Tough one. Really tough. The Blackcaps were really unlucky. Match being decided by a technicality is unfortunate for Kane Williamson’s men. They should be proud of the effort they put in. They have plenty of supporters all over the cricketing fraternity.
The difference being in 1999 the result was decided by the actual rules of the competition. This was decided by an incorrect interpretation of the Laws of Cricket.
2019-07-16T06:30:14+00:00
More cr@p. What does a knock out game such as the Final of the World Cup have to do what happened in the preliminary games? They have been and gone. It's a clean slate when you are in the knockouts. Go back a few years and NZ would have "won" due to losing less wickets. Still not perfect. I don't mind the super over to break the tie, or even a second super over. But if it keeps being tied, then they need to come up with an altogether better approach to finding a winner (assuming it wont be shared) than some vague rule about who hit most boundaries. Hitting boundaries is but one skill of the game of cricket.
The real culprits here are the incompetent muppets at the ICC.
2019-07-16T06:25:33+00:00
Hey Funbus, have to break the news to you PAL, you did not "win" any game. You were awarded the World Cup Trophy on a technicality, and a cr@p one at that. The game will always have an asterix beside it PAL. And you know it.
What ‘makes me feel good’ is winning the World Cup and reading the hilarious and nearly unhinged rants about it from Aussies and some of the less gracious Kiwis on here...’pal.’
2019-07-15T19:25:49+00:00
Ok - you believe what makes you feel good. I will believe Simon Taufel, retired ICC Umpire, who has umpired a few more games of international cricket than you pal.
The rule says they should cross before the throw or the 'act.' The act in this context is clearly the ball striking Stokes which happened after they crossed.
What I meant was that, in no other instance does it matter whether a pair have crossed when a fielder throws a return. Why should it matter now? If NZ had a boundary rider backing up, the poms would have run another, making it a 3. For some reason it's suddenly important because NZ doesn't have a fielder in place to stop 4 fortuitous overthrows ?
2019-07-15T07:53:55+00:00
Wrong. In the instant of the act of throwing the ball from the outfield, the batsmen had NOT crossed. Not even close.
The umpires got it wrong.
Perhaps Mr Boof should have looked at the rules of the comp before opening his mouth. Have had the misfortune to listen to his "commentary" on radio. Another case of an ex player given a media role because of his playing career.
And Ronan, typical ICC administrative approach re supporter engagement of our game given they are yet to come out and provide us all with a statement as to how the 4x umpires and match referee interpreted the rules to arrive at the decision that was made (even though this could have ocurred with 1 hour of the game ending). Clearly this is an issue that is engaging supporters of the game of which we all entrust the ICC to be the voice, guide and custodian of.
And exactly what are the rules? That article points to the ODI Playing Regulations effective from Sept 2018. But these are NOT the regulations/rules being used for CWC19. Firstly, there is no reference to Super Overs in those playing conditions. Secondly, those playing conditions preference Head-to-Head results over NRR when determining the placement of teams in a tournament of four Full Members or more where table points are equal; that is the opposite of the CWC19 regulations (apparently).
Where exactly is a supporter of the game supposed to find these regs? I certainly haven't been able to track them down on Google notwithstanding various permutations of word searches.
Ongoing supporter dis-engagement approach (deliberate or not) from the ICC unfortunately.
This is just sour grapes because the poms won it.
Does Australia's 99 World Cup have an asterisk against it because we tied the semi?
England won the qualifying match against NZ anyway. That's what it should come down to who won the qualifying match.
That is particularly badly worded. Anyways it was 2 + 4 as he made his ground, so logically it makes sense. There are 4 instances of 8s in test cricket.
Cricinfo are now also suggesting England should have got 5 runs not 6 for the Stokes deflection "overthrows" and this is from one of their senior English writers:
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows
What a mess.
Neel
Roar Guru
Tough one. Really tough. The Blackcaps were really unlucky. Match being decided by a technicality is unfortunate for Kane Williamson’s men. They should be proud of the effort they put in. They have plenty of supporters all over the cricketing fraternity.
Bayman
Roar Rookie
The difference being in 1999 the result was decided by the actual rules of the competition. This was decided by an incorrect interpretation of the Laws of Cricket.
More cr@p. What does a knock out game such as the Final of the World Cup have to do what happened in the preliminary games? They have been and gone. It's a clean slate when you are in the knockouts. Go back a few years and NZ would have "won" due to losing less wickets. Still not perfect. I don't mind the super over to break the tie, or even a second super over. But if it keeps being tied, then they need to come up with an altogether better approach to finding a winner (assuming it wont be shared) than some vague rule about who hit most boundaries. Hitting boundaries is but one skill of the game of cricket. The real culprits here are the incompetent muppets at the ICC.
Hey Funbus, have to break the news to you PAL, you did not "win" any game. You were awarded the World Cup Trophy on a technicality, and a cr@p one at that. The game will always have an asterix beside it PAL. And you know it.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
What ‘makes me feel good’ is winning the World Cup and reading the hilarious and nearly unhinged rants about it from Aussies and some of the less gracious Kiwis on here...’pal.’
Ok - you believe what makes you feel good. I will believe Simon Taufel, retired ICC Umpire, who has umpired a few more games of international cricket than you pal.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
The rule says they should cross before the throw or the 'act.' The act in this context is clearly the ball striking Stokes which happened after they crossed.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
What I meant was that, in no other instance does it matter whether a pair have crossed when a fielder throws a return. Why should it matter now? If NZ had a boundary rider backing up, the poms would have run another, making it a 3. For some reason it's suddenly important because NZ doesn't have a fielder in place to stop 4 fortuitous overthrows ?
Wrong. In the instant of the act of throwing the ball from the outfield, the batsmen had NOT crossed. Not even close. The umpires got it wrong.
Sideline Eye
Guest
Perhaps Mr Boof should have looked at the rules of the comp before opening his mouth. Have had the misfortune to listen to his "commentary" on radio. Another case of an ex player given a media role because of his playing career.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
And Ronan, typical ICC administrative approach re supporter engagement of our game given they are yet to come out and provide us all with a statement as to how the 4x umpires and match referee interpreted the rules to arrive at the decision that was made (even though this could have ocurred with 1 hour of the game ending). Clearly this is an issue that is engaging supporters of the game of which we all entrust the ICC to be the voice, guide and custodian of. And exactly what are the rules? That article points to the ODI Playing Regulations effective from Sept 2018. But these are NOT the regulations/rules being used for CWC19. Firstly, there is no reference to Super Overs in those playing conditions. Secondly, those playing conditions preference Head-to-Head results over NRR when determining the placement of teams in a tournament of four Full Members or more where table points are equal; that is the opposite of the CWC19 regulations (apparently). Where exactly is a supporter of the game supposed to find these regs? I certainly haven't been able to track them down on Google notwithstanding various permutations of word searches. Ongoing supporter dis-engagement approach (deliberate or not) from the ICC unfortunately.
anon
Roar Pro
This is just sour grapes because the poms won it. Does Australia's 99 World Cup have an asterisk against it because we tied the semi? England won the qualifying match against NZ anyway. That's what it should come down to who won the qualifying match.
Ouch
Roar Rookie
Not at all. That SA choke should never have happened
Gee
Roar Rookie
Two craps don't make a correct :)
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
That is particularly badly worded. Anyways it was 2 + 4 as he made his ground, so logically it makes sense. There are 4 instances of 8s in test cricket.
Duncan Smith
Roar Guru
This is huge! Another twist in the story. The umpires should have stopped the game and clarified at that point.
Die hard
Roar Rookie
Yes it should have been shared. Nothing else to add.
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
But the way the 1999 semi final was decided was perfectly acceptable I assume?? ....
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Cricinfo are now also suggesting England should have got 5 runs not 6 for the Stokes deflection "overthrows" and this is from one of their senior English writers: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows What a mess.
George
Guest
Crapper than CA giving him another job after the cheating he presided over?