SA Footy

spell_check wrote:

MW wrote: say, leave that sort of shit (most boundaries tie-breaker) for T20 tournaments, where that is what people come for (to see a 6 and a 4 every third ball).

Trader wrote:Overthrow - under the laws its 5, but has always been applied as 6. This is a case of the evolution of the game getting ahead of the bylaws. 100 years ago batsmen wouldn't take on the fielder like they do these days. I expect this rule to be updated slightly to take the modern cricket into account, just like they did with grounding your bat and running past the stumps. (TV slow mo shows both feet off the ground in a normal running position, but now you can't be given run out anymore after they updated the law).

Superover - great spectacle, nothing wrong with using it to finish the game. The boundaries hit 2ndary tie-breaker is a bit annoying. I'd prefer wickets lost to be used if they want a tie-breaker. Ultimately I'd like to see a tie after the superover to simply be a tie. The rules for CWC19 were if both days of the final were washed out, the cup would be shared, so why not share it after a double-tie.

Umpires - I thought they were fairly poor. 4 decisions overturned from memory, and would have been another had NZ still had a review available for Ross Taylor.

Santner - massively under-bowled in the final. Not sure why. Perhaps it was punishment for ducking the last ball and not even trying to run a bye. You can look back on a game like this and think what if this and that, but for mine, this (not trying to score on the last ball) was the moment that should be questioned the most.

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

Trader wrote:Overthrow - under the laws its 5, but has always been applied as 6. This is a case of the evolution of the game getting ahead of the bylaws. 100 years ago batsmen wouldn't take on the fielder like they do these days. I expect this rule to be updated slightly to take the modern cricket into account, just like they did with grounding your bat and running past the stumps. (TV slow mo shows both feet off the ground in a normal running position, but now you can't be given run out anymore after they updated the law).

Superover - great spectacle, nothing wrong with using it to finish the game. The boundaries hit 2ndary tie-breaker is a bit annoying. I'd prefer wickets lost to be used if they want a tie-breaker. Ultimately I'd like to see a tie after the superover to simply be a tie. The rules for CWC19 were if both days of the final were washed out, the cup would be shared, so why not share it after a double-tie.

Umpires - I thought they were fairly poor. 4 decisions overturned from memory, and would have been another had NZ still had a review available for Ross Taylor.

Santner - massively under-bowled in the final. Not sure why. Perhaps it was punishment for ducking the last ball and not even trying to run a bye. You can look back on a game like this and think what if this and that, but for mine, this (not trying to score on the last ball) was the moment that should be questioned the most.

Re: overthrows. Surely umpires are duty bound to umpire to the laws of cricket. There should not be room for any interpretation. It's black and white. If they hadn't crossed when Guptill released the throw, it's 5, Stokes not on strike and a massive blunder by the umpires. If they had crossed, then it's 6, Stokes on strike and the umpires got it right. I still haven't seen any conclusive footage that shows whether they had crossed or not when Guptill released the throw.

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

Trader wrote:Overthrow - under the laws its 5, but has always been applied as 6. This is a case of the evolution of the game getting ahead of the bylaws. 100 years ago batsmen wouldn't take on the fielder like they do these days. I expect this rule to be updated slightly to take the modern cricket into account, just like they did with grounding your bat and running past the stumps. (TV slow mo shows both feet off the ground in a normal running position, but now you can't be given run out anymore after they updated the law).

Re: overthrows. Surely umpires are duty bound to umpire to the laws of cricket. There should not be room for any interpretation. It's black and white. If they hadn't crossed when Guptill released the throw, it's 5, Stokes not on strike and a massive blunder by the umpires. If they had crossed, then it's 6, Stokes on strike and the umpires got it right. I still haven't seen any conclusive footage that shows whether they had crossed or not when Guptill released the throw.

Retired umpire Taufel, named ICC umpire of the year every year from 2004 to 2008, who stood in the 2011 World Cup final, and is a member of the MCC Laws subcommittee, defended officiating umpires Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus, who were in the middle for the chaotic finish, but confirmed they had erred.

"There was a judgment error on the overthrow," Taufel told The Age and Sydney Morning Herald.

"The judgment error was the timing of when the fielder threw the ball. The act of the overthrow starts when the fielder releases the ball. That's the act.

"It becomes an overthrow from the instant of the throw."

Taufel explained that the umpires had a raft of things to consider every ball.

"In this particular case, the umpires have got a lot on their plate, because like every ball, they've had to watch the batsmen complete the first run, they've had to watch the ball being fielded, to understand how it's in play, whether the fielder's done the right thing. Then they've got to look to see when the ball is released, in case there is an overthrow. And that happens every delivery of the game. And then they've got to back to see where the two batsmen are.

"They've then got to follow on and see what happens after that, whether there is a run out, whether there's an 'obstructing the field', whether the ball is taken fairly. There's multitudes of decisions to be taken off the one delivery. What's unfortunate is that people think that umpiring is just about outs and not outs. They forget we make 1000s of decisions every match.

"So it's unfortunate that there was a judgment error on the timing of the release of the ball and where the batsmen were. They did not cross on their second run, at the instant of the throw. So given that scenario, five runs should have been the correct allocation of runs, and Ben Stokes should have been at the non-striker's end for the next delivery.

"We're not perfect. You've got the best two umpires in the elite panel doing the final. They're doing their best like the other two teams are. This is just part of the game.

"I think it's unfair to say that the World Cup was decided by that one event. There's a lot of 'what ifs' and 'what should bes' and 'what could bes' that happen off those 600-plus deliveries. That's the nature of sport.”

FlyingHigh wrote:I suppose this has been mentioned in media or forums somewhere but I haven't seen it - sure the Kiwis won the toss and batted, but the outfield would be quicker in the arvo than the morning, unlike a 20-20 game done in 3 hours.

spell_check wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

Trader wrote:Overthrow - under the laws its 5, but has always been applied as 6. This is a case of the evolution of the game getting ahead of the bylaws. 100 years ago batsmen wouldn't take on the fielder like they do these days. I expect this rule to be updated slightly to take the modern cricket into account, just like they did with grounding your bat and running past the stumps. (TV slow mo shows both feet off the ground in a normal running position, but now you can't be given run out anymore after they updated the law).

Superover - great spectacle, nothing wrong with using it to finish the game. The boundaries hit 2ndary tie-breaker is a bit annoying. I'd prefer wickets lost to be used if they want a tie-breaker. Ultimately I'd like to see a tie after the superover to simply be a tie. The rules for CWC19 were if both days of the final were washed out, the cup would be shared, so why not share it after a double-tie.

Umpires - I thought they were fairly poor. 4 decisions overturned from memory, and would have been another had NZ still had a review available for Ross Taylor.

Santner - massively under-bowled in the final. Not sure why. Perhaps it was punishment for ducking the last ball and not even trying to run a bye. You can look back on a game like this and think what if this and that, but for mine, this (not trying to score on the last ball) was the moment that should be questioned the most.

Re: overthrows. Surely umpires are duty bound to umpire to the laws of cricket. There should not be room for any interpretation. It's black and white. If they hadn't crossed when Guptill released the throw, it's 5, Stokes not on strike and a massive blunder by the umpires. If they had crossed, then it's 6, Stokes on strike and the umpires got it right. I still haven't seen any conclusive footage that shows whether they had crossed or not when Guptill released the throw.

You will now, pause at 0:45:

daysofourlives wrote:

mal wrote:Did they use new balls for the super over, or continue with the balls used in the 50 overs ?

It looked like each bowler chose a ball from their 2nd hand box

LMA wrote:If India was in NZ shoes it would already be in the courts

LMA wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:

mal wrote:Did they use new balls for the super over, or continue with the balls used in the 50 overs ?

It looked like each bowler chose a ball from their 2nd hand box

We should of given the Kiwis our 2nd hand box, there would be some coarse balls in there.

Lightning McQueen wrote:Regardless of the "letter of the law", if it hadn't have been in such a critical moment and didn't decide the winner, it would've been called 2 plus 4 overthrows any day of the week.

The umpires should be watching the wickets/crease line, this is an exceptional case but as much as it pains me to see the Poms win, I'm cool with what happened and the result, there were far more variables that could've prevented the Poms even having a chance.

PatowalongaPirate wrote:The rules on this aren't consistent with ODI cricket. If it was a T20 where the game is all about boundaries then fair enough, but NZ bowled out England whilst they themselves still had wickets in the shed. This should have been the deciding factor. The DL system takes into account wickets in hand when deciding an ODI - not boundaries scored.

rd wrote:

PatowalongaPirate wrote:The rules on this aren't consistent with ODI cricket. If it was a T20 where the game is all about boundaries then fair enough, but NZ bowled out England whilst they themselves still had wickets in the shed. This should have been the deciding factor. The DL system takes into account wickets in hand when deciding an ODI - not boundaries scored.

I'm thinking for the World Cup Semi Finals and Grand Final - in case of a tied match it should be the higher ranked team which in last Sunday's match makes England the rightful winner.

batmanbegins wrote:Just wanted to say full credit to the way the Kiwi's have handled this, absolute testament to the team they are. They have been pretty well screwed here but this is a team that is incredibly likeable for many reasons. As mentioned can only imagine how India would have dealt with a similar hand.

Minimum Chips wrote:

rd wrote:

PatowalongaPirate wrote:The rules on this aren't consistent with ODI cricket. If it was a T20 where the game is all about boundaries then fair enough, but NZ bowled out England whilst they themselves still had wickets in the shed. This should have been the deciding factor. The DL system takes into account wickets in hand when deciding an ODI - not boundaries scored.

I'm thinking for the World Cup Semi Finals and Grand Final - in case of a tied match it should be the higher ranked team which in last Sunday's match makes England the rightful winner.

Not unlike '99 when we won the semi and got through by the fact we had beaten SA earlier in the tournament. Same would apply here.