The cricket thread

What's Hot
18081838586266

Comments

  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Frets: 13929
    Fuengi said:
    Incredible game, watched it all live on TV and the tension was unbearable at times. 

    Having seen the overthrows clip again I think the umpires made a mistake in awarding six runs to England, and cost New Zealand the game.  

    Law 19, 5 states that the run in progress should be allowed provided the batsman have crossed before the ball is released by the fieldsman. They definitely had not crossed before the ball was released, so only the first run should have been awarded, plus the four overthrows.
    Taxi for @Fuengi ;

    get him out of here...


    3reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • guitars4youguitars4you Frets: 14030
    tFB Trader
    That was my first ever hour of watching cricket ( the last hour of the match ) 

    Bloody magic, absolutely fantastic spectacle.

    Is it always like this? 
    No - we often loose

    I suppose that ending is equivalent to a penalty shoot out - I can recall it once on a county match - Not in an international

    I watched it all - And i suppose you need to buy into the build up that makes the last one hour so good - It could have gone either way

    Total credit to both teams - What with the extra 4 over throws when it hit Stokes's bat - No dissent etc

    Won't mean anything to them now, but NZ can walk away with total credit 

    If we had beaten Aus or India in this way then more 'gloating' from us I dare say - But you can't gloat after that performance from NZ - That is what made it so good in many ways

    Both teams will share a few beers now and build some good friendship of the match/moment for many years

    Hope the good lady is doing okay !!!!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • FuengiFuengi Frets: 2849
    Fuengi said:
    Incredible game, watched it all live on TV and the tension was unbearable at times. 

    Having seen the overthrows clip again I think the umpires made a mistake in awarding six runs to England, and cost New Zealand the game.  

    Law 19, 5 states that the run in progress should be allowed provided the batsman have crossed before the ball is released by the fieldsman. They definitely had not crossed before the ball was released, so only the first run should have been awarded, plus the four overthrows.
    Taxi for @Fuengi ;

    get him out of here...

    Obviously delighted England won, but the umpires had a big call there and 3rd umpire to call on but still got it wrong.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RockerRocker Frets: 4944
    Delighted that England won, what a great match, and chuffed that the England captain is an Irishman from Rush in Co. Dublin.
    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. [Albert Einstein]

    Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Incredible game, watched it all live on TV and the tension was unbearable at times. 

    Having seen the overthrows clip again I think the umpires made a mistake in awarding six runs to England, and cost New Zealand the game.  

    Law 19, 5 states that the run in progress should be allowed provided the batsman have crossed before the ball is released by the fieldsman. They definitely had not crossed before the ball was released, so only the first run should have been awarded, plus the four overthrows.
    Taxi for @Fuengi ;

    get him out of here...

    Obviously delighted England won, but the umpires had a big call there and 3rd umpire to call on but still got it wrong.  
    Yer cab's outside Son............... ;)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • FuengiFuengi Frets: 2849
    Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Incredible game, watched it all live on TV and the tension was unbearable at times. 

    Having seen the overthrows clip again I think the umpires made a mistake in awarding six runs to England, and cost New Zealand the game.  

    Law 19, 5 states that the run in progress should be allowed provided the batsman have crossed before the ball is released by the fieldsman. They definitely had not crossed before the ball was released, so only the first run should have been awarded, plus the four overthrows.
    Taxi for @Fuengi ;

    get him out of here...

    Obviously delighted England won, but the umpires had a big call there and 3rd umpire to call on but still got it wrong.  
    Yer cab's outside Son............... ;)

    I'll get my coat. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SouthpawMarkSouthpawMark Frets: 620
    Kane Williamson might be one of the nicest chaps In sport. I almost feel sorry for him. Almost. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Frets: 13929
    Just woke up after a restless nights sleep. I can't quite believe what we witnessed last night.


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Frets: 13929
    Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Incredible game, watched it all live on TV and the tension was unbearable at times. 

    Having seen the overthrows clip again I think the umpires made a mistake in awarding six runs to England, and cost New Zealand the game.  

    Law 19, 5 states that the run in progress should be allowed provided the batsman have crossed before the ball is released by the fieldsman. They definitely had not crossed before the ball was released, so only the first run should have been awarded, plus the four overthrows.
    Taxi for @Fuengi ;

    get him out of here...

    Obviously delighted England won, but the umpires had a big call there and 3rd umpire to call on but still got it wrong.  
    Yer cab's outside Son............... ;)

    I'll get my coat. 
    Well, just had a read of the Laws on the MCC website for the first time in my life and @Fuengi is correct. The Law states:

    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.

    Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.


    In the footage online it's clear that Stokes & Rashid had not crossed at the point that the NZ fielder threw the ball so it should have been 5 runs not 6.


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • FuengiFuengi Frets: 2849
    Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Incredible game, watched it all live on TV and the tension was unbearable at times. 

    Having seen the overthrows clip again I think the umpires made a mistake in awarding six runs to England, and cost New Zealand the game.  

    Law 19, 5 states that the run in progress should be allowed provided the batsman have crossed before the ball is released by the fieldsman. They definitely had not crossed before the ball was released, so only the first run should have been awarded, plus the four overthrows.
    Taxi for @Fuengi ;

    get him out of here...

    Obviously delighted England won, but the umpires had a big call there and 3rd umpire to call on but still got it wrong.  
    Yer cab's outside Son............... ;)

    I'll get my coat. 
    Well, just had a read of the Laws on the MCC website for the first time in my life and @Fuengi is correct. The Law states:

    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.

    Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.


    In the footage online it's clear that Stokes & Rashid had not crossed at the point that the NZ fielder threw the ball so it should have been 5 runs not 6.


    I've had a copy of MCC Masterclass for 30 years and would read the laws after matches if something occurred I wasn't sure about. I got to know them pretty well. 

    The law in my version is 19.5 so they have been updated in that time but it still applies the same. 

    I think the umpires discussed it at the time but for whatever reason did not check if they had crossed. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Frets: 13929
    Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Incredible game, watched it all live on TV and the tension was unbearable at times. 

    Having seen the overthrows clip again I think the umpires made a mistake in awarding six runs to England, and cost New Zealand the game.  

    Law 19, 5 states that the run in progress should be allowed provided the batsman have crossed before the ball is released by the fieldsman. They definitely had not crossed before the ball was released, so only the first run should have been awarded, plus the four overthrows.
    Taxi for @Fuengi ;

    get him out of here...

    Obviously delighted England won, but the umpires had a big call there and 3rd umpire to call on but still got it wrong.  
    Yer cab's outside Son............... ;)

    I'll get my coat. 
    Well, just had a read of the Laws on the MCC website for the first time in my life and @Fuengi is correct. The Law states:

    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.

    Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.


    In the footage online it's clear that Stokes & Rashid had not crossed at the point that the NZ fielder threw the ball so it should have been 5 runs not 6.


    I've had a copy of MCC Masterclass for 30 years and would read the laws after matches if something occurred I wasn't sure about. I got to know them pretty well. 

    The law in my version is 19.5 so they have been updated in that time but it still applies the same. 

    I think the umpires discussed it at the time but for whatever reason did not check if they had crossed. 


    There is some debate here at work on whether this applies due to the deflection from Stokes' bat, did the ball cross the boundary due to the bowlers wilful act or due to the deflection?


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • FuengiFuengi Frets: 2849
    Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Fuengi said:
    Incredible game, watched it all live on TV and the tension was unbearable at times. 

    Having seen the overthrows clip again I think the umpires made a mistake in awarding six runs to England, and cost New Zealand the game.  

    Law 19, 5 states that the run in progress should be allowed provided the batsman have crossed before the ball is released by the fieldsman. They definitely had not crossed before the ball was released, so only the first run should have been awarded, plus the four overthrows.
    Taxi for @Fuengi ;

    get him out of here...

    Obviously delighted England won, but the umpires had a big call there and 3rd umpire to call on but still got it wrong.  
    Yer cab's outside Son............... ;)

    I'll get my coat. 
    Well, just had a read of the Laws on the MCC website for the first time in my life and @Fuengi is correct. The Law states:

    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.

    Law 18.12.2 (Batsman returning to wicket he/she has left) shall apply as from the instant of the throw or act.


    In the footage online it's clear that Stokes & Rashid had not crossed at the point that the NZ fielder threw the ball so it should have been 5 runs not 6.


    I've had a copy of MCC Masterclass for 30 years and would read the laws after matches if something occurred I wasn't sure about. I got to know them pretty well. 

    The law in my version is 19.5 so they have been updated in that time but it still applies the same. 

    I think the umpires discussed it at the time but for whatever reason did not check if they had crossed. 


    There is some debate here at work on whether this applies due to the deflection from Stokes' bat, did the ball cross the boundary due to the bowlers wilful act or due to the deflection?


    I think the overthrows should have been awarded, just five, not six runs. New Zealand could have held on to the ball and not thrown it, and settled for two runs.

    They should also had known the rule and questioned the awarding of six runs, so I think it is on them really.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Frets: 13929

    I think the overthrows should have been awarded, just five, not six runs. New Zealand could have held on to the ball and not thrown it, and settled for two runs.

    They should also had known the rule and questioned the awarding of six runs, so I think it is on them really.

    There was a delay while the umpires conferred but I reckon they were focussing on the Stokes deflection and the award of the 4 boundary runs rather than the 2 "running" runs.

    A final that will go down in history as legendary and will be watched, discussed and debated for years to come. Incredible.

    17 days to The Ashes 


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 11413

    17 days to The Ashes 

    This.

    Fun as yesterday was, it wasn't the same tension as when Giles and Hoggard were batting in that chase against the Aussies in 2005, or the one where the Aussies fell 2 runs short.

    It was a good game, but all this "greatest cricket match ever" stuff is a bit over the top.  It was a one day match in coloured clothes. 

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • VimFuegoVimFuego Frets: 15476
    crunchman said:

    17 days to The Ashes 

    This.

    Fun as yesterday was, it wasn't the same tension as when Giles and Hoggard were batting in that chase against the Aussies in 2005, or the one where the Aussies fell 2 runs short.

    It was a good game, but all this "greatest cricket match ever" stuff is a bit over the top.  It was a one day match in coloured clothes. 

    yeah, for me still that was the greatest game of cricket. 

    I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 11413
    VimFuego said:
    crunchman said:

    17 days to The Ashes 

    This.

    Fun as yesterday was, it wasn't the same tension as when Giles and Hoggard were batting in that chase against the Aussies in 2005, or the one where the Aussies fell 2 runs short.

    It was a good game, but all this "greatest cricket match ever" stuff is a bit over the top.  It was a one day match in coloured clothes. 

    yeah, for me still that was the greatest game of cricket. 


    I might go for Headingley '81.

    There were some other classics in history as well.  There was a famous one at the Oval in 1902, where the Aussies set England 263 to win.  Gilbert Jessop came in with the score at 48 for 5, and hit 104 in 77 minutes.  The 9th wicket went down at 248, and the last pair added 15 more to win the match.

    No one day game is ever going to match up to classics like that.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • VimFuegoVimFuego Frets: 15476
    yeah, Headingly '81 was a corker, bit before my time really, I was 11 and not really into cricket then but I do recall the fuss about it. I think what I liked about both those matches is they were ones we weren't supposed to win, yesterday we were going to win at a canter, but somehow NZ didn't read the script.

    1902 was waaaay before my time, so can't comment, but you're older than you look.

    I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 11413
    VimFuego said:
    yeah, Headingly '81 was a corker, bit before my time really, I was 11 and not really into cricket then but I do recall the fuss about it. I think what I liked about both those matches is they were ones we weren't supposed to win, yesterday we were going to win at a canter, but somehow NZ didn't read the script.

    1902 was waaaay before my time, so can't comment, but you're older than you look.

    In any sport, people forget the great players and performances of the past.

    You see it in cricket.  A few years ago, various young idiots were arguing that Tendulkar was the greatest ever.  Being old enough to remember Richards, he's not as good as Richards, let alone Bradman.

    I follow the NFL, and I see it there too.  There are a lot young journalists in their 20s and early 30s on various NFL websites, and they haven't got a clue about players from before 2000.  For them, all the greatest players to have ever played are from the last 15 years.  They don't seem to know that players that I can remember, like Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Reggie White, and Lawrence Taylor, ever existed.  Then there are great players of the past that I can't remember - like Jim Brown and Mean Joe Greene.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • guitars4youguitars4you Frets: 14030
    edited July 2019 tFB Trader
    It is often the drama and tension that gets you hooked 

    I recall a SA v Australia Test Match - just checked the dates and info - March 2015 - 3rd Test - series score is one all

    This match and SA can't win - Their 4th innings target is 511 - So at best a draw -  They are 246-8 - Time is now their only hope - Dale Steyn comes into bat  at #10 with Philander already at the crease - DS bats for 44 balls and 75 mins to hang on - They refuse nearly every single offered - There is now only around 2 or 3 overs to go and DS is out - Morkel lasts 2 balls for an Aus win  - But the tension for SA to hang on was excellent - So some it is like a game of chess whereby nothing happens - But I recall this last effort as gripping 

    But yesterday was excellent - Some irony in that our 66 Football, 03 Rugby and 2019 CWC all required 'extra time'  - all adds to the drama
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Frets: 13929

    Don't forget the England v Ireland one off Test at Lords 24th July.

    Warm up for The Ashes, should get a look at the team selection. First international Test for Ireland isn't it?


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.