SA Footy

daysofourlives wrote:19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder

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.

Now they hadn’t crossed at the instant of the throw by my reckoning

[/quote]

I maybe wrong but I think this law refers to a case where say you've got me chasing the ball to the longest boundary and it pulls up just inside the rope but I kick it over because the batsman are going to run 5. They get the 5 they have already run plus the 4 for the boundary[/quote]

That would seem to be the logical intent of the rule, but why then mention overthrows when it seems like since year dot the score has been the intitial plus whatever extra. Someone is not deliberately going to throw the ball past the stumps to the boundary if the batsmen have only ran two.

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

FlyingHigh wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

Jim05 wrote:I’m still at a bit of a loss as to why England were awarded 6 for that overthrow. Shouldn’t it have been 5 only?

They had completed two runs when the ball got to the boundary, so 2 + 4 = 6.
If England had the opportunity to not take the 4 over throws, I wonder if they would have done it?
The rules say England get 4 runs, but they could have orchestrated a way. Stokes could have carried on like a dick until the umpires awarded 5 penalty runs and then in return New Zealand could have bowled a wide next ball.

Can you explain this one? You've lost me!!

Haha, it was a tongue in cheek way that England could have given the 4 runs they got from the overthrow back. The laws say the 4 runs stand, but the two sides could have contrived events to give the 4 runs back. I recall Pat Rafter deliberately serving a double fault after his opponent got a bad call, so it was along those lines.

Ah very good. Would have been extraordinary sportsmanship

FlyingHigh wrote:https://www.nzherald.co.nz/cricket/news/article.cfm?c_id=29&objectid=12249636

You may be right Jim

As much as I'd love to bag Stokes and find a way to think the Kiwi's got ripped off, I can't find it, the correct result was given, Stokes obviously felt like shit, at least he had the decency to put his hand up and announce "I'm not running", it was all out of his control though.

And all bullshit aside, Gutpill should've thrown to the non-strikers end, it is shorter and less chance of the batsman crossing the path of the ball.

Lightning McQueen wrote:And all bullshit aside, Gutpill should've thrown to the non-strikers end, it is shorter and less chance of the batsman crossing the path of the ball.

Na, no chance of that happening. They needed to get Stokes, he was the striker and had less of a lead up than the non striker. No brainer in my eyes; throw to his end.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

FlyingHigh wrote:https://www.nzherald.co.nz/cricket/news/article.cfm?c_id=29&objectid=12249636

You may be right Jim

As much as I'd love to bag Stokes and find a way to think the Kiwi's got ripped off, I can't find it, the correct result was given, Stokes obviously felt like shit, at least he had the decency to put his hand up and announce "I'm not running", it was all out of his control though.

Definitely. It was the circumstance and luck of sport in that instance.

The superover rules are still fkd!!

gadj1976 wrote:Na, no chance of that happening. They needed to get Stokes, he was the striker and had less of a lead up than the non striker. No brainer in my eyes; throw to his end.

One wicket down places enormous pressure on him.

I'm now with Jim05 on the overthrows. Law 19.8 covers it, so it depends where the two batsmen were when Guptill released the ball. Umpires were very certain it was 6, but they could have made sure of it by reviewing. I've seen reviews used to determine if batsmen have crossed, so no reason they couldn't have used it to work out if was 5 or 6. Also, if it's 5 Stokes is off strike, so a massive call.

When EG were 4/152 [37.3] the commentator had this to say
" Our producer has a sense of humour , he just reminded us to remind everybody out there that there will be a super over should this game end in a tie."
How prophetic that statement end up

Super Over
EG.... 3-1-4-1-2-4 [15]
NZ ...WIDE-2-6-2-2-1-1 [15]

Both sides finish on 0/15
This is the rule if there is a super over tie
* If the super over is tied, the team hitting more boundaries in their innings and the super over win.*

So
Is it the team scoring most boundaries in their 50 overs + the super over wins ?
OR
Just the side that scores more boundaries in the super over wins

Either way, its a bit unfair to NZ
Perhaps in years to come NZ will be awarded a retrospective World Cup

A solution would be
Play another super over

solution would be to fix the rules before you have a case where people complain about the rules

mal wrote:When EG were 4/152 [37.3] the commentator had this to say
" Our producer has a sense of humour , he just reminded us to remind everybody out there that there will be a super over should this game end in a tie."
How prophetic that statement end up

Super Over
EG.... 3-1-4-1-2-4 [15]
NZ ...WIDE-2-6-2-2-1-1 [15]

Both sides finish on 0/15
This is the rule if there is a super over tie
* If the super over is tied, the team hitting more boundaries in their innings and the super over win.*

So
Is it the team scoring most boundaries in their 50 overs + the super over wins ?
OR
Just the side that scores more boundaries in the super over wins

Either way, its a bit unfair to NZ
Perhaps in years to come NZ will be awarded a retrospective World Cup

A solution would be
Play another super over

In T20, don't they have like a penalty shoot out with having to hit the wickets bowling if the super over is also tied?

mal wrote:When EG were 4/152 [37.3] the commentator had this to say
" Our producer has a sense of humour , he just reminded us to remind everybody out there that there will be a super over should this game end in a tie."
How prophetic that statement end up

Super Over
EG.... 3-1-4-1-2-4 [15]
NZ ...WIDE-2-6-2-2-1-1 [15]

Both sides finish on 0/15
This is the rule if there is a super over tie
* If the super over is tied, the team hitting more boundaries in their innings and the super over win.*

So
Is it the team scoring most boundaries in their 50 overs + the super over wins ?
OR
Just the side that scores more boundaries in the super over wins

Either way, its a bit unfair to NZ
Perhaps in years to come NZ will be awarded a retrospective World Cup

A solution would be
Play another super over

That part was clear. It was the total boundaries in the match = 50 overs plus the super over. I agree with what someone said earlier. The super over is designed for T20. It's not suitable for World Cup one dayers. If you are going to a super over then keep having them until you get a result.

Did they use new balls for the super over, or continue with the balls used in the 50 overs ?

Really enjoyed the World Cup, and I hardly ever watch 50-over stuff these days. Great to see the bowlers get a bit to work with. Wish they'd hold it in England every 4 years

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:I'm now with Jim05 on the overthrows. Law 19.8 covers it, so it depends where the two batsmen were when Guptill released the ball. Umpires were very certain it was 6, but they could have made sure of it by reviewing. I've seen reviews used to determine if batsmen have crossed, so no reason they couldn't have used it to work out if was 5 or 6. Also, if it's 5 Stokes is off strike, so a massive call.

One wonders if the umpires even knew that law

Overthrow - under the laws its 5, but has always been applied as 6. This is a case of the evolution of the game getting ahead of the bylaws. 100 years ago batsmen wouldn't take on the fielder like they do these days. I expect this rule to be updated slightly to take the modern cricket into account, just like they did with grounding your bat and running past the stumps. (TV slow mo shows both feet off the ground in a normal running position, but now you can't be given run out anymore after they updated the law).

Superover - great spectacle, nothing wrong with using it to finish the game. The boundaries hit 2ndary tie-breaker is a bit annoying. I'd prefer wickets lost to be used if they want a tie-breaker. Ultimately I'd like to see a tie after the superover to simply be a tie. The rules for CWC19 were if both days of the final were washed out, the cup would be shared, so why not share it after a double-tie.

Umpires - I thought they were fairly poor. 4 decisions overturned from memory, and would have been another had NZ still had a review available for Ross Taylor.

Santner - massively under-bowled in the final. Not sure why. Perhaps it was punishment for ducking the last ball and not even trying to run a bye. You can look back on a game like this and think what if this and that, but for mine, this (not trying to score on the last ball) was the moment that should be questioned the most.

Trader wrote:Overthrow - under the laws its 5, but has always been applied as 6. This is a case of the evolution of the game getting ahead of the bylaws. 100 years ago batsmen wouldn't take on the fielder like they do these days. I expect this rule to be updated slightly to take the modern cricket into account, just like they did with grounding your bat and running past the stumps. (TV slow mo shows both feet off the ground in a normal running position, but now you can't be given run out anymore after they updated the law).

Superover - great spectacle, nothing wrong with using it to finish the game. The boundaries hit 2ndary tie-breaker is a bit annoying. I'd prefer wickets lost to be used if they want a tie-breaker. Ultimately I'd like to see a tie after the superover to simply be a tie. The rules for CWC19 were if both days of the final were washed out, the cup would be shared, so why not share it after a double-tie.

Umpires - I thought they were fairly poor. 4 decisions overturned from memory, and would have been another had NZ still had a review available for Ross Taylor.

Santner - massively under-bowled in the final. Not sure why. Perhaps it was punishment for ducking the last ball and not even trying to run a bye. You can look back on a game like this and think what if this and that, but for mine, this (not trying to score on the last ball) was the moment that should be questioned the most.

Fair assessment.

I had a team mate that let the last ball of our innings go through to the keeper.
We still give him grief about it 10 years later.
To be fair, he opened the batting, it was bullshit hot and he reckons he had heat stroke.
We all think he just wanted to red ink it!
Wouldn't have been funny if we lost by a run though.

mal wrote:Did they use new balls for the super over, or continue with the balls used in the 50 overs ?

It looked like each bowler chose a ball from their 2nd hand box

MW wrote:solution would be to fix the rules before you have a case where people complain about the rules

The problem there is that the powers that be don't really expect it to happen, and don't think it through as a result. I say, leave that sort of shit (most boundaries tie-breaker) for T20 tournaments, where that is what people come for (to see a 6 and a 4 every third ball).