ICC World Cup 2019

riffmongous

Just out of interest, this is Paddy Power

If a match is tied and the official competition rules do not determine a winner, bets on the outright result will be void unless the outcome is settled by a bowl off or super over (in which case the result of the bowl off or super over will stand for match betting). If the competition rules determine the winner by the toss of a coin, drawing of lots or higher seeding resulting from a previous round then bets will be void.

Bet365

Where no price is quoted for the tie and the official competition rules determine a winner/progressing side, bets will be settled on the official result.

Where no price is quoted for the tie and the official competition rules do not determine a winner then Dead-Heat rules will apply, in competitions where a bowl out or super over determines a winner then bets will be settled on the official result.

The result of a match is a tie when the scores are equal at the conclusion of play, but only if the side batting last has completed its innings (i.e. all innings are completed, or, in limited-overs cricket, the set number of overs has been played or play is terminally stopped by weather or bad light).

StringerBell

NIMAN wrote: »

He's a world champion. Something no-one can take away from him.

And when you reach the top, doesn't matter if you performed as well as you could or not, you're still a champion.

People don't say to footballers, "you won the CL Final in 2010, but you didn't have a great game yourself"

This is besides the point that as a captain you have a lot more bloody influence on the outcome of a cricket game than just your contribution with the bat solely

His captaining of Archer in that super over alone was superb not to mention the other multitude of decisions he made over the course of the final.

Sickened for NZ personally but don't begrudge Morgan his dues at all.

BarryD2

Basil3 wrote: »

Just to rub salt in the wounds, an ESPN columnist suggests that due to ambiguity in the laws, the 6-run overthrow could have been ruled as 5 runs.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows

Yep, seems to be pretty much confirmed now. So NZ didn't just not lose the match, they actually won it in the 50 overs. Pretty embarrassing but I guess in the heat of the moment, neither the onfield umpires or NZ players spotted it. Not only should it have been 5 runs but Stokes should have been off strike. What about the third umpire though - could he not have intervened?

Blinky Plebum

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yep, seems to be pretty much confirmed now. So NZ didn't just not lose the match, they actually won it in the 50 overs. Pretty embarrassing but I guess in the heat of the moment, neither the onfield umpires or NZ players spotted it. Not only should it have been 5 runs but Stokes should have been off strike. What about the third umpire though - could he not have intervened?

Disgraceful , must be very had to take for New Zealand.

So that's the 1966 and 2019 world cup england have have needed poor officiating to help them win.

jobeenfitz

Blinky Plebum wrote: »

Disgraceful , must be very had to take for New Zealand.

So that's the 1966 and 2019 world cup england have have needed poor officiating to help them win.

Il repeat what I said earlier in this thread, It would be gentlemanly behaviour of England to offer a replay.

Inquitus

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yep, seems to be pretty much confirmed now. So NZ didn't just not lose the match, they actually won it in the 50 overs. Pretty embarrassing but I guess in the heat of the moment, neither the onfield umpires or NZ players spotted it. Not only should it have been 5 runs but Stokes should have been off strike. What about the third umpire though - could he not have intervened?

You can't determine that, if it had been ruled 5 not 6, England would have played the remaining balls differently.

Darc19

BarryD2 wrote: »

Yep, seems to be pretty much confirmed now. So NZ didn't just not lose the match, they actually won it in the 50 overs. Pretty embarrassing but I guess in the heat of the moment, neither the onfield umpires or NZ players spotted it. Not only should it have been 5 runs but Stokes should have been off strike. What about the third umpire though - could he not have intervened?

Sure if you go via replays of almost any sports match you can find errors, from off the ball incidents, to fouls to slight handballs.

The guy who has said this has benefit of replays and being able to see everything happening all over the field and from a bird's eye view.

Umpires have to make a decision on the spot based on what they have seen.

riffmongous

Inquitus wrote: »

You can't determine that, if it had been ruled 5 not 6, England would have played the remaining balls differently.

Yeah impossible to say what would have happened instead, although getting Stokes off strike would have been a big deal

Larbre34

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Il repeat what I said earlier in this thread, It would be gentlemanly behaviour of England to offer a replay.

Agree. Its all very well to talk about hand of God and knock-ons and square balls and whatever else, but this is a World Cup Final, it should be unacceptable to all sides that it is awarded under false pretences.

Do they want the record to read

2019 - England
Or
2019 - England*

Inquitus

Larbre34 wrote: »

Agree. Its all very well to talk about hand of God and knock-ons and square balls and whatever else, but this is a World Cup Final, it should be unacceptable to all sides that it is awarded under false pretences.

Do they want the record to read

2019 - England
Or
2019 - England*

There are no false pretenses, the rules were and are the rules, and England won. Bad umpiring decisions are part and parcel of the game of cricket, and many other sports, look at Roy being given out in the S/F. Even though that didn't ultimately matter it could have been crucial.

Blinky Plebum

Inquitus wrote: »

There are no false pretenses, the rules were and are the rules, and England won. Bad umpiring decisions are part and parcel of the game of cricket, and many other sports, look at Roy being given out in the S/F. Even though that didn't ultimately matter it could have been crucial.

This isn't a bad decision though, it's a truly horrific decision.

I don't 100% know the rules of cricket and even I thought it was odd a 6 was awarded but thought the umpires must have got it right.

This seems to have been a very basic part of the rules not a judgement call, you can forgive an official messing up a judgement call in any sport but something as straightforward as this should have been spotted by someone on the officiating team.

It's a double mistake as Stokes should have been off strike as well.

Inquitus

Blinky Plebum wrote: »

This isn't a bad decision though, it's a truly horrific decision.

I don't 100% know the rules of cricket and even I thought it was odd a 6 was awarded but thought the umpires must have got it right.

This seems to have been a very basic part of the rules not a judgement call, you can forgive an official messing up a judgement call in any sport but something as straightforward as this should have been spotted by someone on the officiating team.

It's a double mistake as Stokes should have been off strike as well.

It's an obscure rule, and it doesn't even clearly define if the key moment is the throw, or when it hits the bat.

Larbre34

As I've seen phrased many ways on twitter today, its a game of bat and ball and runs and wickets, that it is awarded on boundaries is just BS.

BarryD2

Darc19 wrote: »

Sure if you go via replays of almost any sports match you can find errors, from off the ball incidents, to fouls to slight handballs.

The guy who has said this has benefit of replays and being able to see everything happening all over the field and from a bird's eye view.

Umpires have to make a decision on the spot based on what they have seen.

That’s true but the officials both on & off the field had access to the same TV pictures. If they had any doubts at all, they should have checked. After all detailed reviews are in regular use for other in game uncertainties at this level. If they had no niggling doubt, then clearly not fully au fait with the rules.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Inquitus wrote: »

There are no false pretenses, the rules were and are the rules, and England won. Bad umpiring decisions are part and parcel of the game of cricket, and many other sports, look at Roy being given out in the S/F. Even though that didn't ultimately matter it could have been crucial.

It’s not even certain that it was a bad decision. The runners had to cross at the time the “throw or act” directed the ball towards the boundary. The act could well have been the hitting of the bat again.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Larbre34 wrote: »

As I've seen phrased many ways on twitter today, its a game of bat and ball and runs and wickets, that it is awarded on boundaries is just BS.

Or - that’s the rules of ODI.

feargale

That idiot Jacob Rees Mugg is at it again: "We clearly don't need Europe to win."

I was strictly neutral but I don't begrudge anyone a celebration of their triumph. What kind of a gob****e seeks to exclude half his country from that on political grounds?

Anti-Brexit lawyer Jo Maugham asked the Tory MP: “Is there any moment too joyful for you to inject poison into it?”

Beasty

Larbre34 wrote: »

As I've seen phrased many ways on twitter today, its a game of bat and ball and runs and wickets, that it is awarded on boundaries is just BS.

As already mentioned, that's the way the rules worked and both teams knew that before the super over started

Of course I would have much preferred it if they had gone back to the match between the teams in the round robin. That way I could say I was there when they won the World Cup :pac:

SharpshooterTom

New Zealand were pretty lucky to get to the final in the first place, had their game not been rained off against India they may have not received that extra point Pakistan would have got there instead.

ThomasFlynn

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

New Zealand were pretty lucky to get to the final in the first place, had their game not been rained off against India they may have not received that extra point Pakistan would have got there instead.

Eh, beating India is no problem. They were the lucky ones!

Royale with Cheese

I see the New Zealand coach has said sharing the trophy should be considered if something like this ever happens again. Whatever about the boundaries rule, sharing the trophy is one thing I definitely wouldn't agree with. Would either country be able to actually say they'd won the world cup if it had been shared? I don't think so.

gimli2112

I don't have any deep rooted dislike for the English but my own view is they'll just have to learn to live with a little aestrix beside their world cup winners tag, like they did in 1966.

Doodah7

gimli2112 wrote: »

I don't have any deep rooted dislike for the English but my own view is they'll just have to learn to live with a little aestrix beside their world cup winners tag, like they did in 1966.

There is no asterisk beside their name!! They won the tournament under the rules of the tournament!! Yes, an umpiring error may have given them an extra run but umpire errors happen all the time even with DRS. Furthermore do the Laws cover that a throw from the field that hits the bat for overthrows is even reviewable?

The whole principle of Umpire's Call where the 'soft' signal governs the review process is also open to debate. You could argue that an erroneous soft signal can change matches either way by giving the benefit of the doubt to the batter. How many times is the soft signal not out but going on to hit the stumps? At least once every other match.

robinph

Going on the count of boundaries is no odder than using the number of cards to split the teams in the group stages of football. And it's not that NZ didn't know that they needed to score one more than England to win before they started their super over, just like England knew that if they could get one more in the regular 50 overs they would have won at that stage, they "chose" not to though.

GDK_11

I’m English, don’t feel like there is any * for us. Hard not to feel sorry for NZ, they definitely didn’t have much luck in this game, and it has to be said they’re incredible sportsman the way they dealt with such a cruel loss (imagine the Aussies, Indians and England) if that had happened to them.

However, we will never know what would have happened. England would have played those last couple of deliveries differently and may have hit a boundary to win it.

All in all it was a brilliant game, a brilliant advert for cricket, hopefully a few more people take it up.

Finally Williamson and Morgan come across as total gents (appreciate Morgan won’t be popular here with some) but compared to some of the stuff going on in the ashes the last few years it’s good to see.

BarryD2

Doodah7 wrote: »

There is no asterisk beside their name!! They won the tournament under the rules of the tournament!! Yes, an umpiring error may have given them an extra run but umpire errors happen all the time even with DRS. Furthermore do the Laws cover that a throw from the field that hits the bat for overthrows is even reviewable?

Agree that it's done & dusted, the decision was made at the time and the trophy was awarded to England.

But it's pretty embarrassing for the ICC, overthrows are common enough and both the on field umpires and any other match officials should have been on top of this and the rules concerning same.

Stokes came back for that second run so he could retain strike, it was pretty desperate. Some say he stopped the run out (accidentally of course, that the ball was hitting the stumps), he kept the strike and Eng got an extra 1 or 5 runs depending on how you look at it.

It was a cock up.

Dr. Bre

The idea of sharing the trophy is laughable

Larbre34

Dr. Bre wrote: »

The idea of sharing the trophy is laughable

I agree, its not a solution for a final, there must be a clear winner within the rules. That said, thats not what happened on Sunday, the match should be replayed back in Lords.

Tombo2001

GDK_11 wrote: »

I’m English, don’t feel like there is any * for us. Hard not to feel sorry for NZ, they definitely didn’t have much luck in this game, and it has to be said they’re incredible sportsman the way they dealt with such a cruel loss (imagine the Aussies, Indians and England) if that had happened to them.

However, we will never know what would have happened. England would have played those last couple of deliveries differently and may have hit a boundary to win it.

All in all it was a brilliant game, a brilliant advert for cricket, hopefully a few more people take it up.

Finally Williamson and Morgan come across as total gents (appreciate Morgan won’t be popular here with some) but compared to some of the stuff going on in the ashes the last few years it’s good to see.

I would really hope this debate about the format or about a refereeing decision doesnt define the win.

The fact is that the cards just fell that way on the day, both teams were playing by the same rules - if New Zealand had hit more boundaries, they would have won. The didnt. How were they to know, England didnt set out thinking lets make sure we hit more boundaries in case its a draw.

New Zealand might also look at the fact that they only scored 3 in their final over, which was something they had much more control over.

Morgan has done this country proud and anyone whingeing about him when our own soccer, rugby, cricket and everything else teams contain players born overseas - it goes beyond hypocrisy; its racism really - as I'm fairly confident the same punters for example would have no problem with him if he'd gone on to captain Scotland or South Africa.

Blinky Plebum

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I would really hope this debate about the format or about a refereeing decision doesnt define the win.

The fact is that the cards just fell that way on the day, both teams were playing by the same rules - if New Zealand had hit more boundaries, they would have won. The didnt. How were they to know, England didnt set out thinking lets make sure we hit more boundaries in case its a draw.

New Zealand might also look at the fact that they only scored 3 in their final over, which was something they had much more control over.

Morgan has done this country proud and anyone whingeing about him when our own soccer, rugby, cricket and everything else teams contain players born overseas - it goes beyond hypocrisy; its racism really - as I'm fairly confident the same punters for example would have no problem with him if he'd gone on to captain Scotland or South Africa.

Morgan has done himself proud, he hasn't done this country proud as he has chosen not to represent this country when he had the option to.

He's had a great career, but he chose to leave the Irish set up and people are perfectly entitled not to warm to him particularlry when he was quite happy to suggest Paul Stirling should follow him and try and represent england aswell.

If Ireland is ever to do anything in cricket the idea of being open to Irish players playing for other countries has to end.How can you get the sport to grow in this country and convince the public that it's a sport this country should be interested in when it's then tolerable for our best players to up sticks when it suits them and we should be happy for them when they do it.

I have found the makeup of the rugby team (for example) over the years is embarassing I dont consider CJ Stander to be Irish in any way and would prefer if he had never played for Ireland.