You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
World Cup Final Mistake.
Cricket World Cup final: England wrongly awarded extra run against New Zealand, says former umpire
England were wrongly awarded an extra run in their Cricket World Cup final victory over New Zealand, according to a former international umpire, on their way to a dramatic super-over win at Lord’s.
In the final over of regular play, Ben Stokes inadvertently deflected the ball off his bat to the boundary rope as he dived to reach the crease, turning what would have been two runs into six and playing a crucial role in equalling New Zealand’s total to force a super-over.
But the well-renowned former international umpire Simon Taufel says the on-field umpires made a “clear mistake” in awarding England six runs, rather than the correct figure of five, as the batsmen had not yet crossed when the ball was thrown. It also meant that England’s best batsman, Stokes, retained the strike.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/cricketworldcup/cricket-world-cup-final-england-wrongly-awarded-extra-run-against-new-zealand-says-former-umpire/ar-AAElHhH?ocid=spartandhp
England were wrongly awarded an extra run in their Cricket World Cup final victory over New Zealand, according to a former international umpire, on their way to a dramatic super-over win at Lord’s.
In the final over of regular play, Ben Stokes inadvertently deflected the ball off his bat to the boundary rope as he dived to reach the crease, turning what would have been two runs into six and playing a crucial role in equalling New Zealand’s total to force a super-over.
But the well-renowned former international umpire Simon Taufel says the on-field umpires made a “clear mistake” in awarding England six runs, rather than the correct figure of five, as the batsmen had not yet crossed when the ball was thrown. It also meant that England’s best batsman, Stokes, retained the strike.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/cricketworldcup/cricket-world-cup-final-england-wrongly-awarded-extra-run-against-new-zealand-says-former-umpire/ar-AAElHhH?ocid=spartandhp
Comments
There's no way the umpire can possibly be watching when the ball is released as well as the position of the batsmen running between the wickets at the same time.
Needs changing so that
1) The overthrows are from whether the batsmen have grounded their bat when the ball passes the stumps, so that it's possible to officiate this without the help of technology - Given that 99.99% of cricket games that take place in the world aren't internationals with dozens of TV cameras with different angles and a third umpire and we can't get it right even with that help, the average village game ump trying to make this same decision is just guessing.
2) Deflections off the bat or batsman are a dead ball - The etiquette is "Don't run" and has been for as long as I've known, so allowing the situation to occur makes no sense to begin with.
I also think a tied super over should be a second/third/fourth super over, and keep going until there's not a tie, weather permitting.
I am not a cricket expert, but played quite a bit while in school, many years ago.
I am assuming that the rule referred to, isn't a recent amendment, and has been in place for about a million years.
Therefore prior to technology, dozens of tv cameras, or third umpires being in place.
You would think a similar dispute might have come up before.
You would also think that the umpires selected to oversee a World Cup Final, would be aware of the rules.
If they had been aware of this rule, you would thought that they would have requested the assistance of technology, to make this decision, in such an important game
In a one day match, on practically every ball they are expected to watch the direction in which the ball has been hit, in case of a catch or a boundary, while keeping an eye on the batsmen, to judge how many runs have been made, observing the crease when a runout is close, and closely watching the stumps to ensure the ball, rather than the keepers gloves have made contact, in the case of a runout.
If this rule is impossible to implement, then it should be amended, something you would have thought might have occurred before now.
The fact it hasnt must be hugely disappointing for the New Zealand players and supporters.
For a brief yet joyful period, no-one was thinking about politics. Or so it seemed
Jacob Rees-Mogg
✔
@Jacob_Rees_Mogg
A d..n close run thing, we clearly don't need Europe to win... #CricketWorldCupFinal
https://www.
bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/
48983890
That’s right, arch-Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tried to crowbar in a reference to nobody’s favourite subject.
As many pointed out, quite what the sound of willow on leather had to do with leaving the European Union was anyone’s guess.
Moreover, Rees-Mogg could hardly have been more wrong ...
Paddy Power
✔
@paddypower
The Captain is Irish.
They have players from a few places around the world. And cricket and Brexit having nothing to do with each other.
Apart from that. You’re spot on.
Daniel Lawes
@LawesDan
The England Cricket team:
- Captained by an immigrant
- Batting led by an immigrant
- Fastest bowler an immigrant
- Leading all-rounder an immigrant
- Main spinner son of an immigrant
Alastair PEOPLE’S VOTE Campbell
✔
@campbellclaret
Suggest you read replies @Jacob_Rees_Mogg and perhaps instead of making a silly Brextremist point offer congratulations to the Irish captain, the NZ-born Man of the Match and the Barbadian bowler who got it over the line. Then STFU P.s most European countries don't play cricket
https://
twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mog
g/status/1150475669677268992
…
Chris Kirby
@chriskirby4
Our director of cricket until late last year was South african
Our current Coach is Australian
Our current captain is Irish
Our super over bowler is Barbadian
A celebration of inclusivity and this moron chooses now to demonstrate his introverted bias.
Irony.#CWC19Final
https://
twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mog
g/status/1150475669677268992
Nick Pettigrew
@Nick_Pettigrew
Our entire squad has been enriched by immigration, you thuddingly mediocre ghoul.
https://
twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mog
g/status/1150475669677268992
…
Ed Vaizey
✔
@edvaizey
Slightly misjudging the mood there, @Jacob_Rees_Mogg . But while you’re on, the English captain is Irish
…
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/jacob-rees-mogg-tried-to-make-englands-world-cup-win-about-brexit-and-it-backfired/ar-AAEjHkk?ocid=spartandhp
If the ball had stopped short, or been fielded, short of the boundary, do you think that Stokes, in these extreme circumstances, would have run? And if he had, would the run(s) have been allowed? As far as I am aware, there is no rule against it. (See "underarm bowling", Trevor Chappell, Aus v NZ, 1981).
As the batsmen hadn't crossed for the second run, at the point the ball was thrown by the fielder, they should have been given 5 runs not 6 and therefore lost.
Not much etiquette in that.
I also remember that in my youth, that it was a matter of honour for a batsmen to walk if he knew he was out, whether the umpire had given it or not.
These day they will admit to not walking when they know they are out.
In the final over of regular play, Ben Stokes inadvertently deflected the ball off his bat to the boundary rope as he dived to reach the crease, turning what would have been two runs into six and playing a crucial role in equalling New Zealand’s total to force a super-over.
But the well-renowned former international umpire Simon Taufel says the on-field umpires made a “clear mistake” in awarding England six runs, rather than the correct figure of five, as the batsmen had not yet crossed when the ball was thrown. It also meant that England’s best batsman, Stokes, retained the strike.
Speaking to Foxsport.com.au, Taufel referred to the rather vague rule 19.8 of the MCC rulebook which 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."
“It’s a clear mistake … it’s an error of judgment,” Taufel said.
However, the Australian did defended his former colleagues, Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus, describing them as the “best of the best”.
“The difficulty you (umpires) have here is you’ve got to watch batsmen completing runs, then change focus and watch for the ball being picked up, and watch for the release (of the throw),” he said.
“You also have to watch where the batsmen are at that exact moment.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/cricketworldcup/cricket-world-cup-final-england-wrongly-awarded-extra-run-against-new-zealand-says-former-umpire/ar-AAElHhH?ocid=spartandhp
If it was 5, then Stokes would not even have had the strike.
I don't think he would have run though.
As you say, it's completely legal.
It's probably not made enough of an impact for anyone to ever notice in the past - I'd wager even the majority of cricket fans (myself included) didn't know the exact rule.
Whether someone accidentally gets an extra run in a test match or a bilateral ODI series so rarely makes any difference to the result. Even then, it usually won't be picked up on unless it's right at the end of the game - Notice how we're all focusing on this as the major mistake in the game, instead of Trent Boult's 'catch' that could have dismissed Stokes but went for six a couple of overs before?
With the shorter formats around nowadays and T20 games being won by a handful of runs instead of an innings and a hundred, it definitely needs looking at more than at any time in the past, because it's more likely than ever to come up again and impact a result.
He would have needed to score 3 not 2 off the last ball.
Not sure how his play may have differed.
Or what may have changed because he wouldnt have had the strike.
The fact is however he could only manage to get one.
I remember the great Richie Benaud, commentating as Caddick was running up to bowl in an Ashes series:-
"Here's a man us Aussies love to hate-half Kiwi, half Pom"
I was lucky enough to attend some of the 2005 Ashes series. Even so, yesterday was the most exciting game I have ever seen.
A little bit disappointing to have a question mark over the rules.
You can bet your life that if this had happened the other way around, that there would be plenty of people on this forum kicking off.