Cricket World Cup

[Ornchurch]

You're still missing the point. You are perpetuating a myth by using uncritical analysis and language to excuse genocide.

The proximate cause of the famine was a natural event, a potato blight, which infected potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, precipitating some 100,000 deaths in total in the worst affected areas and among similar tenant farmers of Europe. The food crisis influenced much of the unrest in the more widespread European Revolutions of 1848. 

###The event is sometimes referred to as the Irish Potato Famine, mostly outside Ireland. ###

The impact of the blight was exacerbated by political belief in laissez-faireeconomics


I think he needs to revisit the entire potato blight thing as it was a European disease .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_F ... prov=sfla1


### denotes its called the irish potato famine outside of Ireland. Very few Irish people would call it that.

During the Famine, Ireland produced enough food, flax, and wool to feed and clothe double its nine million people.[28] When Ireland had suffered a famine in 1782–83, its ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but Grattan's Parliament, exercising the short-lived powers within the Constitution of 1782, overrode their protests. There was no such export ban in the 1840s.[29] Some historians[30] have argued, because exports were not stopped, the famine was artificial and a consequence of the British government's failure to retain foodstuffs in the country. [28]

These arguments make me laugh. All the nit picking and point scoring isn't going to change anything. SO f*cking BORING.

[Max B Gold]

I think the super over is a really great idea. Cricket's equivalent of a penalty shoot out! I was at Leon in 1970 when England lost to Germany 3-2. At the end of the game Keith Newton had a brilliant shot saved by the German keeper. It it had gone in the result would have been decided on a toss of a coin.

Because the super over cannot be tied England went into the super over with a one run advantage due to having scored more boundaries. Both sides were aware of this and we had the greatest finish in cricket history and a clear winner.

Exactly this. Not difficult to understand.

Yes,yes but it completely brushes over the England cheating. Surprised NZ have not appealed to the Cricket Authorities and appealed for a rematch. That is the only fair way to deal with this.

[BiggsyMalone]

I think the super over is a really great idea. Cricket's equivalent of a penalty shoot out! I was at Leon in 1970 when England lost to Germany 3-2. At the end of the game Keith Newton had a brilliant shot saved by the German keeper. It it had gone in the result would have been decided on a toss of a coin.

Because the super over cannot be tied England went into the super over with a one run advantage due to having scored more boundaries. Both sides were aware of this and we had the greatest finish in cricket history and a clear winner.

Exactly this. Not difficult to understand.

Yes,yes but it completely brushes over the England cheating. Surprised NZ have not appealed to the Cricket Authorities and appealed for a rematch. That is the only fair way to deal with this.

England didn’t cheat. Everything was in the rules.

Also, it wasn’t a famine, it was genocide.

[Max B Gold]

Exactly this. Not difficult to understand.

Yes,yes but it completely brushes over the England cheating. Surprised NZ have not appealed to the Cricket Authorities and appealed for a rematch. That is the only fair way to deal with this.

England didn’t cheat. Everything was in the rules.

Also, it wasn’t a famine, it was genocide.

Yes,yes but who makes the rules?

Yes it was genocide. See my posts further up the thread to this effect.

[Max B Gold]

The proximate cause of the famine was a natural event, a potato blight, which infected potato crops throughout Europe during the 1840s, precipitating some 100,000 deaths in total in the worst affected areas and among similar tenant farmers of Europe. The food crisis influenced much of the unrest in the more widespread European Revolutions of 1848. 

###The event is sometimes referred to as the Irish Potato Famine, mostly outside Ireland. ###

The impact of the blight was exacerbated by political belief in laissez-faireeconomics


I think he needs to revisit the entire potato blight thing as it was a European disease .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_F ... prov=sfla1


### denotes its called the irish potato famine outside of Ireland. Very few Irish people would call it that.

During the Famine, Ireland produced enough food, flax, and wool to feed and clothe double its nine million people.[28] When Ireland had suffered a famine in 1782–83, its ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but Grattan's Parliament, exercising the short-lived powers within the Constitution of 1782, overrode their protests. There was no such export ban in the 1840s.[29] Some historians[30] have argued, because exports were not stopped, the famine was artificial and a consequence of the British government's failure to retain foodstuffs in the country. [28]

These arguments make me laugh. All the nit picking and point scoring isn't going to change anything. SO f*cking BORING.

Steady on there chief. No need to broadcast your lack of understanding and ignorance to the world.

[Ornchurch]

Steady on there chief. No need to broadcast your lack of understanding and ignorance to the world.

The only lack on my behalf is of the patience to put up with all these pedantic posts.

[BiggsyMalone]

Yes,yes but it completely brushes over the England cheating. Surprised NZ have not appealed to the Cricket Authorities and appealed for a rematch. That is the only fair way to deal with this.

England didn’t cheat. Everything was in the rules.

Also, it wasn’t a famine, it was genocide.

Yes,yes but who makes the rules?

Yes it was genocide. See my posts further up the thread to this effect.

The ICC make them. Every team knew the rules before the tournament. You can’t change them retrospectively to suit an agenda. England didn’t cheat, simple as that.

I know, I’m agreeing with you.

[Max B Gold]

England didn’t cheat. Everything was in the rules.

Also, it wasn’t a famine, it was genocide.

Yes,yes but who makes the rules?

Yes it was genocide. See my posts further up the thread to this effect.

The ICC make them. Every team knew the rules before the tournament. You can’t change them retrospectively to suit an agenda. England didn’t cheat, simple as that.

I know, I’m agreeing with you.

Well that's even worse. If England knew the rules why did they not observe them?

[BiggsyMalone]

Yes,yes but who makes the rules?

Yes it was genocide. See my posts further up the thread to this effect.

The ICC make them. Every team knew the rules before the tournament. You can’t change them retrospectively to suit an agenda. England didn’t cheat, simple as that.

I know, I’m agreeing with you.

Well that's even worse. If England knew the rules why did they not observe them?

They did observe them. The ball hit his bat after the batsmen crossed, he completed his run for 2 and the ball deflected for a boundry. He wasn’t allowed to run back for a 3rd or 4th run because the ball had hit his bat but England could have scored a 4 or a 6 off it. As the ball went to the boundry, it’s a 4 + the 2 that were completed before it went out. By all accounts, Stokes asked the umpire to chalk the 4 off but as that wasn’t in the rules, he couldn’t.

Your gripe is with the ICC and the umpires. I take it you were happy with the same umpire giving Roy out in the semis when the ball clearly went past his glove without touching it.

[Max B Gold]

The ICC make them. Every team knew the rules before the tournament. You can’t change them retrospectively to suit an agenda. England didn’t cheat, simple as that.

I know, I’m agreeing with you.

Well that's even worse. If England knew the rules why did they not observe them?

They did observe them. The ball hit his bat after the batsmen crossed, he completed his run for 2 and the ball deflected for a boundry. He wasn’t allowed to run back for a 3rd or 4th run because the ball had hit his bat but England could have scored a 4 or a 6 off it. As the ball went to the boundry, it’s a 4 + the 2 that were completed before it went out. By all accounts, Stokes asked the umpire to chalk the 4 off but as that wasn’t in the rules, he couldn’t.

Your gripe is with the ICC and the umpires. I take it you were happy with the same umpire giving Roy out in the semis when the ball clearly went past his glove without touching it.

Stokes is just covering up the cheating. Why ask the umpire to not count the four when he knew this couldn't happen under the rules. Rules which was fully conversant with, it was just clever subterfuge to camouflage the cheating.

[banqo]

Christ, let it go. We won, that's the end of it. One day maybe Scotland will win something.

[tuffers#1]

I think the super over is a really great idea. Cricket's equivalent of a penalty shoot out! I was at Leon in 1970 when England lost to Germany 3-2. At the end of the game Keith Newton had a brilliant shot saved by the German keeper. It it had gone in the result would have been decided on a toss of a coin.

Because the super over cannot be tied England went into the super over with a one run advantage due to having scored more boundaries. Both sides were aware of this and we had the greatest finish in cricket history and a clear winner.

Exactly this. Not difficult to understand.

If England were 1 run ahead at the end of the game
because more boundaries were scored , then why have a Super Over ?

Its simple enough .
Just Leave it there .

No need to draw a game
Then draw the super over to then claim victory.

[Howling Mad Murdock]

Christ, let it go. We won, that's the end of it. One day maybe Scotland will win something.

They have.The haggis hurling cup.

[tuffers#1]

The ICC make them. Every team knew the rules before the tournament. You can’t change them retrospectively to suit an agenda. England didn’t cheat, simple as that.

I know, I’m agreeing with you.

Well that's even worse. If England knew the rules why did they not observe them?

They did observe them. The ball hit his bat after the batsmen crossed, he completed his run for 2 and the ball deflected for a boundry. He wasn’t allowed to run back for a 3rd or 4th run because the ball had hit his bat but England could have scored a 4 or a 6 off it.

Actually a good answer other than it is wrong.

The run does not count as the throw was started before the runners had crossed.
Therfore only 1 run scored plus 4 for the boundary.

You are confusing crossing batsmen with regard to run outs. Way back when batsmen going for 2 runs & 1 getting run out meant you got 0 runs . But they changed the rule as a run had been completed & only the 2nd run should be penalised.

Anyway congratulations on England gettin the world cup on a technicality.

Id much prefer it if you had won outright & i had no need to make tedious points.

[BiggsyMalone]

Well that's even worse. If England knew the rules why did they not observe them?

They did observe them. The ball hit his bat after the batsmen crossed, he completed his run for 2 and the ball deflected for a boundry. He wasn’t allowed to run back for a 3rd or 4th run because the ball had hit his bat but England could have scored a 4 or a 6 off it.

Actually a good answer other than it is wrong.

The run does not count as the throw was started before the runners had crossed.
Therfore only 1 run scored plus 4 for the boundary.

You are confusing crossing batsmen with regard to run outs. Way back when batsmen going for 2 runs & 1 getting run out meant you got 0 runs . But they changed the rule as a run had been completed & only the 2nd run should be penalised.

Anyway congratulations on England gettin the world cup on a technicality.

Id much prefer it if you had won outright & i had no need to make tedious points.

Except, it isn’t wrong.

All of that makes no difference. The point here is England didn’t cheat. The umpires didn’t see that the batsmen didn’t cross when the ball was thrown (I’ll take your word for it it as I haven’t seen the replay). This was the same umpire that gave Roy out in the semi when he clearly wasn’t, sh*t happens.

There is no set guideline as to when a ‘throw’ happens.

Boult’s last ball was a full toss at leg, Stokes would have taken a risk on smashing it out of the ground if he didn’t just need a 2 anyway.

England won. Get over it, you boring tit.

[tuffers#1]

They did observe them. The ball hit his bat after the batsmen crossed, he completed his run for 2 and the ball deflected for a boundry. He wasn’t allowed to run back for a 3rd or 4th run because the ball had hit his bat but England could have scored a 4 or a 6 off it.

Actually a good answer other than it is wrong.

The run does not count as the throw was started before the runners had crossed.
Therfore only 1 run scored plus 4 for the boundary.

You are confusing crossing batsmen with regard to run outs. Way back when batsmen going for 2 runs & 1 getting run out meant you got 0 runs . But they changed the rule as a run had been completed & only the 2nd run should be penalised.

Anyway congratulations on England gettin the world cup on a technicality.

Id much prefer it if you had won outright & i had no need to make tedious points.

Except, it isn’t wrong.

All of that makes no difference. The point here is England didn’t cheat. The umpires didn’t see that the batsmen didn’t cross when the ball was thrown (I’ll take your word for it it as I haven’t seen the replay). This was the same umpire that gave Roy out in the semi when he clearly wasn’t, sh*t happens.

There is no set guideline as to when a ‘throw’ happens.

Boult’s last ball was a full toss at leg, Stokes would have taken a risk on smashing it out of the ground if he didn’t just need a 2 anyway.

England won. Get over it, you boring tit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48991962

"England were given six runs but Stokes and Adil Rashid had not crossed when the throw was released, so the law appears to say that was one too many".

See shows you were wrong on that point , so why should i trust your judgement on winning a world cup
When clearly you drew the match

Rules is rules .

If a rule says " runners had not crossed before the throw "
You must follow that rule

England score 240 but are given 241 .

Bit like claiming Britain won world war 2 forgetting that Russia & America actually did .
I may be a bore , but at least i am correct , unlike you

[BiggsyMalone]

“Appears to say” there is no rule as to when the throw is deemed a throw. That’s why they says “appears”. It’s interpretation.

The fact you can count on 1 hand the amount of people claiming they shouldn’t have got 2 runs says it all. Even the Kiwis accept it.

[Max B Gold]

Actually a good answer other than it is wrong.

The run does not count as the throw was started before the runners had crossed.
Therfore only 1 run scored plus 4 for the boundary.

You are confusing crossing batsmen with regard to run outs. Way back when batsmen going for 2 runs & 1 getting run out meant you got 0 runs . But they changed the rule as a run had been completed & only the 2nd run should be penalised.

Anyway congratulations on England gettin the world cup on a technicality.

Id much prefer it if you had won outright & i had no need to make tedious points.

Except, it isn’t wrong.

All of that makes no difference. The point here is England didn’t cheat. The umpires didn’t see that the batsmen didn’t cross when the ball was thrown (I’ll take your word for it it as I haven’t seen the replay). This was the same umpire that gave Roy out in the semi when he clearly wasn’t, sh*t happens.

There is no set guideline as to when a ‘throw’ happens.

Boult’s last ball was a full toss at leg, Stokes would have taken a risk on smashing it out of the ground if he didn’t just need a 2 anyway.

England won. Get over it, you boring tit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48991962

"England were given six runs but Stokes and Adil Rashid had not crossed when the throw was released, so the law appears to say that was one too many".

See shows you were wrong on that point , so why should i trust your judgement on winning a world cup
When clearly you drew the match

Rules is rules .

If a rule says " runners had not crossed before the throw "
You must follow that rule

England score 240 but are given 241 .

Bit like claiming Britain won world war 2 forgetting that Russia & America actually did .
I may be a bore , but at least i am correct , unlike you

I'm impressed by your tenaciousnessi on this one and they way you have stuck with it to highlight incorrect application of the rules and basic cheating. The trophy should be retrieved from the England Captains mantelpiece and given to NZ as the true winners.

The umpires who failed to count the runs correctly were obviously in on it and should be investigated, found guilty and jailed.

[Max B Gold]

“Appears to say” there is no rule as to when the throw is deemed a throw. That’s why they says “appears”. It’s interpretation.

The fact you can count on 1 hand the amount of people claiming they shouldn’t have got 2 runs says it all. Even the Kiwis accept it.

I believe NZ are saying nothing because they have been struck dumb with the size of the conspiracy and the scale of the cheating they have clearly come up against. They are a simple people with faith in God, The Queen and the spirit of fair play. They are devastated.

[tuffers#1]

Except, it isn’t wrong.

All of that makes no difference. The point here is England didn’t cheat. The umpires didn’t see that the batsmen didn’t cross when the ball was thrown (I’ll take your word for it it as I haven’t seen the replay). This was the same umpire that gave Roy out in the semi when he clearly wasn’t, sh*t happens.

There is no set guideline as to when a ‘throw’ happens.

Boult’s last ball was a full toss at leg, Stokes would have taken a risk on smashing it out of the ground if he didn’t just need a 2 anyway.

England won. Get over it, you boring tit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48991962

"England were given six runs but Stokes and Adil Rashid had not crossed when the throw was released, so the law appears to say that was one too many".

See shows you were wrong on that point , so why should i trust your judgement on winning a world cup
When clearly you drew the match

Rules is rules .

If a rule says " runners had not crossed before the throw "
You must follow that rule

England score 240 but are given 241 .

Bit like claiming Britain won world war 2 forgetting that Russia & America actually did .
I may be a bore , but at least i am correct , unlike you

I'm impressed by your tenaciousnessi on this one and they way you have stuck with it to highlight incorrect application of the rules and basic cheating. The trophy should be retrieved from the England Captains mantelpiece and given to NZ as the true winners.

The umpires who failed to count the runs correctly were obviously in on it and should be investigated, found guilty and jailed.

No just give them English citizenship
Bacon & Egg ties & winners medals
They can be as deluded as there
Commrades in flag of st georginess for ever.

[Lucky7]

kind of pointless if some of them already have dual citizenship

[BiggsyMalone]

“Appears to say” there is no rule as to when the throw is deemed a throw. That’s why they says “appears”. It’s interpretation.

The fact you can count on 1 hand the amount of people claiming they shouldn’t have got 2 runs says it all. Even the Kiwis accept it.

I believe NZ are saying nothing because they have been struck dumb with the size of the conspiracy and the scale of the cheating they have clearly come up against. They are a simple people with faith in God, The Queen and the spirit of fair play. They are devastated.

You’re clearly on a wind up. Anyway, up the Ra

[tuffers#1]

“Appears to say” there is no rule as to when the throw is deemed a throw. That’s why they says “appears”. It’s interpretation.

The fact you can count on 1 hand the amount of people claiming they shouldn’t have got 2 runs says it all. Even the Kiwis accept it.

I believe NZ are saying nothing because they have been struck dumb with the size of the conspiracy and the scale of the cheating they have clearly come up against. They are a simple people with faith in God, The Queen and the spirit of fair play. They are devastated.

You’re clearly on a wind up. Anyway, up the Ra

Dont think there is any wind up .
Certainly not from me or Max
Just trying to ask why a super over is played when more boundaries declare someone the winner.
Funny isnt it how the object of the game is to
score more RUNS than your opponent , but the RUNNING bit seems actually not to matter as its all about boundaries whether they bounce or not, surely to.have the most RUNS is a misnomer , as New Zeland actually RAN for more RUNS than england did as england won because of more boundaries .

F*cking pointless public school & boardroom game for toffs . Fat lazy B*stards they must have been at the M.C.C even there ties are about food !!

[Winchesterfan]

Actually a good answer other than it is wrong.

The run does not count as the throw was started before the runners had crossed.
Therfore only 1 run scored plus 4 for the boundary.

You are confusing crossing batsmen with regard to run outs. Way back when batsmen going for 2 runs & 1 getting run out meant you got 0 runs . But they changed the rule as a run had been completed & only the 2nd run should be penalised.

Anyway congratulations on England gettin the world cup on a technicality.

Id much prefer it if you had won outright & i had no need to make tedious points.

Except, it isn’t wrong.

All of that makes no difference. The point here is England didn’t cheat. The umpires didn’t see that the batsmen didn’t cross when the ball was thrown (I’ll take your word for it it as I haven’t seen the replay). This was the same umpire that gave Roy out in the semi when he clearly wasn’t, sh*t happens.

There is no set guideline as to when a ‘throw’ happens.

Boult’s last ball was a full toss at leg, Stokes would have taken a risk on smashing it out of the ground if he didn’t just need a 2 anyway.

England won. Get over it, you boring tit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48991962

"England were given six runs but Stokes and Adil Rashid had not crossed when the throw was released, so the law appears to say that was one too many".

See shows you were wrong on that point , so why should i trust your judgement on winning a world cup
When clearly you drew the match

Rules is rules .

If a rule says " runners had not crossed before the throw "
You must follow that rule

England score 240 but are given 241 .

Bit like claiming Britain won world war 2 forgetting that Russia & America actually did .
I may be a bore , but at least i am correct , unlike you

Oh my God! So you are now re writing history. Great Britain, together with the USA eventually won WW2 to protect the free world. At the start of the war GB was on its own, no USA . I suggest you read the facts about both Russian and USA’s real involvement before claiming you are correct.

[tuffers#1]

Oh my God! So you are now re writing history. Great Britain, together with the USA eventually won WW2 to protect the free world. At the start of the war GB was on its own, no USA . I suggest you read the facts about both Russian and USA’s real involvement before claiming you are correct.

I think you are Re writing History !
No mention of Polish Danish Finnish Swedish or Norwegian Soldiers, No mention of the French resistance, or the Jewish malitia ( cant think of a better description , is there an official term for jewish participants during the war fighting the nazi's ?)

Here is a map of 1940s allied axis .

Might shock you to see how blue & red the world map is for the goodies ( allies) against the black ( baddies ) Nazi germny.
P.S why is it so hard for you to accept that Russia was the biggest fight the Germans had between 1939 -1945

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin ... prov=sfla1