[PPS]

Originally Posted by msdivy

Being born in NZ, the irony is he helped his adopted country win the WC against his home country.

Hasn't Eoin Morgan played for Ireland before, and that too against England? I find it absurd how the ICC can allow such a thing to happen! Anyways, that discussion for another day perhaps.

Meanwhile, 2023 WC is going to be played in India i believe. The WC is coming home!

[saket77]

Originally Posted by PPS

Hasn't Eoin Morgan played for Ireland before, and that too against England? I find it absurd how the ICC can allow such a thing to happen!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...national_teams

In fact, there are 29 of them! And still I find it much less absurd than yesterday's way of deciding the winner.

This WC will probably go down as the one with worst umpiring (Simon Taufel's assesment of situation is gathering steam in social media) & finally even the one with worst decider technique. The match itself was undoubtedly among the best ever to be played.

[NPV]

Technically, England may not have won the final after all!

According to the cricket laws, the interpretation of the crucial Ben Stokes overthrow was wrong - they should have been awarded 5 runs instead of 6 and Adil Rashid should have faced the next delivery not Stokes. This was confirmed by Simon Taufel.
Link

[hemanth.anand]

Umpiring has been poor recently, be it IPL or the world cup.

Malinga's No ball against RCB
Jason Roy's caught behind decision against Australia
Dhoni's dismissal delivery against NZ-wrong field placing
Stokes dismissal-incorrect interpretation of the law

Umpiring in a cricket match is tough no doubt and it is prone to human errors. But what is sad is even with all the technology at the disposal of the umpires, nobody seems to have the common sense or authority to reverse a bad decision, however glaring it is!!

[am1m]

"At some point, a middle-aged Indian gentleman walks up to where the media is standing and unprompted tells a New Zealand journalist that he really respects Williamson's team. Only because they are true gentlemen, are down-to-earth. He says he and his family travelled from Los Angeles to watch three knockout matches of the World Cup including the final thinking India would feature. Although he was depressed for hours after India's exit in the semi-final, he did not curse New Zealand. "We lost against good people," he says."

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...e-unbelievable

Sums up my feelings!

I've found a new second favorite team to support after this world cup. And a new favorite player after Dravid's retirement. (Kane Williamson.)

[NPV]

Originally Posted by hemanth.anand

Dhoni's dismissal delivery against NZ-wrong field placing

Apparently this was fine, there were only 5 fielders outside the 30 yard circle, it was a gaffe by the broadcasting team. There was an earlier post on this thread that mentions this too, but I do agree that umpiring in general hasn't been good since IPL this year!

[shipnil]

Originally Posted by NPV

Technically, England may not have won the final after all!

It is always difficult with ifs and buts. You can argue that the tail ender might not have scored runs. But who knows, he might have accidentally nicked it, the ball might have raced to the boundary behind keeper.

Another member said, why did they consider only fours. Like DL, they should have considered runs and wickets. If it is like that, then another might ask why we should consider runs and wickets of innings but not only of Super Over, since, that was supposed to be decider. So with each rule edit we might have different team winning.

The point is rules were set before the game. Both teams were supposed to be aware of those. The result was as per these pre-set rules.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by NPV

This was confirmed by Simon Taufel.

The batsmen are taking a single. The fielder tries a direct hit at the stumps. The batsman is well short, but the ball misses the stumps and goes to the boundary. Does Simon Taufel give it 4 runs or 5 runs?

Originally Posted by McLaren Rulez

Not shared, but indeed a second super over or something like that makes more sense.

Yes, a 2nd super over with different sets of batsmen & bowler will make it a fair competition.

Originally Posted by Eddy

I feel whoever topped the league stage should get it in case of super over tie. It is a fair measure of consistency throughout the tournament.

This will work when both teams are from the same group.

[Eddy]

I feel whoever topped the league stage should get it in case of super over tie. It is a fair measure of consistency throughout the tournament.

[hemanth.anand]

Originally Posted by msdivy

Batsmen are taking single. Fielder tries a direct hit at the stumps. The batsman is well short, but the ball misses the stumps and goes to the boundary. Does Simon Taufel give it 4 runs or 5 runs?

In this case, if the batsmen had crossed each other when the ball was thrown(the time when the ball left the fielder's hand), it is 5 runs. Else it is 4 runs. This condition of batsmen crossing each other at the time of the throw is applicable only when the ball reaches the boundary on account of the overthrow. If the ball doesn't reach the boundary on overthrow, only the completed runs before the ball is dead is considered.

Yes, a 2nd super over with different sets of batsmen & bowler will make it a fair competition.

That way, a 2nd re-match could've been played isn't it (there was a reserve anyway)?
Breaking a tie will consider one condition after the other without repeating any condition.
The runs scored in the main match ended in a tie. So super over. The runs scored in the super over also ended in a tie. So, after there was nothing to separate between the teams in batting, the team with better fielding and bowling (conceding less boundaries) will be declared winners.

This will work when both teams are from the same group.

There was only one group in the tournament!

[thoma]

Atleast they could have given it to the team with the least number of wickets lost, either in the 50 overs or in the super over or together. Because, now they are degrading the runs taken against the boundaries scored.

[sgiitk]

Some wag said the World Cup should be placed in the British Museum along with all the other loot! I think the 'bosses' will have to take a long look at the tie resolution mechanism. Simon Taufel not withstanding I feel that NZ have been short changed.

[DigitalOne]

Runs being equal, World cup was won by the team which did better fielding and thus conceded lesser number of boundaries than the opposite team.

[volkman10]

Kane Williamson showed his class both on and off the field throughout the tournament and certainly has become the most nicest guy in today's cricket world.

[A M]

Originally Posted by hemanth.anand

....the team with better fielding and bowling (conceding less boundaries) will be declared winners.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Runs being equal, World cup was won by the team which did better fielding and thus conceded lesser number of boundaries than the opposite team.

But they allowed more singles/doubles and the scores tied. I don't think this is "better" fielding in any way.


I am in favour of someone's suggestion that the team that lost lesser wickets should be declared winner and if even that is a tie, the team conceding lesser extras should win.