viccarlton
Striker
I agreeStill don't think Archer's first ball in the Super Over was a wide
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agreeStill don't think Archer's first ball in the Super Over was a wide
I found all of the NZ commentators insufferable yesterday - Ian Smith, Simon Doull, Jeremy Coney.Yeah he’s normally decent but he has a bit of a meltdown yesterday
It wasn't. It hit the tramline making it a legal deliveryStill don't think Archer's first ball in the Super Over was a wide
I found all of the NZ commentators insufferable yesterday - Ian Smith, Simon Doull, Jeremy Coney.
It wasn't. It hit the tramline making it a legal delivery
Don't get me wrong England had a lot of luck, New Zealand had an extra delivery thoughI found all of the NZ commentators insufferable yesterday - Ian Smith, Simon Doull, Jeremy Coney.
It wasn't. It hit the tramline making it a legal delivery
Good decision. As can be seen the arguments over paragraph and sub sections is off and running
They didnt, they had a bonus run. You can't score off a wide, by definition. A no-ball is an extra ball.Don't get me wrong England had a lot of luck, New Zealand had an extra delivery though
Doull is a prize bell endI thought Smith was decent tbh, called the game quite well despite his obvious allegiance. The other two I agree, right up there in thundercuntville with Slater & Clark.
I lost a chunk of money on both the Semi Final & Final. I can conclusively say it was the best money I’ve ever given to the turf accountants
They could have scored off it though....because it wasn't a wide it was a play and miss. They got to have another go as well as getting a bonus runThey didnt, they had a bonus run. You can't score off a wide, by definition. A no-ball is an extra ball.
Doull is a prize bell end
"The line is the Umpires"I found all of the NZ commentators insufferable yesterday - Ian Smith, Simon Doull, Jeremy Coney.
It wasn't. It hit the tramline making it a legal delivery
ThundercuntvilleI thought Smith was decent tbh, called the game quite well despite his obvious allegiance. The other two I agree, right up there in thundercuntville with Slater & Clark.
The tramline is only a guide, not the definition of a wide.It wasn't. It hit the tramline making it a legal delivery
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?
I thought Smith was decent tbh, called the game quite well despite his obvious allegiance. The other two I agree, right up there in thundercuntville with Slater & Clark.
They didnt, they had a bonus run. You can't score off a wide, by definition. A no-ball is an extra ball.
It was a one day wide. For all you know the umpire may have said anything down the leg side was going to be wide. It's in the playing regulations that they're supposed to be stricter on wides in odis, presumably this is even more so in a super over.They very much did. The ball went through for a legal dot, should have been 16 off 5, instead it was 15 off 6. One extra ball to score one less run. And the batsman stepped to the offside, was definitely not a wide under any metric. And the puff of dust was inside the line not on the line
It was a one day wide. For all you know the umpire may have said anything down the leg side was going to be wide. It's in the playing regulations that they're supposed to be stricter on wides in odis, presumably this is even more so in a super over.
oopsIt wasn’t down the leg side...
Tthey'd have mankaded wood off the last ballCan guarantee the cheating crims would have gone up for obstructing the field, India as well and probably Pakistan and SL with their track records.
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?
It was a one day wide. For all you know the umpire may have said anything down the leg side was going to be wide. It's in the playing regulations that they're supposed to be stricter on wides in odis, presumably this is even more so in a super over.