England Win the Cricket World Cup in a classic!

Brilliant game of cricket, thoroughly enjoyed every ball, but damned nervous at the death

I've never been a massive cricket fan but that was the most nerve-racking sporting final I've ever seen (apart from the 1988 Wimbledon v Liverpool Cup Final).

Lots of stuff on the internet about it and it depends if you think the "act" was throwing the ball or it hitting Stokes, consensus seems to be it should have been 5 not 6.

 Was the umpire Russian/Azerbaijani?

lazland wrote: chopper wrote: Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: <span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif;">England needed 15 off the last over, got 4 overthrows when Stokes was hit by the ball trying to make his ground on a second run and the ricochet went to the boundary. </span>   A colleague tells me they should only have had 5 runs from that overthrow (4 + 1) as they hadn't crossed for the second run when the NZ player threw the ball that hit Stokes' bat. Apparently the runs count from the moment the player throws the ball (so he says anyway). There was an article about it in the paper this morning. The laws state that at the precise time the ball is thrown by the fielder, the batsman had to have crossed when taking the run. Apparently, they had not, so it should have been five runs. Difficult in the heat of the moment, but I believe the best side overall in the tournament won, although I would say that, wouldn't I?

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;
• 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.

So, is the relevant event the "throw" or the "act"?

The ball hitting Stokes' bat was not an act  i.e. not deliberate. If you are crowned world champions by virtue of an obscure gaming law (subsection 19.8 a.k.a. the 'is there a hyphen in anal retentive?' clause) then the enthusiasm for Brexit on the other side of the channel will surely not come as a complete surprise. But then, i'm Scottish and we suck at everything (apart from schadenfreude)


Edited by ExittheLemming - July 16 2019 at 07:58

Beats winning by skill alone for sure

ExittheLemming wrote: Beats winning by skill alone for sure

Edited by Nogbad_The_Bad - July 16 2019 at 08:22

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Beats winning by skill alone for sure We are talking England right? They are meant to torture their fans! Skill alone? You gotta be kidding me!  Winning lucky has the added bonus of torturing all those who hate England teams. Basically everyone else. In fact I think I'll watch the highlights again

micky wrote: ahh.. cricket.. the sporting equivalent of mandarin chinese..   completely lost on me. It should be a simple game..  you hit the ball.. you catch the ball hahah But looks fun enough..