World Cup -2019 .

[Andy]

Obviously a great game to complete the competition. It would have been great sportsmanship if Stokes had refused to run off the ball following the 4 overthrows. Perhaps an even greater legacy than the one we have got as a result of this great finish to a game.

Don't be daft!  Kiwis should never have been allowed to push us that close. A modest team whose big name bats didn't quite hit their straps. More rounded one day players from the olden days (e.g. Neil Fairbrother, even our own GG) would've seen off the new ball and jogged the score along.  The Kiwis did their country proud, but they didn't do enough to deserve winning IMHO.

I wish people would just accept we won fair and square.  It's just like the 1966 ball over the line incident...it was.

[mawallace]

Seems like umpiring error cost New Zealand the game.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27194046/umpires-made-error-judgement-awarding-six-runs-says-simon-taufel

wonder what Tony Choat made of it?

[essexfan548]

wonder what Tony Choat made of it?

He as to score what the umpires say - he has no choice even if he knew it was wrong.

[Andy]

Seems like umpiring error cost New Zealand the game.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27194046/umpires-made-error-judgement-awarding-six-runs-says-simon-taufel

wonder what Tony Choat made of it?

Typical whinging Aussie trying to tarnish our moment of glory to deflect from sandpapergate.  It's our trophy and we're not giving it back.  After being cheated by corrupt umpires in previous World Cups, I think we deserve a rub of the green.  If nothing else, the weird 'number of boundaries' ruling and this (potential) miscalculation on the field shows how poorly the sport is served nowadays.

[IlfordEagle]

In the old days if 2 sides finished level then whoever lost fewer wickets was declared the winner eg 1978 S/F of Gillette Cup - Somerset 287-7/8 can't remember, Essex 287, Somerset won, if that had applied then NZ would have won.

[afinetickletoleg]

So what?

The rules for this competition were that in the event of a tie after the super over the game would be decided by the number of boundaries scored.  NZ knew this and that is why they went for the second off the last ball and not settle for the single to result in a second tie.

Same as the ball that deflected off Stoke's bat.  Equally as important were the six runs we got when Boult stepped on the boundary but less has been made of that.  There were also probably numerous occasions during the 100 overs where an extra run could have been scored.

We won.  End of conversation.  Enjoy the fact and that we are the World Champions.

[Oldhasbeen]

Enjoy the fact and that we are the World Champions.

I am. Big time!

[Postman]

Seems like umpiring error cost New Zealand the game.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27194046/umpires-made-error-judgement-awarding-six-runs-says-simon-taufel

wonder what Tony Choat made of it?

That law about overthrows is very difficult to apply because there will be scores or 100s of throws from fielders in any match and perhaps 1 in 100 at top level might be an overthrow, yet the umpires have to retain a mental image of whether the batsmen had crossed at the point of the throw just in case there is one. It's even harder than judging offside in football when you have to almost look at two things at once. I doubt if most people who have played all their lives understand what the overthrow law says. I presume the TV umpire was unable to whisper in their ears, even if he saw the error. It will have to go down with the Geraint Jones "catch" at Edgbaston 2005 as just one of those things.

[Andy]

In the old days if 2 sides finished level then whoever lost fewer wickets was declared the winner eg 1978 S/F of Gillette Cup - Somerset 287-7/8 can't remember, Essex 287, Somerset won, if that had applied then NZ would have won.

After reflecting for a few days, I suddenly questioned why we accepted the 'fewer wickets lost' rule as somehow the most appropriate rule.  After all, cricket matches are won by whoever scores the most runs...

[bwildered]

The fewer lost rule seemed to go out of fashion when T20 took off, and became a change to show a different competition .
Perhaps some OD games were played out for a win knowing that wickets in hand had the advantage,  which was less exciting unless Peter Such was at the crease .

Full credit to Kane Williamson winning the player of the tournament,  leading his side with great integrity . A credit to his country .

[aztec]

Seems like umpiring error cost New Zealand the game.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27194046/umpires-made-error-judgement-awarding-six-runs-says-simon-taufel

wonder what Tony Choat made of it?

Three weeks after the event and we have all had time to consider what we thought about the incident. It was all very fast-moving and my thoughts go to the Umpires who would have had to make a split-second decision under very difficult circumstances. Only the Umpire at square leg, IMHO, would have had any chance of seeing whether the two batsmen had crossed for the second time before Guptill released the ball, because of the angles involved, but then his attention would have been drawn to the stumps towards which Stokes was running to be able to decide on a possible run-out  appeal. It is all very well giving a judgement with the benefit of slow motion action replay but the on-field Umpires do not have that luxury available to them. Even so, I do not feel that the result would necessarily have been any different because Stokes attitude to the next ball received might have been different and the "lost" run made up anyway.
At the end of the day both teams accepted the situation for what it was - just one of those things that happen in cricket - and accepted the result.
At the end of the day it was an exciting game to watch and a terrific game to score. I am so grateful that I was given the honour of scoring such a unique match (two ties in the same match?) and having the opportunity, in years to come, to say "I was there".

[Andy]

The ruling on that situation may indicate that we shouldn’t have got those four runs...but the stupidity of the law is that is it essentially requiring umpires to both look for the throw, whilst  at the same time looking at what’s happening at the wicket. The law is an ass here. Whether fewer wickets ruling needs to come back, I’m not sure as cricket (especially single innings) is ultimately about scoring more runs than the opposition.

[aztec]

The ruling on that situation may indicate that we shouldn’t have got those four runs...but the stupidity of the law is that is it essentially requiring umpires to both look for the throw, whilst  at the same time looking at what’s happening at the wicket. The law is an ass here. Whether fewer wickets ruling needs to come back, I’m not sure as cricket (especially single innings) is ultimately about scoring more runs than the opposition.

Getting the four runs was never in question, Andy, it was merely the one run which was involved in the "did they cross for the second time or not?". So the argument goes "was it 5 runs or 6?" The Umpires indicated 6 and so that is what was registered.

[Andy]

Getting the four runs was never in question, Andy, it was merely the one run which was involved in the "did they cross for the second time or not?". So the argument goes "was it 5 runs or 6?" The Umpires indicated 6 and so that is what was registered.

Ah I get your point, but the law is unenforceable without video replays - and I don’t see why it matters whether the throw has been completed or not. Sounds like a law invented by people who haven’t played (or umpired) the game at the highest level.