World Cup Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.


jackpunch said:
It's clear that my post above is drivel. So I take back what I said about Taufel... he's a whinging Dribble Aussie Thundercunt

Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", says: "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."Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", says: "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."

The version of the law that I'd read on newspaper site somewhere didn't mention the wilful act of the fielder. Hence I was assuming that the act was simply anything that took place after the throw. It's clearly not.

Any who gives a fuck. We won
Click to expand...
That's surely the important bit and means that it was right to give 6?
 
AB22 Easy Tiger said:
I thought it was appropriate to move it at that time because the final post came from the O/P and rounded it off nicely. I expected another thread in the cricket forum today.
Click to expand...
Good decision. As can be seen the arguments over paragraph and sub sections is off and running :lol:
 
My Boy Harry said:
That's surely the important bit and means that it was right to give 6?
Click to expand...
No, if the batsmen hadn't crossed when the fielder threw it that run shouldn't count if the ball reaches the boundary. They throw the word "act" in the law because it doesn't need to be a throw, the fielder could deliberately allow the ball to hit the boundary in order to keep a weaker batsman on strike for example.
 
Last edited:
dangermows said:
Going to have a read through it later. Bet there was loads of meltdowns and tantrums when it looked lost :lol:
Click to expand...

Inevitable really given the Pure Football gang were out on day release.

TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
No, if the batsmen hadn't crossed when the fielder threw it that run shouldn't count if the ball reaches the boundary. They throw the word "act" in the law because it doesn't need to be a throw, the fielder could deliberately allow the ball to hug the boundary in order to keep a weaker batsman on strike for example.
Click to expand...

Think they crossed anyway tbh. Taufel should look at the replays as well as the rulebook.
 
dangermows said:
Looks like it to me. It's certainly close. To suggest Stokes hadn't turned is daft. How slow do you think a throw is? Or how fast do you think Stokes is!? :lol:
Click to expand...
You're confused; the batsman have to have passed each other, or crossed, in the middle of the pitch at the time the fielder throws for the run to count. It looks as if you think they just have to start the run.

So basically England have won the world cup in the least convincing, luckiest way possible. Losing 3 group games and almost going out; NZ ducking under the last ball of their innings; the fielder standing on the rope with the ball in his hand; a lucky 6 that should have been only 5 anyway; actually being bowled out but having a weird new tiebreaker; not even winning that outright either.

Did I once say I'd like them to not just win, but do it in style?
 
Last edited:
Some great footage here:


TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
So basically England have won the world cup in the least convincing, luckiest way possible. Losing 3 group games and almost going out; NZ ducking under the last ball of their innings; the fielder standing on the rope with the ball in his hand; a lucky 6 that should have been only 5 anyway; actually being bowled out but having a weird new tiebreaker; not even winning that outright either.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the umpire gave one of ours not out when he was and one of theirs out when he wasn't!
 
Last edited:
SpiritofBurnden said:
Some great footage here:




Not to mention that the umpire gave one of ours not out when he was and one of theirs out when he wasn't!
Click to expand...
@AB22 Easy Tiger

Could the video on this post be moved onto the gold thread? It’s an incredible piece showing the reactions and all of the super overs, from a crowd perspective

SpiritofBurnden said:
Some great footage here:




Not to mention that the umpire gave one of ours not out when he was and one of theirs out when he wasn't!
Click to expand...
@TopCat

Watch the video on here. Amazing perspective
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top