upstairs.The act is the moment the ball leaves Stokes bat and heads toward the boundrey.

The officiating for the final wasnt great,Roy was out early but got a lucky decision.

Arent we touring NZ this winter?should be fun LOL

Edited July 18, 2019 by staninoodle

[JamesR123 0]

Look at the wording of the law

 

13 hours ago, staninoodle said:

overthrow or wilful act of fielder:

The act is the fielder, not the batter.  The act is the throw.

 

Shouldn't have been a 6.

[Michael_W 11]

Fine lines between success and failure, the game was tight all the way through and either side could have won, England had that bit of luck on the day just as the football team did back in 66, it would be nice to see England win something more comfortably at some point in the future.

[staninoodle 174]

On 19/07/2019 at 12:56, JamesR123 said:

Look at the wording of the law

 

The act is the fielder, not the batter.  The act is the throw.

 

Shouldn't have been a 6.

It was a highly controversial moment,the pivotal decision of the game,and just like with geoff hurst,the officials came to the wrong conclusion to englands benefit.......at least we won the rugby WC fair n square 😂

[Padders 2,850]

Bit of a shambles today TFH.

[tinfoilhat 11]

16 minutes ago, Padders said:

Bit of a shambles today TFH.

But a completely predictable one. 

 

Burns - got a good one, but I still have doubts

Roy - ODI player dances down the track on a 5th day Turner. Daft.

Root - nibbled at a good one. Crap captaincy.

Denley - why? Doesn't look good enough.

Stokes - one of the few WC who looks like he can adapt. Bowled his heart out.

Butler - doesn't look like he can adapt. But swap him for who?

Bairstow - not great behind the stumps and was unlucky in the second innings. Crap in the first.

Ali - apparently he's taken more test wickets than anyone this year (or 12 months, can't remember). Now bowling moon balls and doesn't know which way the bat works. Needs a break, shown up big time by Lyon.

Woakes - didn't bowl as well as can do but deserved more overs. Rather have him at 4 than denley.

Broad - did ok on a pitch that wasn't doing much. Better with the bat but fell to the second short ball he faced in the first innings. Stark will have his card marked.

Anderson - crocked and that's a huge worry. Gives control and wickets, missed terribly. He gets Smith out early doors and this match looks very different.

 

Options? Leach and Curran are worth a shout. Archer if we are very very sure he's fit. Can't be missing a strike bowler again. Batting wise, I've no idea, that's still the weak link.

[Padders 2,850]

On ‎05‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 18:30, tinfoilhat said:

But a completely predictable one. 

 

Burns - got a good one, but I still have doubts

Roy - ODI player dances down the track on a 5th day Turner. Daft.

Root - nibbled at a good one. Crap captaincy.

Denley - why? Doesn't look good enough.

Stokes - one of the few WC who looks like he can adapt. Bowled his heart out.

Butler - doesn't look like he can adapt. But swap him for who?

Bairstow - not great behind the stumps and was unlucky in the second innings. Crap in the first.

Ali - apparently he's taken more test wickets than anyone this year (or 12 months, can't remember). Now bowling moon balls and doesn't know which way the bat works. Needs a break, shown up big time by Lyon.

Woakes - didn't bowl as well as can do but deserved more overs. Rather have him at 4 than denley.

Broad - did ok on a pitch that wasn't doing much. Better with the bat but fell to the second short ball he faced in the first innings. Stark will have his card marked.

Anderson - crocked and that's a huge worry. Gives control and wickets, missed terribly. He gets Smith out early doors and this match looks very different.

 

Options? Leach and Curran are worth a shout. Archer if we are very very sure he's fit. Can't be missing a strike bowler again. Batting wise, I've no idea, that's still the weak link.

Good day today TFH. 

Not clued up over cricket, like test matches and keep track of Yorkshire.

What you think about Jofra Archer, looks a good un to me.

Hope we can build on this good start, and square the series .

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, Padders said:

Good day today TFH. 

Not clued up over cricket, like test matches and keep track of Yorkshire.

What you think about Jofra Archer, looks a good un to me.

Hope we can build on this good start, and square the series .

The one that took Smith out in the last test was an absolute brute of a ball, made better (or worse I guess) by the fact it wasn’t a number 11 but the best batsman in the world at the moment in the form of his life on 70. But archer did show today he can bowl on off stump and not get too obsessed with the short stuff. 

 

I say not too obsessed because we  bowled too short, too often or searched for magic balls today and let the Aussies have 50 more runs than they should have got. Woakes - who I’m a fan of - was shocking in the main. I hope he bats well, and sadly I expect to see him batting before tea.

 

Will we get more than 179? I don’t know. Their bowlers are no mugs and our batsmen, frankly, are. But we can still win it. The weather should be better so I don’t expect a draw.

[Padders 2,850]

10 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

The one that took Smith out in the last test was an absolute brute of a ball, made better (or worse I guess) by the fact it wasn’t a number 11 but the best batsman in the world at the moment in the form of his life on 70. But archer did show today he can bowl on off stump and not get too obsessed with the short stuff. 

 

I say not too obsessed because we  bowled too short, too often or searched for magic balls today and let the Aussies have 50 more runs than they should have got. Woakes - who I’m a fan of - was shocking in the main. I hope he bats well, and sadly I expect to see him batting before tea.

 

Will we get more than 179? I don’t know. Their bowlers are no mugs and our batsmen, frankly, are. But we can still win it. The weather should be better so I don’t expect a draw.

Thanks TFH.. you certainly know your cricket.

[Amt239 0]

No,won't beat their score,Stokes amongst others was awfull.

[tinfoilhat 11]

21 minutes ago, Amt239 said:

No,won't beat their score,Stokes amongst others was awfull.

I pondered quite hard over my post last night. Surely woakes won’t be batting at lunch I thought. We’re crap but not that bad. Warm day, cloudless skies. One or two might give their wicket away but I didn’t think 4 or 5 would, by lunch.

 

The absolute state of English cricket - batting at any rate. 

4 hours ago, Padders said:

Thanks TFH.. you certainly know your cricket.

Thank you sir. I know more in principle that our top 7 by the look of it.

[Amt239 0]

Ali Mcoist on talk sport said if we got 100 lead we would win,we'll struggle to score 100.