Cricket World Cup

Are you watching on a livestream?

I dunno, mate. I’m not clever with internet shit. I’m just watching from the best sports streaming site.

Root :cold_sweat: Damn

Just saw Root go. Am I up to date?

Yes . 59-2 . 16.3 overs

I would say the momentum is with NZ now . England snatching defeat from the jaws of victory , again :yum: Entertaining cricket though . I quite like the white ball version :smirk:

He he . What can you say ? Super Over . Pretty good for cricket in general . One hell of a result . Is the @the_bear nervous yet ? :crazy_face:

As I said. 0.00% chance.

Seriously, really bad luck NZ. Fantastic performance.

1 Like

I doubt that we will ever have such a close match for a very long time . NZ probably deserved that , sorry Mr. Bear . I think matches like that are so good for cricket.

I couldn’t watch it on account of being in France at the moment. Anyway, I was grumbling away at my bad timing when a millennial relative of mine suggested setting up a ‘hot spot’ on her phone. I assumed she was banging on about a safe space and ignored her.

Anyway, before I could knock up a stiff g & t she’d 'hot spot’ed the Wimbledon men’s final onto her phone, somehow connected this to my lap top, and that had then somehow connected to the TV in the house we’re renting. OK, I didn’t get to see the cricket but I did watch one of the most thrilling Wimbledon finals ever.

Millennials rock!

England , Champions of the World . Just saying. :wink:


Turns out the Kiwis won that. The overthrow call was wrong. Should be 1+4, not 2+4 since the second run wasn’t completed when the incident occurred. Umpire didn’t know the rule.

Well done Kiwis, world champions.

Hmm , the rule sure is complicated . Personally , that match was a draw in many ways . 1966 Geoff Hurst . Someone has to make the call at the time …mistakes are made and they can be crucial , but it works both ways . I commiserate because today it feelsbadman. The drama of that match will be remembered for a long time and cricket has been shown to be one hell of a game … sometimes :smirk:

It used to be the side with the greater number of intact wickets at 50 overs won. Which is actually fairer than boundaries scored. Boundaries scored is meaningless.

I’m sure that the rules may be re-visited because of this match . I have no feeling that England deserved to win , nor do I believe going through details will help New Zealand . I have respect for them giving their all and creating a memorable game . As unjust as things are , dissecting rules after the fact just is not … errrrr… cricket :cricket_bat_and_ball:. I suspect everyone is very proud of the NZ team win or lose .

I shall never mention this match again
Stranger things happen

This was the most extraordinary game of cricket ever, and as a final, even more so. Feel bad for the kiwis.

Me too. They did not deserve to lose. Rather a lot of discussion about the rules ; impossible to re-visit the exact scenario .

The intention of the MCC when stating “at the instant of the throw” is to describe the moment that the ball leaves the hand of the throwing fielder. The legislators would otherwise have used the phrase “at the instant of the OVERthrow”, but no such distinction appears in the rule book. The next argument by the appellant must also succeed. What “act” are we talking about when the law says “…at the instant of the throw or act”? I submit that it is THE act and not any act. The phrase is “the throw or act” and not “the throw or another act”. If it is indeed THE act then it can mean nothing other than “the wilful act of a fielder”, as cited in the earlier paragraph, and not the act of accidentally striking the person or equipment of the batsman. If, therefore, there has been no wilful act by a fielder then we are left with one conclusion in law, i.e. that the boundary has resulted from overthrows and the batsmen had not crossed at the instant of the throw. However, there is no precedent here as the facts that face us have never happened before. The legislators could never have foreseen the circumstances that unfolded on that fateful day at the Lords cricket ground and I believe rule 19 is wrongly applied here. Indeed, judicial discretion must be permitted. Guidance can be obtained from the Preamble to the laws, which states the umpire is always right. So why the bloody hell are we arguing! Res ipsa loquitur.