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

Imagine if, runs tied, England had 13 fours and 2 sixes across regular match + super over. And we had 10 fours and 4 sixes. Both teams have same runs, and same total runs from boundaries (64).

England still win on number of boundaries (15 vs 14), even though we have more sixes.

The boundary rule is presumably there to encourage more aggressive/swashbuckling play, but isn't even coherent in how it does that! It assumes boundaries are "better" than 1s and 2s, but not necessarily that 6s are better than 4s given the above. So it's completely ridiculous.

especially when in todays cricket a lot of the ones and twos are saved right on the boundary

@nzzp that should be in the Awesome thread also

@booboo said in Fifty years ago today:

@taniwharugby said in Fifty years ago today:

faaake!!

Nearly posted this in the conspiracy thread ...

there was something about all those shadows in the wrong place or direction or just not being there at all argument though

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

@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

The problem with the overthrows is I have never seen it ruled that way. I don't see why they would suddenly say it was only five runs because it is a final.

Because it is nearly always from a sprint for a quick single where they have crossed before the throw.

Do you think Kane was aware of the batsmen crossing rule as does not seem to be any mention of him asking umpires if it should have been 5 or 6 and which batsmen should be facing the next delivery?

@Higgins said in Stupid shit you see on the internet:

@Nevorian Mention is made of a flight exiting South Africa and not sure if AirNZ flies into or out of Sth Africa. Someone else with their Star Alliance might operate a J/burg-Aussie route so they they would have been on a code share sort of arrangement with that airline. Not sure if AirNZ has any codeshare type agreement even after ditching their tie up with Virgin so who knows what the real story might be.

SAA is in the Star Alliance so would be possible to fly Akl - Perth (Air NZ)- Joburg pretty quickly

@Bones said in Stupid shit you see on the internet:

@Higgins yeah, hence it seems TR is on the right track if it's somewhat true.

sure we would have heard by now if it was the Black ferns

I think he may have confused the accents and it was the Quuensland reds.

Do Kiwi teams even fly Qantas?

@No-Quarter said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

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

@hydro11 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

England probably should have taken the game away from us. It is ironic that they won because of more boundaries scored. It was relying on boundaries which was their problem. Stokes showed limitations as a batsman in that he couldn't rotate the strike. Root also got out because he just couldn't get enough singles and got frustrated. Credit to all our bowlers but especially Neesham and CDG.

I don't have a huge problem with how the game ended. If it is tied on the day, you should go back to who did better throughout the tournament. That is England. So the right winner in the end.

Luck did seem to go against us. Then again both Ferguson and Southee only just made catches. In some ways they were lucky to take those. So it depends how you look at it. Overall, we were fortunate to be in the semis.

See I have an issue with the ‘who did better in the tournament’ position. Don’t have finals if you want to reward tournament play.

In a final it shouldn’t matter how you got there, it’s just that you get there and are in with a starters chance.

It should come down to what happens in the game.

It's a much better metric than wickets lost. Each team is given resources of 300 legal deliveries and 10 wickets. New Zealand didn't use all of our resources. If England got bowled out for 241 in 49 overs, you could argue they should have won for having more deliveries available which they did not use.

No way, if you finish your innings with wickets in hand it means the opposition wasn't good enough to bowl you out. Failing to bat your 50 is seen as a really bad thing for a reason. Also if the chasing team wins it is described as "won by X wickets" because that shows how many wickets you still had up your sleeve.

Deciding the result on boundaries hit instead of wickets goes against the very core principles of the game. That rule had to he devised by someone with absolutely no appreciation for the game whatsoever. The kind of person that just likes the 4s and 6s without appreciating the countless other facets. It's the single stupidist rule I've ever seen and it's unfortunately left a hell of a sour taste on what was otherwise a great tournament.

For me, the ruling has borderline brought the game into disrepute as crickets biggest showcase was decided on a rule that simply doesn't make any bloody sense.

Can we actually find out when that rule came about and by whom?

@mariner4life said in AFL 2019:

I'm booking GF flights...

Lions only one of three teams to win 4/5 of their last 5 games . Others being the Bombers whose coach was on shaky ground not so long ago now finding themselves in the top eight and the Bulldogs who must have had bottom of the table opponents but quietly slipping under the radar. On the other hand GWS have lost 4/5 so still a lot of interest in who is going to make the top8

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

I would’ve loved a bowl off as a second over decider. Pick 6 bowlers to step up to the mark and see how many hit the stumps.

with a bonus for middle stump

@Stockcar86 said in CWC Final - Black Caps v England:

The law 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."

The crucial clause is the last part. A review of the footage of the incident shows clearly that, at the moment the ball was released by the New Zealand fielder, Martin Guptill, Stokes and his partner, Adil Rashid, had not yet crossed for their second run.

ah good, can we appeal?