Cricket

Correct.

 

Explain? Not what the news reports claim.

 

This would be treated like a short run.

Even if it had been given as a 5, Stokes would have been on strike.

Please don’t believe everything written in the Sydney Herald/Dunedin Bugle & Despatch (inc Sheep Weekly).

 

I think it's because they know it's nonsense. The throw of the ball isn't the act that caused the 4 byes, it was the impact with the bat. Therefore the batsmen had switched, therefore it was the correct call.

The only area of dispute is that it's decided on boundary count, but everyone signed up to the competition on those rules, so whilst it's stupid they can't complain!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

Well, it was also in the London Evening Standard, the Daily Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket...mpire-error-handed-england-cricket-world-cup/ and Wisden, https://www.wisden.com/series-stories/cricket-world-cup/simon-taufel-umpire-error-final.

Thanks, though - I see now why this may not be correct, although the “short run” rule does seem to be designed for a totally different scenario.

 

I think he's right. I think the trophy should have been shared.

 

It sounds fair but in practice could you say that the 2019 title was won by England and NZ ? Both England and NZ have now won the title once ? There needs to be a way of choosing one winner though I think that NZ should have won given they lost fewer wickets in reaching their 241 runs. In fact that's what I assumed would happen.

 

I don't really see why you need 'one winner'. Why can't you have joint winners if they can't be separated even after a tiebreak? The only practical problem is who gets to keep the trophy. Two years at Lords, and two in Wellington?

I'm not sure when the rules changed so that the number of wickets lost was no longer the tiebreaker, but there we go.

 

I agree, let's ask Man City if we can share the FA Cup.

 

They have more than enough trophies of their own. Let someone else have a go.

 

Agreed. Goals scored seems such an arbitrary way to separate the teams on the day.

 

Blah, blah, blah.............

The first ball of Archer's super over should not have been called a wide in my opinion (and wides are a totally subjective subject, at an individual umpire's discretion). The batsman makes a clear move to the offside and could definitely have played a shot at the ball if he'd chosen to do so.

We can play these games all day. The game was not decided by the award of 6 not 5 for the overthrows.

 

I don't think NZ deserve to share the trophy because of the 5/6 run thing. I think they deserve to share it because scores were tied even after a tiebreaker.

You are right, it shouldn't have been a wide.

 

So the scores wouldn't have been tied.

You can go back through the entire game, judging each wide and totting up the number of runs scored off the extra balls that shouldn't have been, if the wide hadn't been given.

Or you can just accept that England won, with a massive slice of luck and a bit of largely manufactured controversy and leave it there.

 

Having no outright winner after a month long competition would not have been a satisfactory outcome. Maybe if draw should have been decided on record overall in lead up to final on runs scored, number of wins, or head to head.
The 5 instead of 6 pointed out as a factor is relevant but had that extra run not been given it would have forced stokes to be more positive on the last ball. Instead of a safe trip and run if he had been forced to slog more likely change of getting a 4 and winning in normal time.

 

If both umpire errors are counted (as they were), the scores are tied. But of course you are right that there will have been other errors/slices of luck along the way.

My objection is more to the concept that there has to be only one winner and we need to resort to increasingly arbitrary ways of finding that team (why most boundaries rather than fewest wickets?). I simply don't see why joint winners aren't considered to be a viable option - although only if there has been at least some attempt to separate them first: to me there is nothing especially 'unsatisfactory' about that.

I guess sport just doesn't usually work like that, although you do get the occasional 'dead heat'.

 

Sorry, what are you on about?

The deflection came in the final over, the wide was the first ball of NZ's super over.

If the deflection had not happened, Stokes would have played different shots to the last two balls and we've no way of knowing what the outcome would have been, although I'd hazard a guess that he would have smacked the final ball leg-stump full toss for 4 , if not 6, but we'll never know.

There is no justification for this hair-shirt wearing, just because NZ were unlucky with one moment in the game.

 

I am "on about" what actually happened on the day. We had a tie in normal time and a tie on the super over. In both cases, umpire error contributed to that - 6 was awarded instead of 5 and Archer was wrongly wided. But whether there was error or not is immaterial. I think the way of separating the two sides after the second tie was rather arbitrary but my point is more that I don't especially think they needed to be separated at all a third time. Others clearly do. It's just an opinion.

 

To be fair, NZ’s ‘wide’ was in the super-over which perhaps would not have even taken place had we been given 5 instead of 6.

But I do agree it’s a largely pointless discussion in the same sport where a batsmen can be given out when he’s not and not be able to challenge it more than once.

Ross Taylor was incorrectly given out with no challenge remaining. The game could have swung there. It could have swung on a number of different incidents so to just highlight one seems pointless. You have to accept the game for what it is.

In terms of deciding it, I still think the best way would have been to continue with ‘super-overs’ with the teams alternating who bats first but with different batsmen each time until the scores aren’t tied. In realistic terms, it likely would have happened with one more super-over and that seems fairer to me than boundary count-back. But as is being said, both teams knew the rules before starting. I did funnily enough remark to my friend in the pub that NZ were not scoring enough boundaries during their innings. 12 overs without a single boundary at one point.

 

Of course this is true. My query is whether the rules actually need to separate the teams again so as to identify a sole winner. But I am clearly in a minority on that point.

I agree, carrying on with the super overs would have seemed less arbitrary. As in golf, where extra holes are added on to a playoff if needs be.

 

Should have just been settled on the number of wickets lost in the 50 overs, simple really.

 

I'm sure, once upon a time, there used to be a bowl out for a tied or abandoned game where the bowlers had one stump to aim at, similar process to a penalty shoot out with 5 bowlers each and if still level went to sudden death. I think I prefer the Super Over but I do agree that I think there should have been another Super Over if the scores are tied with different batsmen/bowlers

 

Switching from that as a criterion to number of boundaries was presumably an inducement to more attacking batting. England do warrant the title more than NZ in that respect.

 

Yes, there was - certainly in county one day matches.

Congratulations to Yorkshire, by the way.

(You see, that's why I am grumpy today).

 

Of course it's just an opinion, I know it doesn't really matter and I totally accept that the criteria for deciding a winner is a bit arbitrary. But the criteria have been in place since 2012, there's no reason to now bemoan them, just because you feel a bit sorry for NZ. I highly doubt there'd be this outpouring of sympathy had England lost in the same circumstances - we'd be told to suck it up snowflakes, everyone knew the rules, you should have hit more boundaries when you had the chance.

Ultimately, I suspect few people are likely to agree with you that, in professional competitive sport, we should give up and decide to call everyone a winner, as if it's a special school's sports day.

 

But we don't always find a sole winner in competitive sport. There is such a thing as a dead heat. A shared gold medal isn't unheard of in the Olympics.

I agree that most people would not take this position and I am sure that you are correct about England not receiving the same sympathy.

 

To build on this, isn’t keeping the score a little pedantic?

Can’t we simply enjoy the life affirming thrill of some chaps clouting the ball around for an afternoon in the sun?

 

I quite agree. With wine. Or ale. Or both.

 

I feel as though an individual event like sprinting, isn’t quite the same as a team event when it comes to sharing the victory. If two individuals ran the same time, or launched a javelin the exact same distance, I can stomach the medal being shared.

I’d find zero satisfaction in sharing a victory. It would feel hollow and entirely unsatisfactory.

 

Does it have to do with the psychology of allegiance to a team, then ? But, it's not just the individualism of the sport which is determinative because we make sure there is a sole winner in tennis and golf even if we don't always do so in some 'racing' type sports.

I guess golf can be explained because it doesn't seem very satisfactory to have (say) six players all finishing at -18 and all sharing a title. But with Federer v Djokovic the other day: should that have been a dead heat? Would that have been such an unsatisfactory outcome?

 

I’d agree that allegiance to a team plays a significant part in my feeling on this subject.

It was mentioned that shared medals do occur, but I’ve no idea how often that actually happens. I imagine that usually there is enough to separate the competitors and establish a victor.

Generally, the idea of sharing a championship doesn’t settle well with me. The driving force of competition is the desire to win and be the best, so it only feels right that we find a way to establish who did enough to win on the day.