Cricket World Cup

[Stowaway]

Just a couple of points.

Max is talking poo poo and knows it, it’s a bit tedious but it’s what he does, so we can safely ignore it. I bet he actually enjoyed the game as much as anyone.

The added run nonsense. There has been some shocking ignorance of the Laws of the game on display here and elsewhere. Let’s clear this up once and for all. The Law is slightly ambiguous and mentions “the act”. The retired Aussie umpire wrongly took the act to mean when the ball was released by the fielder. Now, unless you have the umpire watching exactly when the fielder threw the ball AND watching the running batsmen AND can then make a judgement on which occurred first, you can’t realistically make that call.
And it’s irrelevant anyway, because the correct interpretation of the act is when the ball is inadvertently diverted by the batting player(s). The batsmen had clearly crossed and were completing their second run when the ball struck Stokes and went for four. It was clearly not deliberate - if it had been, he could have been given out for playing the ball a second time. As it was deemed accidental, the ball was not dead until it crossed the boundary. Thus the correct ruling is that the batsmen had clearly completed two runs, and the ball had gone to the boundary for four extras, as an overthrow. Therefore, six runs were correctly awarded. End of argument.

As for the most boundaries scored if the scores are tied, it’s in the rules. It’s been in the rules since the Super Over (a terrible name, btw) was introduced for T20 cricket. Why is anyone making a fuss about it?

Personally I don’t think it’s the best way, but then I don’t like penalty shoot-outs in football either. But it’s the rules, so deal with it. FWIW, I thinks it’s a poor way to win such a title, and an even worse way to lose one.

[tuffers#1]

Just a couple of points.

Max is talking poo poo and knows it, it’s a bit tedious but it’s what he does, so we can safely ignore it. I bet he actually enjoyed the game as much as anyone.

The added run nonsense. There has been some shocking ignorance of the Laws of the game on display here and elsewhere. Let’s clear this up once and for all. The Law is slightly ambiguous and mentions “the act”. The retired Aussie umpire wrongly took the act to mean when the ball was released by the fielder. Now, unless you have the umpire watching exactly when the fielder threw the ball AND watching the running batsmen AND can then make a judgement on which occurred first, you can’t realistically make that call.
And it’s irrelevant anyway, because the correct interpretation of the act is when the ball is inadvertently diverted by the batting player(s). The batsmen had clearly crossed and were completing their second run when the ball struck Stokes and went for four. It was clearly not deliberate - if it had been, he could have been given out for playing the ball a second time. As it was deemed accidental, the ball was not dead until it crossed the boundary. Thus the correct ruling is that the batsmen had clearly completed two runs, and the ball had gone to the boundary for four extras, as an overthrow. Therefore, six runs were correctly awarded. End of argument.

As for the most boundaries scored if the scores are tied, it’s in the rules. It’s been in the rules since the Super Over (a terrible name, btw) was introduced for T20 cricket. Why is anyone making a fuss about it?

Personally I don’t think it’s the best way, but then I don’t like penalty shoot-outs in football either. But it’s the rules, so deal with it. FWIW, I thinks it’s a poor way to win such a title, and an even worse way to lose one.

The only thing about your comment about umpires watching the exact moment etc is the fact it has a rather hefty flaw.

The rules of cricket have now moved on from 2 umpires.
The rules of cricket were out of date & hence the need for technology
To be used to assist on-field umpires
For Example , LBW assistance , run out assistance , part of the body touching the rope while a player has hands on the ball , a player catching a ball & being out of bounds etc etc etc .

If an Extra run was given , due to some obscure mishap on the field ie a throw hitting a player & going for runs it is well within the powers of the game to use said technology to correct mistakes.

I dont think anyone is quibbling about the boundaries scenario before a super over. in fact the quibble
Is only over the fact that a super over is not neccesary as England won the World cup by drawing & hitting the ball to the rope more often than there opponents !

[Winchesterfan]

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

What utter twaddle you spout. You state that the USA and Russia won the war in 1945, what has a 1940 map got to do with the ‘result’ in 1945. Also if you believe everything you read in Wikipedia then no wonder you are confused. Try reading history books , or visit the Imperial War Museum and ask experts there questions rather than rely on an online ‘encyclopaedia ‘ that often gets things totally wrong as ANYONE can add change amend its content.
Finally what has WW2 got to do with cricket? Might just as well say Jeremy Corbyn,when he becomes Prime Minister, will unite the world by supporting Palestine, declare a trade war with all countries outside of the EU and state. that cricket is an elitist sport so is to be banned. Get real!
Up the O’s

[Ornchurch]

There are some people making complete merchant bankers of themselves on this post.

[Max B Gold]

There are some people making complete merchant bankers of themselves on this post.

Hehe. Can't believe how many of the Little Englanders took the bait. They will literally say anything to cover up their teams cheating.

[tuffers#1]

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

What utter twaddle you spout. You state that the USA and Russia won the war in 1945, what has a 1940 map got to do with the ‘result’ in 1945. Also if you believe everything you read in Wikipedia then no wonder you are confused. Try reading history books , or visit the Imperial War Museum and ask experts there questions rather than rely on an online ‘encyclopaedia ‘ that often gets things totally wrong as ANYONE can add change amend its content.
Finally what has WW2 got to do with cricket? Might just as well say Jeremy Corbyn,when he becomes Prime Minister, will unite the world by supporting Palestine, declare a trade war with all countries outside of the EU and state. that cricket is an elitist sport so is to be banned. Get real!
Up the O’s

I have indeed read histoey books .
I only linked a map of 1940s allied axis to rebutt a point that only britain were at war with the german -japanese conflict.

If you only read Books wrutten from an Englush point of view of course you will think britain won the war.

If you read books based on History from a world point of view , you will find britain is mentioned , but much less so than the russian & american are in the fight to finally curtail the war.


My original statement was
"Its like claiming "

A SIMILE ( please look up definition ) , so please refrain from quoting i stated this or that as actual fact.

Or do i need to school you on the English language as well as the 2nd world war & the rules & rights & wrongs of cricket & sporting victory ?

[Ornchurch]

There are some people making complete merchant bankers of themselves on this post.

Hehe. Can't believe how many of the Little Englanders took the bait. They will literally say anything to cover up their teams cheating.

And here's another example.

Took the bait

[Max B Gold]

There are some people making complete merchant bankers of themselves on this post.

Hehe. Can't believe how many of the Little Englanders took the bait. They will literally say anything to cover up their teams cheating.

And here's another example.

Took the bait

Ha! It was a double bluff geezer. The joke's on you.

[banqo]

F*** me, is this thread still going!!

[tuffers#1]

There are some people making complete merchant bankers of themselves on this post.

Hehe. Can't believe how many of the Little Englanders took the bait. They will literally say anything to cover up their teams cheating.

Gullibility is such a wonderful thing.

[Max B Gold]

F*** me, is this thread still going!!

Best thread of the last three weeks. FACT.

[Constanza]

It's gone to a SuperThread.
First time since Jack Payne nearly signed.

[banqo]

Jack 'pointer' Payne! Now that was a thread.

[Howling Mad Murdock]

There are some people making complete merchant bankers of themselves on this post.

Hehe. Can't believe how many of the Little Englanders took the bait. They will literally say anything to cover up their teams cheating.

Hi hunny I'm home.

[Ornchurch]

Hehe. Can't believe how many of the Little Englanders took the bait. They will literally say anything to cover up their teams cheating.

And here's another example.

Took the bait

Ha! It was a double bluff geezer. The joke's on you.

Really?

[Red_Army]

The principle of a super over makes perfect sense. Most other sports have extra time or overtime, why not cricket?

What should have happened was that if a super over is tied, you play a second super over and keep going until a winner is found, with different bowlers each time, and new batsmen if they lose their wicket.

[tuffers#1]

The principle of a super over makes perfect sense. Most other sports have extra time or overtime, why not cricket?

What should have happened was that if a super over is tied, you play a second super over and keep going until a winner is found, with different bowlers each time, and new batsmen if they lose their wicket.

Better still add to the hype delete a ball every over if there is not a winner untill each team has 1 ball to face.

Or if 1 team has scored more boundaries than the other in a tied match.
Dont worry about a super overet the most boundaries win

At least 1 draw is better than 2
3 draws with super overs & you are in the realms of a welsh dresser !!