@Donsteppa said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

@Paekakboyz said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

@Donsteppa it's going to hurt indefinitely I'm afraid. The only salve will be a win at a future WC.

But what are the chances that there is a similar situation when they tour here!! wonder if the TAB will offer that option... hmmm maybe not. I'm sure they don't want their offices burnt down!

There's been a lot of good comparisons to All Black RWC losses, but in some ways it reminds me of the feeling when Crowe was out for 299. That sense of how hard it was to get so close, and just how long it might be until the next chance.

I'd knight Sir BMac for finally giving closure to that 299 itch...

God, what a moment that was (Baz's ton).

'Luck' includes the catches we dropped. Which I guess is good luck for the opposition batsman but hardly unlucky for us.

@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

@Cyclops said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

That would mean that Stokes would have been awarded the second but not the boundary. Seems a fair outcom.

except they hadn't crossed at the time the ball was thrown in, which is the specified point at which the law states a run can be counted in the case of an overthrow

That was in a hypothetical future rule change where the ball is dead if it hits a batsman after a fielder returns the ball, so the boundary overthrow rule doesn't apply.

@Siam said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

@Chris-B umm, what scenario is that?

Should add that all completed runs before the hit are counted and if no run is completed because the ball hit the batsman, while going for a run it's rebowled- to account for the dubious scenario of fielders throwing at batsmen to prevent a run??? A scenario I can't see happening, what if the fielder trying to save runs by hitting the batsman, misses? Team going to be happy with non backed up overthrows?

Yeah makes sense to me. Hitting a running batsman would be very hard to do deliberately without it being blazingly obvious, and probably offer at least as good a chance to run someone out as you would have to save the run.

I wouldn't even worry about rebowling. Maybe allow a run to be counted if the batsmen have crossed?

That would mean that Stokes would have been awarded the second but not the boundary. Seems a fair outcom.

Just adding to my last post, the relevant rule in full:

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

@Snowy said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

There is really only one question with this, did they cross?

No they didn't at the time of the throw (apparently it is clear from video). The wording of the law isn't exactly obvious though:

"together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act."

So the throw seems obvious enough - the time that the ball leaves Guppy's hand (so one run + the 4) but what is the "act"? When it comes off Stoke's bat? Are they talking about someone kicking the ball, rather than throwing?

The previous clause makes that clear though, because it's 'willful act of the fielder'. I think that's designed to cover situations where fielders do something dodgy to manipulate strike.

I remember about 10 years ago India were trying to win a test on the last day vs South Africa but Amla was looking untouchable and had scored a triple ton. They were 9 down and he was doing a great job of shepherding the number 11, so Sehwag (I think) tried to be a bit cunning and 'accidentally' kicked a ball over the boundary (to keep Amla on strike at the end of the over). Except the umpires didn't buy it and so it was a 'willful act' and so given as four overthrows instead of a straight boundary.

@ACT-Crusader said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

@SynicBast said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

@booboo said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

Regarding the overthrow thing. I reckon it's more like a bad LBW decision.

Nah, LBW is left up to interpretation - the law regarding overthrows wasn't even applied correctly - it's more like when a catch was not given because the umpires were looking for short runs by the batsmen.

Yeah given the factors at play with an LBW decision - height, outside the line, swing of the ball, etc - as we know they are variable.

There is really only one question with this, did they cross?

I was devastated that morning for the loss and seeing the disappointment of the players, but by Monday night I felt pretty proud as a Kiwi and for what we had been part of and the win against India and the drawn final loss to England.

Even with ball tracking an LBW decision (and a close one especially) is as much an art as a science. An umpire getting an LBW decision wrong is equivalent to a batsman getting done by a peach.

The boundary call on the other hand is a batsman leaving a straight one and getting bowled. It's a basic error and one that a batsman should feel terrible about.

@Chris-B said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

@mofitzy_ said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

Not a fan of Stead coming out and saying a draw is something that could be considered. Fuck that, it's a world cup - just figure out a better way to award the winner.

To be honest - in a game like cricket - if you get a tie, which very rarely happens, I don't see what's wrong with just sharing the title.

In a game like soccer, I can see why you need a tiebreak.

But, if necessary - why not just come back the next day and play another match? If TV companies can't sort out to cover the replay then fuck 'em.

p.s. rugby needs to sort something better out than the drop-kick-off, which was what supposedly happens last time I looked. Far rather share the title than indulge in "fucking foolishness".

I feel like a part of the tradition of cricket is that two teams have a fair crack at each other and if at the end of the day neither team has won, you shake hands, call it a draw and have tea togethe.

@MN5 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

@Cyclops said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

I think some people are underestimating the talent pool and production of New Zealand cricket. Kane is truly special player. I would be surprised if I saw a better player in the black cap.

But the supporting players aren't that level. Boult is a great talent and perhaps a top 10 bowler for us. But we have consistently produced great bowlers. Ferguson's pace will be harder to replace. Hopefully the development work that has supported him will inform future development programmes. Henry is pretty much about average for a New Zealand bowler.

Neesham is a special talent, but power hitting all rounders seems to be our specialty area. (Incidentally, imagine this side with de Grandhomme replaced with a fully fit Corey Anderson).

Taylor is another special talent, and in our ODI side might be harder to replace than Kane. But I'm not convinced that the rest are significantly better than at any other period.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the fern was around in 92 we would probably have said the same thing. And in the 80s when we had Hadlee and Crowe together. And around 2003 as Flem, Astle etc retired.

But actually, every generation we've got better. The freak talents (Hadlee, Crowe, Bond, Kane) might keep coming at same rate, but the talent around them will keep rising.

I'm not predicting a Australian or West Indian period of dominance in another couple of decades. But there will be other teams that have as good or better chances to win major titles.

Ever ?

I'd still place Paddles on a higher echelon but KW has a career to go and that might change......doubtful though, we're talking an all time legendary bowler who had the added bonus of being a decent batsman.

Crowe maybe slightly edges Taylor but that's pretty close.

Latham and Guptill underperformed hugely but the former will prove his worth again especially in the longest form.

Boult would be top three surely behind you know who and Bond. Who else compares ?

In my life time (ie that I'll see). There's a bit of projection in there since he's 28, but I think by the time he retires he'll be past Hadlee.

I think some people are underestimating the talent pool and production of New Zealand cricket. Kane is truly special player. I would be surprised if I saw a better player in the black cap.

But the supporting players aren't that level. Boult is a great talent and perhaps a top 10 bowler for us. But we have consistently produced great bowlers. Ferguson's pace will be harder to replace. Hopefully the development work that has supported him will inform future development programmes. Henry is pretty much about average for a New Zealand bowler.

Neesham is a special talent, but power hitting all rounders seems to be our specialty area. (Incidentally, imagine this side with de Grandhomme replaced with a fully fit Corey Anderson).

Taylor is another special talent, and in our ODI side might be harder to replace than Kane. But I'm not convinced that the rest are significantly better than at any other period.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the fern was around in 92 we would probably have said the same thing. And in the 80s when we had Hadlee and Crowe together. And around 2003 as Flem, Astle etc retired.

But actually, every generation we've got better. The freak talents (Hadlee, Crowe, Bond, Kane) might keep coming at same rate, but the talent around them will keep rising.

I'm not predicting a Australian or West Indian period of dominance in another couple of decades. But there will be other teams that have as good or better chances to win major titles.