In the past NZ would’ve won having lost fewer wickets in the match.
Bit like Liverpool would’ve won the league if it was still 2 pts for a win lol
The "game" was a tribute to integrity and sportsmanship by two fully committed and talented teams" The agenda-driven screeching by certain quarters is the polar opposite, almost as pathetic as the brexit fiasco. The rules state "throw or act", quite definitely and explicitly not "throw", case dismissed, not guilty.
Can anyone defend the decision to outlaw " Draw" , as in, win lose or draw. Who decided and crucially why, in a final that is not part of a qualifying exercise, there has to be a winner.
Shane Warne, " England didn't really beat New Zealand and New Zealand were the better side" . When will TV companies learn not to put bitter Australians on as pundits.
Christ I didn’t know that! But to be honest it wasn’t the last ball of the game so no-one knows how those last two balls would have gone, it would still have been advantage England even with Rashid on strike.
I'd say not. If the batter doesn't move, it looks like it will hit his left leg and he would have had to edge towards off after the ball had been delivered, but then with that umpire who knows.Would have been a brave move, but if the batsman had left the very last ball of the super over, would it not have been called a wide?
That article also points out that there is some ambiguity to the rule and arguably it would be counted from the point it hit his bat rather than at the time of the throw. My guess is that will be the official position of the ICC.
and don't need to - England won anyway !!!Would it? I'm sure NZ and Boult would have preferred to be bowling the penultimate ball at Rashid (a new batsman and tail ender) than Stokes, who is a batsman and well set. Equally England would have been desperate to have Stokes on strike. It's egregious to argue otherwise.
Of course, Rashid might have hit a boundary to win the match. We'll never know.
You could argue that the 'wilful act of fielder' includes Stokes' accidental contact therefore the instant of the act was after the batsmen crossed. Or, if you consider the throw was the act, since there are no set guidelines around when exactly the 'act' (throw) is deemed to have occured - whether it's the moment Guptill releases the ball or the moment it hits the bat of Stokes, it could just as well be the latter. Taufel is just wrong to be so definite.I see Taufel is cited as saying Rashid should have been on strike as well. I has to look that up:
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.