|
Cricket This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Blackface in crowd |
|
129 | 55.36% |
| References to Lord of the Rings |
|
104 | 44.64% |
| Total: | 233 votes | ||
|
runoverbobby posted:Now that cricket came home in the most ridiculous circumstances possible let's do the world a favour and stop playing ODIs
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Until it gets called dead. The throw in was part of an active play so the deflection also counts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
Yes. I think the rule could change, but it probably won't. My read is neither player did anything wrong, but it cost runs that were desperately needed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
It's odd that the batting side can't forfeit the runs. You can walk before the umpire has given you out; why can't a runner and the fielding captain just agree to cancel the overthrows before the umpire signals four?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
quote:However, according to Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six. Disgusting cheating by the English yet again
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
Lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
Lol at having to cheat to not even beat New Zealand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
Scylo posted:Disgusting cheating by the English yet again Can you link the article please
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 08:06
|
|
|
https://wwos.nine.com.au/cricket/cricket-why-umpires-may-have-got-crucial-world-cup-final-call-wrong/567925a0-4c25-4d79-b39a-7e748cf2614a
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 08:08
|
|
|
The act taking the ball over the boundary was clearly the deflection off Stokes bat and not Guptills throw.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 08:25
|
|
|
Flayer posted:The act taking the ball over the boundary was clearly the deflection off Stokes bat and not Guptills throw. Either way, he hadn't completed the run when the ball struck the bat
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 08:34
|
|
|
Can't wait for New Zealand to lose to India in 2023. Gotta complete the trifecta.
Airstream Driver fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Jul 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 08:35
|
|
|
The on field umpires should have gone to the tv umpire to at least check it, Dharmasena sucks and is a modern Steve bucknor https://twitter.com/brydoncoverdale/status/1150664629200121856 Centusin fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Jul 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 08:37
|
|
|
lol poor kiwis dudded by the crooked umps
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 09:00
|
|
|
I still can't get over the fact that I saw the best cricket match of my life yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 09:19
|
|
|
they've got to change the law regarding overthrows after this. they're obviously not going to take the trophy away from england, but it is funny seeing england supporters think that their victory means less because of this. its also funny to me that cricinfo still says 'england won the last over eliminator' when they clearly didnt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 09:40
|
|
|
You think the nation of '66 will give even the slightest poo poo about this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 09:46
|
|
|
if you read the match summary england clearly won 26-17, great game all
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 09:48
|
|
|
welp
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 09:52
|
|
|
Scylo posted:The on field umpires should have gone to the tv umpire to at least check it, Dharmasena sucks and is a modern Steve bucknor What's this guy on about saying it should have been five runs? They had already completed one run and had crossed coming back for the second so clearly six.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 10:17
|
|
|
So although the laws are ambiguous this thing that isn't the laws backs up my point so that's what we'll be going off cheers
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 10:24
|
|
|
Time for England to admit they didn't actually win and hand back the trophy in shame imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
No, actually it's fine and the call was correct The Laws Of Cricket posted:19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 10:32
|
|
|
Yeah it was 6 runs. Kiwis are just an embarrassment to the region. Especially after Australia graciously gave them a chance to win. I guess next time Australia will just have to do it themselves
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 10:35
|
|
|
I wouldn’t say the boundary resulted from an overthrow or from a wilful act given that it was a freak deflection off a batsman’s bat, so still ambiguous imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 10:38
|
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:What's this guy on about saying it should have been five runs? They had already completed one run and had crossed coming back for the second so clearly six. As far as I know people have looked at the footage and have seen that the batsmen had not crossed at the moment the ball had left the fielders hand. I mean its not just this guy, Simon Taufell was a very respected umpire and is saying the same thing. Nobody is saying it changes the outcome but to not even check something like that at the time seems like an umpiring mistake. Centusin fucked around with this message at 10:54 on Jul 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 10:52
|
|
|
tanglewood1420 posted:What's this guy on about saying it should have been five runs? They had already completed one run and had crossed coming back for the second so clearly six. You don't add the runs to the boundary unless it is a overthrow. If it is a overthrow the batters must of crossed at the fielder's throw or intentional act for it to count.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 11:00
|
|
|
While we're talking rules:Saul Goode posted:In theory, if I bowl an over and a team scores singles off every ball but doesn't lose a wicket and then I bowl another over to a different team and get 5 wickets but am hit for six off the last ball, the second team is by the actual laws of cricket a much better team. How the gently caress is this bullshit in the game. This wouldn't happen, because the superover ends when you take the second wicket. The rule in question only applies to superovers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 11:02
|
|
|
I've basically had no sleep the past two days with a family wedding then an all nighter for the game and I still can't really process everything that happened. That Boult catch where Guptill was right next to him for a simple toss, then that loving heartbreaking deflection off Stokes' bat, the ice cold execution of the runouts on the last two balls then all the super over fuckery. Between this game, the semi v India, the 2015 semi and the 2015 pool game v Australia we sure know how to do loving crazy intense ODI spectacles (ignore the 2015 final obviously).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 11:07
|
|
|
Man just a couple of inches off the boundary for that Boult catch or a slightly different angle off the bat and it would have been so different. At least NZ still have an exciting... tour of Sri Lanka to look forward to still this summer. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 11:24
|
|
|
NZ didnt deserve to lose like that. While i dont agree with the boundary rule. I presume both sides knew (or should know) about that rule being a thing. So why wouldn't you try smash as many boundaries as possible?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 11:37
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:NZ didnt deserve to lose like that. The odds of it mattering - tied game, then tied super over - are so tiny it's not worth worrying about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 11:45
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:While we're talking rules: I wasn't talking about super overs, I was trying to demonstrate how the ICC values system places more worth on a completely worthless metric than an actual measurable statistic that is already used in the game to determine how good or bad a team is. It doesn't matter though, it's done now. The better team of the tournament and the last four years won. Just don't be a bunch of smug cunts about it because you were lucky as poo poo to scrape out of that one you jammy gits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 11:46
|
|
Saul Goode posted:Just don't be a bunch of smug cunts about it because you were lucky as poo poo to scrape out of that one you jammy gits. In the same vein, dont be a sore loser just because your team lost on an established rule.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 12:04
|
|
|
goatface posted:I don't think anyone's declared first innings less than 2 down. It's happened on two occasions (excluding the 0/0dec): South Africa vs England in 1931: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-africa-1930-31 New Zealand vs South Africa in 1999: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/15856/game/63835/new-zealand-vs-south-africa-2nd-test-south-africa-tour-of-new-zealand-1998-99 both rain affected, although the four forty odd for one declared is a more normal declaration score. [edit] Two occasions first innings for a team, both of these are second innings of the match. MrL_JaKiri fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Jul 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 12:22
|
|
|
My interpretation of the overthrow stuff: "Act" in that law clearly refers to the "wilful act of fielder" in the earlier section. It's there to include things like "overthrows" from someone kicking or deflecting it rather than a blanket "When something happens!" term. Should have been 5, but as the point of interest happened after the second run was completed I see how the umpires got that wrong. Re referring: they don't use the third umpire to poke them about 7+ ball overs and that's a much more important, and common, problem.Saul Goode posted:I wasn't talking about super overs, I was trying to demonstrate how the ICC values system places more worth on a completely worthless metric than an actual measurable statistic that is already used in the game to determine how good or bad a team is. A rule applying exclusively to super overs is not about super overs? More generally, as mentioned, wickets is not a relevant metric in One Day Internationals. The cost of being bowled out and losing wickets is in dot balls and in having your less competent batsmen facing, not risking losing the game. You can lose the game without losing any wickets (although this hasn't happened yet; the fewest number of wickets a losing side has lost for a completed 50 over innings has been 2 (two occasions: Pakistan in 1992, South Africa in January of this year), and 3 for a 60 over game (Gaviskar's famous go-slow in the seventies)). It's included in the score because that's what a cricket score looks like rather than because it's particularly useful info. On many occasions this world cup I've turned on TMS, heard the score and then gone to cricinfo to see how many overs are left because that's much more important than wickets lost to know how a team are doing. "Boundaries hit" isn't an especially good metric either here either, as clearly the main benefit of hitting boundaries is the runs, but at the very least it doesn't encourage negative play so it's very narrowly superior to either comparing extras or wickets. Plenty of sports don't have good tie breakers. Cricket is one of them, but has at least lots of numbers you can arbitrarily look at rather than forcing a full replay like you do in, eg, rowing when you don't have a finish camera. I'm an official for British Rowing (name in the rule book, etc) and this kind of stuff is functionally impossibly to decide fairly because you're looking at an edge case of an edge case and the chance of everything else being "nice" is pretty low so you go with the one that encourages the most attacking play. Saul Goode posted:Just don't be a bunch of smug cunts about it because you were lucky as poo poo to scrape out of that one you jammy gits. The only smug posting has been by Aussies tbh, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. (Side note: I was in the TV coverage, including the BBC highlights, of the Eng/NZ group game wearing my NZ top. I like when NZ win things, although not as much as actual Kiwis do, obvs)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 12:53
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:My interpretation of the overthrow stuff: "Act" in that law clearly refers to the "wilful act of fielder" in the earlier section. It's there to include things like "overthrows" from someone kicking or deflecting it rather than a blanket "When something happens!" term. Should have been 5, but as the point of interest happened after the second run was completed I see how the umpires got that wrong. Re referring: they don't use the third umpire to poke them about 7+ ball overs and that's a much more important, and common, problem. Sorry: Rowing derail In this day and age, would it not be super easy to get a camera set up on the finish line to determine a winner?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Sorry: Rowing derail You get them at big multilane regattas on lakes but generally not at smaller or river based ones. There's a few reasons for this. 1. You cannot guarantee you have the necessary equipment at the finish line to run it (eg, power! Regattas go where the water is, which may well be in the middle of loving nowhere. At Talkin Tarn Regatta you don't even get phone signal) 2. Lining up the crews is typically done by eye. The margin of error for this needs to be smaller than the margin of victory to be a fair race. 3. On any course that's not a specially built lake (and especially on river courses with bends and stream) even if the boats appear completely level at the start the margin of error in placing the stakeboats is going to be larger than the margin of victory. It's fine to use high speed cameras at the Olympics because they have start gates which means that all the boats start in basically the same place. It's less fair at Henley Royal but then again a couple of years ago Rankov disqualified a crew because one of the people sat in the launch waved his arms a bit so they're always going to be a bit rogue. [edit] Oh, and 4. Most umpires are post-retirement age and good luck getting them working the tech. It's hard enough to get people to understand how to use the radios and that's literally just pressing a button. [edit2] 5. Who's going to pay for it? MrL_JaKiri fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Jul 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
Saul Goode posted:I wasn't talking about super overs, I was trying to demonstrate how the ICC values system places more worth on a completely worthless metric than an actual measurable statistic that is already used in the game to determine how good or bad a team is. It doesn't matter though, it's done now. The better team of the tournament and the last four years won. Just don't be a bunch of smug cunts about it because you were lucky as poo poo to scrape out of that one you jammy gits. Don't worry, we are going to go into the Ashes smug as anything and get utterly humiliated as is our way. When things are looking good we will do everything we can to gently caress it up as many ways as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 19, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Jimmy's broken, we still don't have any openers so people are talking about bringing an injured Roy in for his test debut in the Ashes, Moeen's confidence is in the toilet, in general things aren't looking too hot for the Ashes
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2019 13:31
|
|