Cricket World Cup 2019 - England World Champions!!!

My friend who is an umpire in the Birmingham League says "Wilfull act" or "act" means if the fielder deliberately throws the ball out of play to reduce the number of runs scored (e.g. the batsmen have already run 5 runs and the fielder throws the ball out of play to try and reduce the runs scored from the delivery). It does not apply in this case..

All that counts here is overthrows, and an overthrow is called if the ball goes over the boundary, no matter how it gets there; retrospectively applied to the point when the fielder threw the ball.

My friend would give 5 runs if he could see the players hadn't crossed, 6 otherwise. That said the speed at which professional players run makes it difficult to judge if they had crossed from the scoring umpires perspective. The other umpire had a much better view and should have given him a signal to say if he thought the players hadn't crossed the moment the ball was thrown.

So both umpires made a mistake but it happens and mistakes can't be delt with retrospectively. As my friend says if the mistake is not promptly corrected on the field the decision stands.

He also says the West Indian umpire was a bit keen on giving wides so another umpire would probably have knocked a few runs off the NZ total.
Thanks for that - I agree, wilful act isn't in play here.

Also, I think you mean Kumar Dharmasena was the one giving wides against England but not for England for similar deliveries, but he's a Sri Lankan of course. The wide he gave in Archer's super over was dead on the guide line but the batter had already edged to off side (so much that his back foot was outside the line of off stump) so he got that one wrong in my opinion. He was poor in the semi-final too, but that's how it goes with umpires.
 
There's already clear evidence that batting second is a disadvantage so going back to the wickets rule isn't fair and it could still easily come down to one bad umpiring decision. The fact here is all the players know the rules and by competing in the competition agree to them. The fairest way really, seeing as it is "who is the best team in the competition" would be to give it to the team that finished higher in the qualification table.

Should carry on with super overs until someone wins imo
 
the ECB really do take the piss out of the fans and take them for granted, and the ashes at home are all that matters to them, bums on seats and tickets sales that are all ready sold 2 years before they play them, its the tradition in playing the ashes and the tournament is set in stone and the ECB milk the system and fans

Yes. The speeding up of the Ashes cycle for money devalues it too. Still, Sky can go large on hype about it, and the ECB are happy with no-one much watching it.
 
Should carry on with super overs until someone wins imo
There's an argument for two games for the final as it would also negate the benefit of winning the toss if you have it so the winner of the toss has the decision for game 1 and the loser the decision for game 2.
 
There's already clear evidence that batting second is a disadvantage so going back to the wickets rule isn't fair and it could still easily come down to one bad umpiring decision. The fact here is all the players know the rules and by competing in the competition agree to them. The fairest way really, seeing as it is "who is the best team in the competition" would be to give it to the team that finished higher in the qualification table.

Yes, wins in group, highest in table, anything but "some runs are more important than other runs".

I don't know whether batting second is always a problem; it's certainly been a disadvantage this tournament.
 
Thanks for that - I agree, wilful act isn't in play here.

Also, I think you mean Kumar Dharmasena was the one giving wides against England but not for England for similar deliveries, but he's a Sri Lankan of course. The wide he gave in Archer's super over was dead on the guide line but the batter had already edged to off side (so much that his back foot was outside the line of off stump) so he got that one wrong in my opinion. He was poor in the semi-final too, but that's how it goes with umpires.
Yes, the Sri Lanken umpire. I made a racist assumption based on his colour. To me he was just an umpire.

Both umpires made the mistake as the second umpire should have signaled only one completed run. He didnt. With the speed of the professional game, both are too busy getting into position to view the ball possibly hitting the stumps at their end as the fielder picks the ball up for a throw.
 
Last edited:
I'm feeling pretty proud of the way my countrymen conducted themselves both on and off the pitch on Sunday.

Very nice to hear such complementary comments about New Zealand from English cricket fans :-)

Our day will come!
(Hopefully at the expense of our Australian cousins!!)
I love the attitude and personality of the New Zealand side. As others have said personified in Williamson.
 
Thanks for that - I agree, wilful act isn't in play here.

Also, I think you mean Kumar Dharmasena was the one giving wides against England but not for England for similar deliveries, but he's a Sri Lankan of course. The wide he gave in Archer's super over was dead on the guide line but the batter had already edged to off side (so much that his back foot was outside the line of off stump) so he got that one wrong in my opinion. He was poor in the semi-final too, but that's how it goes with umpires.

I thought guidelines are just that.
Roy wasn't given out either - swings and roundabouts with umpires.
 
I am sorry but that is complete and utter nonsense.

We didn't beat New Zealand, it was a tie after the 50 overs and it was a tie after the super over. We were awarded the match based on the number of boundaries hit. Don't get me wrong i am delighted and it was captivating to watch, and i am not in the hollow victory camp, i loved every minute, but we didn't beat New Zealand.

In my opinion, New Zealand were probably the better team on the day. The absolute fluke boundary plus the Boult brain fart gave us 12 runs that meant we had the chance to win / tie in the first 50 overs and we took that chance. For me, those two freakish moments changed the game, without both of them, or even just one of them, New Zealand win. So, in my view, without an enourmous slice of luck, New Zealand win, by being the better team (Just, like by a fag paper). That is my opinion, and given how tight the game was, I think there is an argument to be made for either side being better, and I don't think anyone can argue with 100% conviction that one team were better or not.

Given the above, from Warnes perspective, what he says is 100% true. Just because you don't agree doesn't make him wrong.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.