Proudpakistaniguy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2013
- Messages
- 4,890
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
match aur super match dono tied hone a baad trophy uss ko de dete jiss ne dono team ko haraya hai aka Pakistan
WC Final NZ vs ENG is TIE, a "TIE FINAL" but, on rules England lift the Cricket Worldcup Title
- Thread starter Asian.Century
- Start date
Meengla
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 7,735
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
I couldn't decide who I would favor. After Pakistan.. either NZ or England.. I have a thing for the underdogs of this world.. neither of these two had ever won the Cricket World Cup.. I'm glad England won and I'm sad New Zealand lost...
I think its fixed simple as that I dont believe in conspiracy theories.
New Zealand was blitizing the tournament until they bottled it in the final. Dirty money is involved so England can win it as they are the host nation.
New Zealand was blitizing the tournament until they bottled it in the final. Dirty money is involved so England can win it as they are the host nation.
Yankee-stani
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2018
- Messages
- 8,100
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Cricket is losing popularity its all about ratings,players lifestyles and this time I avoided the pageantry and hoopla until the last match too much matchfixing,the Indians piling influence on the ICC, and focus on India is making the sport dull If you saw the audience it was all Indians mostly except the last match of course but even Cricket lost its popularity in the place it was born England
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
2011 WCC = India
2015 WCC = Australia
2019 WCC = England
You can see a pattern. This is all about BIG 3 and making money.
I had a bad feeling about the final match before it even started, and then I noticed a completely unnecessary overthrow in last over (of-course it hit the bat of running batsman
). And also questionable decisions made for superover. You can connect the dots. They gave NZ captain a lollipop of POTT.NZ completely wasted a golden opportunity here. Teams do not get this lucky again and again.
Not going to cheer for NZ again - disappointment after disappointment. Deserving defeat.
Last edited:
terry5
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2014
- Messages
- 3,527
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
Oh no .... Rules state : England did not win
https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...s/news-story/df8fb4f013f4f6fa4ae04cff9b7cb105
Simon Taufel claims ‘clear mistake’ made awarding England six runs
A former international umpire and member of the committee that presides over cricket’s notoriously complex rulebook has conceded a “clear mistake” was made on the path to England winning its first World Cup.
Australian Simon Taufel, a member of the MCC laws sub-committee, has revealed a grave error was made in awarding England six runs — instead of five — when a throw struck Ben Stokes’ bat.
With England needing nine runs from the final three balls, a throw from New Zealander Martin Guptill accidentally hit the outstretched bat of a diving Ben Stokes, sending the ball to the boundary.
The play was awarded six overthrows — four for the resulting boundary and two for the batsmen’s accrued runs.
But Taufel claims the umpires made ‘an error of judgment’ in applying an obscure clause in the MCC’s laws — which both awarded England an extra run and kept Stokes on strike.
Taufel, a five-time winner of the ICC’s Umpire of the Year award and widely viewed as one of the greatest umpires this century, stated: “They (England) should have been awarded five runs, not six.”
“It’s a clear mistake … it’s an error of judgment,” Taufel told foxsports.com.au on Monday.
The relevant clause from the MCC rulebook is this:
Rule 19.8: Overthrow or wilful act of fielder
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.
Taufel did defend the officials because that moment involved so many moving parts, and said it was unfair on the umpires and both teams to say this was the moment that decided the match.
Given that the batsman had not crossed for their second run at the instant Martin Guptill threw the ball, that run should not have counted.
“In the heat of what was going on, they thought there was a good chance the batsmen had crossed at the instant of the throw” Taufel added.
“Obviously TV replays showed otherwise.”
That means that instead of needing three runs from the last two balls, England would have needed four.
Additionally, given that the batsmen did not cross at the time of the throw, Taufel confirmed that as per the rules of the game, the batsmen should have swapped sides for the next delivery.
That is, they should have returned to the side of their last completed run at the instant of the throw.
That would have meant that tailender Adil Rashid, and not man-of-the-match Ben Stokes, should have faced the second last ball.
Taufel praised experienced umpires Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus as “the best of the best”, and explained the difficulty of umpiring the specific situation.
“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.”
The former umpire acknowledged the call “influenced the game”, but said it should not be viewed as costing New Zealand the match - and the tournament.
“It’s unfair on England, New Zealand and the umpires involved to say it decided the outcome,” Taufel said.
New Zealand’s heartbroken captain Kane Williamson agreed with that sentiment.
“It was a shame that the ball hit Stokes’ bat, but I just hope it doesn’t happen in moments like that,” Williamson said.
“Unfortunately that sort of thing happens from time to time. It’s a part of the game that we play.”
“I don’t wish to nitpick, just hope it never happens in such moments every again,” he added.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricke...s/news-story/df8fb4f013f4f6fa4ae04cff9b7cb105
Simon Taufel claims ‘clear mistake’ made awarding England six runs
A former international umpire and member of the committee that presides over cricket’s notoriously complex rulebook has conceded a “clear mistake” was made on the path to England winning its first World Cup.
Australian Simon Taufel, a member of the MCC laws sub-committee, has revealed a grave error was made in awarding England six runs — instead of five — when a throw struck Ben Stokes’ bat.
With England needing nine runs from the final three balls, a throw from New Zealander Martin Guptill accidentally hit the outstretched bat of a diving Ben Stokes, sending the ball to the boundary.
The play was awarded six overthrows — four for the resulting boundary and two for the batsmen’s accrued runs.
But Taufel claims the umpires made ‘an error of judgment’ in applying an obscure clause in the MCC’s laws — which both awarded England an extra run and kept Stokes on strike.
Taufel, a five-time winner of the ICC’s Umpire of the Year award and widely viewed as one of the greatest umpires this century, stated: “They (England) should have been awarded five runs, not six.”
“It’s a clear mistake … it’s an error of judgment,” Taufel told foxsports.com.au on Monday.
The relevant clause from the MCC rulebook is this:
Rule 19.8: Overthrow or wilful act of fielder
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.
Taufel did defend the officials because that moment involved so many moving parts, and said it was unfair on the umpires and both teams to say this was the moment that decided the match.
Given that the batsman had not crossed for their second run at the instant Martin Guptill threw the ball, that run should not have counted.
“In the heat of what was going on, they thought there was a good chance the batsmen had crossed at the instant of the throw” Taufel added.
“Obviously TV replays showed otherwise.”
That means that instead of needing three runs from the last two balls, England would have needed four.
Additionally, given that the batsmen did not cross at the time of the throw, Taufel confirmed that as per the rules of the game, the batsmen should have swapped sides for the next delivery.
That is, they should have returned to the side of their last completed run at the instant of the throw.
That would have meant that tailender Adil Rashid, and not man-of-the-match Ben Stokes, should have faced the second last ball.
Taufel praised experienced umpires Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus as “the best of the best”, and explained the difficulty of umpiring the specific situation.
“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.”
The former umpire acknowledged the call “influenced the game”, but said it should not be viewed as costing New Zealand the match - and the tournament.
“It’s unfair on England, New Zealand and the umpires involved to say it decided the outcome,” Taufel said.
New Zealand’s heartbroken captain Kane Williamson agreed with that sentiment.
“It was a shame that the ball hit Stokes’ bat, but I just hope it doesn’t happen in moments like that,” Williamson said.
“Unfortunately that sort of thing happens from time to time. It’s a part of the game that we play.”
“I don’t wish to nitpick, just hope it never happens in such moments every again,” he added.
terry5
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2014
- Messages
- 3,527
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
England were awarded 6 runs for an overthrow after the ball deflected off Stokes' bat. Stokes was trying to complete a double at the striker's end but before he could reach the crease, the ball ricocheted off his bat to the boundary. 6 runs for England in a tense final over.
However, questions have been raised over the veracity of the officials' decision to award 6 runs for the overthrow in the final over. According to International Cricket Council rules, not 6 but 5 runs should have been awarded as the act of overthrow took place even before Stokes completed the 2nd run.
What does the ICC rule say
19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder
"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."
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Epic final tied, Super Over tied, England win World Cup on boundary count
What the playing conditions say
NZ didnot loose match and England didnot win match, rules made England lift the cup....Super Over is not counted in ODI 50 over stats.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-new-zealand-final-icc-cricket-world-cup-2019
What the playing conditions say
- - In the event of a Super Over tie, the team that hit more boundaries (combined from the main match and the Super Over) shall be the winner
- - If the number of boundaries hit by both teams is equal, the team whose batsmen scored more boundaries during its innings in the main match (ignoring the Super Over) shall be the winner
- - If still equal, a count-back from the final ball of the Super Over will be conducted. The team with the higher scoring delivery shall be the winner. If a team loses two wickets during its over, then any unbowled deliveries will be counted as dot balls
NZ didnot loose match and England didnot win match, rules made England lift the cup....Super Over is not counted in ODI 50 over stats.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-new-zealand-final-icc-cricket-world-cup-2019
ARMalik
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2017
- Messages
- 6,046
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Former umpire confirmed crucial World Cup final call was wrong
https://wwos.nine.com.au/cricket/cr...ll-wrong/567925a0-4c25-4d79-b39a-7e748cf2614a
A former international umpire and member of the MCC laws sub-committee says England was incorrectly awarded an extra run in the tied World Cup final.
Australian Simon Taufel has confirmed a "clear mistake" was made when England was given six runs, not five, when the ball richocheted off Ben Stokes' bat and into the boundary in the final over.
That moment was pivotal to the outcome of the match, swinging the momentum back in England's favour just as it looked as though they were running out of balls to overhaul New Zealand's total.
https://wwos.nine.com.au/cricket/cr...ll-wrong/567925a0-4c25-4d79-b39a-7e748cf2614a
A former international umpire and member of the MCC laws sub-committee says England was incorrectly awarded an extra run in the tied World Cup final.
Australian Simon Taufel has confirmed a "clear mistake" was made when England was given six runs, not five, when the ball richocheted off Ben Stokes' bat and into the boundary in the final over.
That moment was pivotal to the outcome of the match, swinging the momentum back in England's favour just as it looked as though they were running out of balls to overhaul New Zealand's total.
8 pass charlie
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
nobody care about emotions and stats.he who has the trophy is the one.and down the road it will be remembered as such.
Asian.Century
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,754
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Its all over World Media now - news channels now even English news reporting England never won World Cup going by the rules of cricket.
Had it been a World Cup final between mighty arch-rivals India and Pakistan, the protests against such a rule would have been immense and the voices would have been much much louder. Like the ICC did not have reserve days for league matches but they did for the semis as well as the final, they should have a different rule for the summit clash in case of a tie. The emotional fans wanted both England and New Zealand as joint winners, but on a more pragmatic note, another Super Over should have decided the eventual winners.
Some might argue that the semi-final match between Australia and South Africa in 1999 World Cup semi-final was also decided as a per a different rule – where despite the match being tied, Australia advanced into the finals since they had defeated the Proteas in the league stage. But a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then and the ICC should have come up with a better rule to decide the winner of a World Cup final.
In a final when the stakes are so high, where millions of fans are glued to their television sets, it was a shame that the winner was decided in such a manner. The rule needs to be changed with immediate effect and we hope the ICC is listening.
Either it should be another Super Over to test on playing cricket, and the over throw rules should be amended.
New Zealand had been cheated out by ICC in the Worldcup title joint win.
Controversies of the rules of Cricket, made so complicated left everyone confused, should be another super over:
Repeated ICC incompetence, presentation skills and simplifying the rules is causing a bad problem for cricket followers all over the world.
Had it been a World Cup final between mighty arch-rivals India and Pakistan, the protests against such a rule would have been immense and the voices would have been much much louder. Like the ICC did not have reserve days for league matches but they did for the semis as well as the final, they should have a different rule for the summit clash in case of a tie. The emotional fans wanted both England and New Zealand as joint winners, but on a more pragmatic note, another Super Over should have decided the eventual winners.
Some might argue that the semi-final match between Australia and South Africa in 1999 World Cup semi-final was also decided as a per a different rule – where despite the match being tied, Australia advanced into the finals since they had defeated the Proteas in the league stage. But a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then and the ICC should have come up with a better rule to decide the winner of a World Cup final.
In a final when the stakes are so high, where millions of fans are glued to their television sets, it was a shame that the winner was decided in such a manner. The rule needs to be changed with immediate effect and we hope the ICC is listening.
Either it should be another Super Over to test on playing cricket, and the over throw rules should be amended.
New Zealand had been cheated out by ICC in the Worldcup title joint win.
Controversies of the rules of Cricket, made so complicated left everyone confused, should be another super over:
Repeated ICC incompetence, presentation skills and simplifying the rules is causing a bad problem for cricket followers all over the world.
AZADPAKISTAN2009
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 37,669
- Reaction score
- 68
- Country
- Location
Cup should be shared by both team because it was tie
Similar threads
