Do you agree with the final result?

[add_sauce]

We can change the rules so it doesn't happen again




Or time travel to change the result

Exactly. This really isn't about changing the 2019 results, England won and that's it. But, efforts should be made so that results don't pan out like this. We all know NZ won the final but lost due to rules that shouldn't exist.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Exactly. This really isn't about changing the 2019 results, England won and that's it. But, efforts should be made so that results don't pan out like this. We all know NZ won the final but lost due to rules that shouldn't exist.

This poll is about the most boundaries rule isn't it? It's not the greatest way to decide a tied match, but I don't see anywhere where New Zealand won the Final.

 

[GIMH]

This poll is about the most boundaries rule isn't it? It's not the greatest way to decide a tied match, but I don't see anywhere where New Zealand won the Final.

Presumably he’s factoring the overthrows in because everything else that happened goes down exactly the same if that doesn’t happen

 

[Red]

Can all those seriously claiming a World title should be shared kindly explain just where it was your uncle touched you. Honestly buck up sunshines. Sure the 3rd distinguisher was a bit rubbish, and it was kinda unprecedented we went to that length, but it was known by all. Its like in football where the Premier League, if inseparable by points and goal difference, goes to goals scored. No ones thinking of it until game 37 if its even still in play, but its there all along

Associating people who think the result is worth discussing and was pretty unjust with incest is really weird and unnecessary.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Can all those seriously claiming a World title should be shared kindly explain just where it was your uncle touched you. Honestly buck up sunshines. Sure the 3rd distinguisher was a bit rubbish, and it was kinda unprecedented we went to that length, but it was known by all. Its like in football where the Premier League, if inseparable by points and goal difference, goes to goals scored. No ones thinking of it until game 37 if its even still in play, but its there all along

You know there's a difference between goals scored in soccer and boundaries in cricket right? goals scored as somewhat reasonable, boundaries is just a random factor.

As someone mentioned the other day, it would be like decided a soccer tournament winner on number of corners.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

The football thing is a dumb comparison. It's more like who scored the most 3 pointers in basketball.

 

[Daemon]

So I've heard



It's true tho. I'm not using it as a defence of the boundary count, but to suggest this was a fair game and England emerged victorious under the rules and conditions both teams agreed to compete under. Don't see what's wrong with that.

That’s fine, but I don’t think there’s more than a handful of people claiming the result was unfair because the rules were not applied properly (except the 5 to 6 thing) or that nobody knew the rules beforehand, so what’s the point of repeating this?

People think it’s ‘unfair’ on NZ because the rules suck. Knowing them beforehand doesn’t change things, just like it didn’t when Trevor Chappell went ten pin bowling.

 

[social]

Heard Taufel interviewed yesterday and determining whether batsmen cross cannot be referred to the 3rd umpire

His only explanation for why this should be the case was that probably wasn´t thought that such a decision would ever be of much significance

 

[cnerd123]

That’s fine, but I don’t think there’s more than a handful of people claiming the result was unfair because the rules were not applied properly (except the 5 to 6 thing) or that nobody knew the rules beforehand, so what’s the point of repeating this?

People think it’s ‘unfair’ on NZ because the rules suck. Knowing them beforehand doesn’t change things, just like it didn’t when Trevor Chappell went ten pin bowling.

But it's not unfair because the rules sucked. That's literally not what unfair or unjust means.

It was a fair competition between two teams and England won. End of. The rules were a bit **** because they seem a bit arbitrary, sure. Should they change, probably yes. But unfair is not the word to use here.

I have plenty of time for people calling NZ unlucky. They absolutely were unlucky. But there was nothing unfair about this WC final.

 

[cnerd123]

Heard Taufel interviewed yesterday and determining whether batsmen cross cannot be referred to the 3rd umpire

His only explanation for why this should be the case was that probably wasn´t thought that such a decision would ever be of much significance

This would explain why Dharmasena and Erasmus didn't check with the third umpire. Understandable error in the heat of the moment. Very unlucky for NZ to be on the receiving end.

 

[Daemon]

But it's not unfair because the rules sucked. That's literally not what unfair or unjust means.

It was a fair competition between two teams and England won. End of. The rules were a bit **** because they seem a bit arbitrary, sure. Should they change, probably yes. But unfair is not the word to use here.

I have plenty of time for people calling NZ unlucky. They absolutely were unlucky. But there was nothing unfair about this WC final.

Semantics.

 

[Bahnz]

This would explain why Dharmasena and Erasmus didn't check with the third umpire. Understandable error in the heat of the moment. Very unlucky for NZ to be on the receiving end.

Yeah, it would've been very hard for them - neither of them had any reason to take note of whether or not the batsmen had crossed at the time Guptill threw the ball. It was only after it hit Stokes' bat that that became relevant. Going up to Stokes and saying "We think you hadn't crossed so it's a 5 and you're down the other end" would've been a massive call, and I'm not surprised they shied away from it.

There's absolutely no reason why umpires shouldn't be able to check upstairs for something like this, so yeah one more rule that requires tweaking.

 

[social]

Yeah, it would've been very hard for them - neither of them had any reason to take note of whether or not the batsmen had crossed at the time Guptill threw the ball. It was only after it hit Stokes' bat that that became relevant. Going up to Stokes and saying "We think you hadn't crossed so it's a 5 and you're down the other end" would've been a massive call, and I'm not surprised they shied away from it.

There's absolutely no reason why umpires shouldn't be able to check upstairs for something like this, so yeah one more rule that requires tweaking.

Taufel said it was a pretty basic error and something routinely checked by umpires

 

[GIMH]

Them having to revert to opposite ends would have been completely stupid IMO. That’s also a stupid rule.

Absolutely fine with that rule being changed so we’d only get 2. After that I think the rule that it’s 5 actually makes zero sense.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, it would've been very hard for them - neither of them had any reason to take note of whether or not the batsmen had crossed at the time Guptill threw the ball. It was only after it hit Stokes' bat that that became relevant. Going up to Stokes and saying "We think you hadn't crossed so it's a 5 and you're down the other end" would've been a massive call, and I'm not surprised they shied away from it.

There's absolutely no reason why umpires shouldn't be able to check upstairs for something like this, so yeah one more rule that requires tweaking.

how?

Seems pretty clear to me that the law is straightforward enough and it was purely umpire error for failing to check and make the right call

 

[cnerd123]

Taufel said it was a pretty basic error and something routinely checked by umpires

Yes you're supposed to be checking if the batsmen crossed every time a throw is made in from the deep, specifically in preparation for an overthrow situation

From my experience - it's bloody hard to do.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes you're supposed to be checking if the batsmen crossed every time a throw is made in from the deep, specifically in preparation for an overthrow situation

From my experience - it's bloody hard to do.

No it's not when you can check with the 3rd umpire if it becomes relevant, which would be very rarely.

 

[Flem274*]

Spare me if we're going to cop lectures on fairness from the sycophant defending the taylor and boult lbws.

The umpires were terrible. Stokes and buttler were genius, but fmd erasmus **** the bed.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes you're supposed to be checking if the batsmen crossed every time a throw is made in from the deep, specifically in preparation for an overthrow situation

From my experience - it's bloody hard to do.

JFC

z

 

[harsh.ag]

Anyone defending the umpires also knows that Taufel wouldn't have got it wrong if he was there.