Cricket
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
& you know it 
Show More
Cant see it happening, and probably shouldn't. The precedent it would cause wouldn't be worth it.
The unfortunate thing is there is a big asterisk over the win. As it transpired NZ won the match as it played out and according to the rules if implemented properly. Its not England's fault - it just the win is tarnished - tough on both sets of players.
The unfortunate thing is there is a big asterisk over the win. As it transpired NZ won the match as it played out and according to the rules if implemented properly. Its not England's fault - it just the win is tarnished - tough on both sets of players.
of course ICC wont change the result. That'll be a stupid move.
I haven't seen any big reaction from anyone on the cricket websites. I see the coach has floated the idea of the trophy being shared but he could well have said that when asked by a journalist.
Since most of you guys live in England, and England won, you are obviously going to get bombarded by the media. They just need something to talk about and those 6 runs were a crazy occurrence. So it'll be talked again and again.
But England won the World Cup. I don't see any question marks over that.
Many comms have in the past talked about something like this happening in a world cup final. For instance, a howler where the team doesn't have any review left(they just have one don't they?). Or a no-ball not called(happens so often these days, umpires dont look at the line anymore). This decision was just another case of how inefficient and slow ICC has been in using the available technology. But I don't see them changing anything. Hopefully they'll learn something.
Does anyone know what the third umpire and match referee do all day?
I haven't seen any big reaction from anyone on the cricket websites. I see the coach has floated the idea of the trophy being shared but he could well have said that when asked by a journalist.
Since most of you guys live in England, and England won, you are obviously going to get bombarded by the media. They just need something to talk about and those 6 runs were a crazy occurrence. So it'll be talked again and again.
But England won the World Cup. I don't see any question marks over that.
Many comms have in the past talked about something like this happening in a world cup final. For instance, a howler where the team doesn't have any review left(they just have one don't they?). Or a no-ball not called(happens so often these days, umpires dont look at the line anymore). This decision was just another case of how inefficient and slow ICC has been in using the available technology. But I don't see them changing anything. Hopefully they'll learn something.
Does anyone know what the third umpire and match referee do all day?
If it had been given an 5 then 4 would have been needed off 2, Rash would have got a single and Stokes would have tw@tted that full bunga for four or six.
He purposely tried to tip and run it, to play the percentages knowing we only needed 2.
The law is ambiguous anyway and can be interpreted in various ways.
There have been various occasions where 6 has been given for 2 runs & 4 overthrows, just a vagary of the most wonderful game that humans have ever invented.
Much like mankading and getting run out at the bowler's end when the bowler gets a fingertip on it
Joffra Archer's first ball in the PP wasn't a wide, Ross Taylor's LB was too high etc etc etc
Simon Awful ought to shut his scrawny Aussie convict gob.
He cried off from umpiring a few years ago so he needs to wind his neck in.
Instead of number of boundaries in the game we could have gone to H2H in the group stage, ENG WIN, Net Run rate ENG WIN. number of points in the group stage ENG WIN, number of runs in the tourny, ENG WIN, no of 6s/4s in the tourn ENG WIN, number of runs etc etc
ENGERLAND WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He purposely tried to tip and run it, to play the percentages knowing we only needed 2.
The law is ambiguous anyway and can be interpreted in various ways.
There have been various occasions where 6 has been given for 2 runs & 4 overthrows, just a vagary of the most wonderful game that humans have ever invented.
Much like mankading and getting run out at the bowler's end when the bowler gets a fingertip on it
Joffra Archer's first ball in the PP wasn't a wide, Ross Taylor's LB was too high etc etc etc
Simon Awful ought to shut his scrawny Aussie convict gob.
He cried off from umpiring a few years ago so he needs to wind his neck in.
Instead of number of boundaries in the game we could have gone to H2H in the group stage, ENG WIN, Net Run rate ENG WIN. number of points in the group stage ENG WIN, number of runs in the tourny, ENG WIN, no of 6s/4s in the tourn ENG WIN, number of runs etc etc
ENGERLAND WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It should be great from an England perspective
The amount of times its been on the other foot makes it all the more satisfying surely?
It would have been better if it had been the Aussies from an england angle mind
The amount of times its been on the other foot makes it all the more satisfying surely?
It would have been better if it had been the Aussies from an england angle mind
We have history for doing things by the tightest of margins as extra time and goal line debates in 66 
Extra time drop goal in 2003 and now this a tie followed by an extra time super over tie then we find we have hit more boundaries so that will do nicely commiserations to New Zealand as they were the team i wanted to win at the outset of the tournament if England failed.
Extra time drop goal in 2003 and now this a tie followed by an extra time super over tie then we find we have hit more boundaries so that will do nicely commiserations to New Zealand as they were the team i wanted to win at the outset of the tournament if England failed.
Jul 21, 2019 -- 3:22PM, Cardinal Scott wrote:
Maxi OUT!......did his job well today.
I'm in the wrong thread 
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539