• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

ICC teaches FIFA. No Penalties! If game is tied after ET team with most corners wins

mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
sledger said:
Even though they clearly did.
Click to expand...
Match tied, super over tied.

I look at the countback as a separate device, otherwise why even have the concept of a 'tie'

Ties are more epic than wins and losses anyway, everyone knows that, so be proud of that!
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
It is not up for dispute. It is objectively true. It is literally delusional to say England did not win.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
These sorts of claims are amazing really.

Rules state that if team does X, they win.

England does X.

People deny this happened, despite the very obvious empirical evidence to the contrary.
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Right, I think its disingenuous to not mention the runs were literally tied after 50 overs and a super over whenever discussing this though. The term victory and defeat just aren't the appropriate words and I don't think that's delusional to say

You know how in the FIFA world cup KO stage they say match tied - team X advanced on penalties. Team England advanced to the trophy via boundary countback, but it was a tie after the final ball was bowled, she was a stalemate
 
Last edited:
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
sledger said:
These sorts of claims are amazing really.

Rules state that if team does X, they win.

England does X.

People deny this happened, despite the very obvious empirical evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
yeah like, i'm all for people saying "oh this was a ridiculous rule, should be changed, really silly" etc etc but "england didn't actually win"... no? that's not how facts work.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
mr_mister said:
Right, I think its disingenuous to not mention the runs were literally tied after 50 overs and a super over whenever discussing this though. The term victory and defeat just aren't the appropriate words and I don't think that's delusional to say

You know how in the FIFA world cup KO stage they say match tied - team X advanced on penalties. Team England advanced to the trophy via boundary countback, but it was a tie after the final ball was bowled
Click to expand...
The rules specify the conditions for winning a match. England met those conditions. This is literally all there is to it.

The only way this can be disputed is if you can show that the rules do not say what everyone says they do (hint: you can't), or that England did not do what the rules say needs to be done in order to win (hint: they did).
 
Last edited:
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Sledger/Spark and Mr Mister arguing at cross ends here

Does the WC final go down in the record books as England beat New Zealand, or England tied with New Zealand?

Cricinfo has it as 'Match tied, super over tied, England win on boundaries'

Cricbuzz has it as Match Tied (England win super over on boundary count)

The ICC website has it as 'Match Tied (England win the super over)'

It seems the correct answer is Yes, the match was tied and Yes, England beat New Zealand.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
Haha **** yeah, I'm going to down to the shop later and walk out with a load of stuff without paying, then when I am accused of shoplifting I will say it never happened.
 
sledger

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
***** said:
Sledger/Spark and Mr Mister arguing at cross ends here

Does the WC final go down in the record books as England beat New Zealand, or England tied with New Zealand?

Cricinfo has it as 'Match tied, super over tied, England win on boundaries'

Cricbuzz has it as Match Tied (England win super over on boundary count)

The ICC website has it as 'Match Tied (England win the super over)'

It seems the correct answer is Yes, the match was tied and Yes, England beat New Zealand.
Click to expand...
Not at all. MM and attitude specifically said that England did "not win". This is something your post effectively demonstrates to be literally false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top