was the match paid out on the draw or the super over result

although i'm now thinking i have been dumb and it would have paid the draw

although i'm now thinking i have been dumb and it would have paid the draw

The match was a tie and was voided.  The super over was a tie and was paid as a DH.  The tournament winner was settled as England.

thanks = must be only tests where you can bet the draw then

We cashed out prior to the draw.. Returns been taken off us!? What the hell!?!?!?!?!??!

that's what i'm thinking - surely if a draw is a possible - that market should be available

Jul 14, 2019 -- 10:29PM, mrd08 wrote:

We cashed out prior to the draw.. Returns been taken off us!? What the hell!?!?!?!?!??!

What market?

I had a profit both outcomes, NZ or Eng. No idea where its gone, the bet isn't acknowledged in account, P&L statement, nothing. Somewhat confused.

Bets on the 'Match odds' market are voided in case of a tie. You know that now.
There is usually a separate market with all three results, but it has no liquidity. That one is't voided.

Jul 14, 2019 -- 11:03PM, detraveller wrote:

Bets on the 'Match odds' market are voided in case of a tie. You know that now.There is usually a separate market with all three results, but it has no liquidity. That one is't voided.

and there is a separate market for' a tied match'

match odds on betfair is void and nothing will show on your P&L, THERE is a match odds including tie available as well , so  that paid out on a tie, and also there is a tied match market available.**** same rules as betfair void on match odds. 365 where paying out on official result including super over on match odds.

purple ^. ps i havent a clue if there was any markets odds on just the super over .

"The match was a tie and was voided.  The super over was a tie and was paid as a DH.  The tournament winner was settled as England. "

What is DH (reference The super over was a tie and was paid as a DH?

I think he's referring to Dead Heat?

Correct.  Half stake treated as a winner, half as a loser.

If all this is right, would I not see stakes refunded via the account statement? Its like the bets never even existed

Its like the bets never even existed
Exactly, that's what void means.
That's also why you don't see them in the account statement. The bets never existed.

You should have your stake added back to your account balance.
Are you saying you didn't get your stake back and are missing that money?

You can see the void bets from your betting history, select the voided bet option from the drop down selection box

The wheels are beginning to turn now, thanks. I'd greened up already so wasn't going to get any boost in my balance (sadly). Still think they should acknowledge this more visibly for simpletons like myself.

It is not just simpletons!

We often forget to cover what we call the Thai!

Same thing in Big Boxing contests.

Yesterday for once I got lucky and had a fiver on the draw at 41. I cashed out of a losing England bet so got all my losses back on the void and We Won. It doesn't get much better!

Ovewr 4,400 ODI's, only 38 have finished in ties, five in World Cup matches, one of them being a World Cup final

The umpires made an "error of judgement" in awarding six runs, instead of five, to England for the overthrow that hit Ben Stokes' bat and ran to the boundary, says Simon Taufel, confirming the story that ESPNcricinfo broke right after the World Cup 2019 final.

Currently part of the MCC's laws sub-committee that makes the rules governing cricket, Taufel told The Age and Sydney Morning Herald that England should have been awarded five runs, not six.

"It's a clear mistake.. it's an error of judgment," Taufel said.

"They (England) should have been awarded five runs, not six.

"The judgment error was the timing of when the fielder threw the ball. The act of the overthrow starts when the fielder releases the ball. That's the act. It becomes an overthrow from the instant of the throw."

one of those things that the umpires dont bother looking at.

Noballs are messed up more often yet nothing has changed regarding that.

This would have made for a great story if SA were on the receiving end though

given the number of boundary checks that we watched, not unreasonable that this should have been checked

How many people here knew of this overthrow rule?

I knew that there must be a rule, had absolutely no idea what the fine detail of it was.
Suspect that the Kiwi's didn't know either

i often see 4 over throws awarded on top of a single = 5 runs

are they now saying they should be 4 runs only ?

Jul 15, 2019 -- 2:03PM, Angoose wrote:

I knew that there must be a rule, had absolutely no idea what the fine detail of it was.Suspect that the Kiwi's didn't know either

I am pretty sure the umps didn't know either.

It is dependant on the state of the runners when the throw is made. If the one is already run, then it counts and is added to the overthrows.

Jul 15, 2019 -- 2:10PM, Angoose wrote:

It is dependant on the state of the runners when the throw is made. If the one is already run, then it counts and is added to the overthrows.

No.

Its the crossing of the batsmen that counts at the time of the release of the throw. Nothing to do with the run being completed or not.

Bizzare, I started of ftalking about the state of teh runners, then switched to the completion of the run, confusion reigns.

Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", says: "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."

Taufel also said that Stokes and Rashid should have switched ends once the run was found to be incomplete - which meant Rashid would have played the fifth ball with three runs required to win. "They did not cross on their second run, at the instant of the throw. So given that scenario, five runs should have been the correct allocation of runs, and Ben Stokes should have been at the non-striker's end for the next delivery."

Taufel defended the officials though, saying the moment involved many things happening at the same time. "In the heat of what was going on, they thought there was a good chance the batsmen had crossed at the instant of the throw," Taufel said.

"Obviously TV replays showed otherwise. The difficulty you (umpires) have here is you've got to watch batsmen completing runs, then change focus and watch for the ball being picked up, and watch for the release (of the throw)," he said.

"You also have to watch where the batsmen are at that exact moment."

The former umpire acknowledged the call "influenced the game", but said it should not be viewed as costing New Zealand the match - and the tournament.
"It's unfair on England, New Zealand and the umpires involved to say it decided the outcome," Taufel said.

ah, read the rule and as they had not crossed when ball was thrown then that part run is discounted
so , 1 + 4 would be correct.

we had always played that if a run was started and completed then it counted, plus any over throws.



they did say at the time that the umps were discussing it, and i couldnt see why

All in all, pretty tough for the umpires, a lot of places to be looking simulatenously.

tough? its got to be impossible.

do you guys really think the umps are looking at the batsmen crossing every time a throw is made? NO.

Yes they can refer overthrows to the third umpire everytime they happen, just like they check for no balls after a wicket. But they didn't do that if im not mistaken.

From the video it is pretty clear Dharmasena pretty quickly gave the 6 runs signal. If he had known the rule, he may have asked the third umpire or consulted his partner(knowing how close the game was). Maybe he did it after the signal? I don't know. Wasn't watching the match.

These are the kinds of things someone sitting with the match referee, or he himself, or even the third umpire should be looking at. But ICC hasn't even moved the call of no balls to the third umpire, so expecting the third umpire to intervene is stupid.

"In the heat of what was going on, they thought there was a good chance the batsmen had crossed at the instant of the throw," Taufel said.

he shouldn't be saying something stupid like this. If the umps knew of the law, they'd have asked the third umpire and not 'thought there was a good chance...'

The ICC will issue a statement soon. Not that it matters. Kiwis are nice people and im pretty sure they have moved on. If this was an asian team they'd have brought down twitter and facebook :)

Apparently, the ICC has commented that "they don't comment on such in play issues".

stokes mindset would have been different too, needing an extra run

we will never know what would have happened.

in the super over, archers first ball seemed to go over the wide marker, but
not outside of it, but was called a wide....i thought the rule was that the wide marker
was not a wide.

of course its difficult to see, but hawkeye could easily signal that, as well as no balls,
with umps getting a beep, ..

I'm not a 100% convinced that six runs shouldn't have been awarded. It depends on what the 'act' was. If the act was throwing the ball to the stumps and it hit the bat then maybe the act is hitting the bat (when they had crossed). If it hadn't hit the bat and went for four then they should have awarded five runs. It's not quite so clear to me.

hitting the bat is not the act.

act is used as sometimes fielders kick the ball, or put out a hand to catch the ball , deflecting it on to the stumps,
at which point it may ricochet to boundary..but its act of fielder not batsman

if stokes does it as an act hes likely out, obstructing field !

It's difficult to determine Fact from Act, or is it................

I didn't say Stokes hit it with the bat. The ball hit the bat and was questioning if that was the 'act'. The bowler deflecting the ball onto the stumps is not an overthrow and the batsmen wouldn't have crossed in that case if that's what you meant.

I wouldn't be getting cross if we cant establish the act from the fact, i mean surely the act is a fact, or is it not...

no, its just a term, act, i was giving examples why its in rules ....and that not just a throw can cause overthrows

And I was questioning whether hitting the bat was the act.

Moral of this story...


Only bet on the tournament winners market

Or at least understand the rules of the market you are betting in and act accordingly.

Jul 15, 2019 -- 3:36PM, Charlie wrote:

I'm not a 100% convinced that six runs shouldn't have been awarded. It depends on what the 'act' was. If the act was throwing the ball to the stumps and it hit the bat then maybe the act is hitting the bat (when they had crossed). If it hadn't hit the bat and went for four then they should have awarded five runs. It's not quite so clear to me.

Since the law is headlined 'Overthrow or willful act of the fielder', I think it is safe to discount Stokes intervention.

The overthrow starts at the point of the release of the ball from the fielder's hands. There is no ambiguity there.

Cashed out early in the match .

So now looking at my account  feel totally ripped off by Betfair , draw wasn't a given option .

what's the point in cashing out when the playing field is changed after you cash out .

the tie was offered, draw is not same as tie in cricket.

main market operates as void when scores are tied, other market
gives option of backing or laying all three outcomes.

draw, or incomplete match, also has its own market

Cashed out early in the match .

So now looking at my account  feel totally ripped off by Betfair , draw wasn't a given option .

what's the point in cashing out when the playing field is changed after you cash out .

I cashed out early too at a loss and got all my money back when it was voided! Happy days!

There were options for a Thai, I got 41's! and also someone said the outright winner market instead of the match market. This is cricket although not proper cricket hopefully you have learned something from the experience

in the super over, archers first ball seemed to go over the wide marker, but
not outside of it, but was called a wide....i thought the rule was that the wide marker
was not a wide.

Not sure but I thought the line was a guide not a given. The faster the bowler the more chance of being wided. If it was a spinner probably not a wide.

the wide marker is only an approxximate guide for the umpire. He can call a wide even when its inside the line, as long as he thinks the batter didn't have a fair chance of hitting the ball.

Not sure but I thought the line was a guide not a given

yep

batsman took normal stance, so lucky, imo, to get a wide


just one of them things in cricket...