• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Do you agree with the final result?

Do you agree with the final result?

  • Yes. England won fair and square.

    Votes: 33 50.8%

  • No. It is a stupid rule and the result was a complete farce.

    Votes: 37 56.9%

  • I don't really care either way.

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • Total voters
    65
Jezroy

Jezroy

State Captain
I don’t like the final result, it hurts.

But the rules are the rules, and if New Zealand had won by those same rules, I would have had no issue at all.
 
dontcloseyoureyes

dontcloseyoureyes

BARNES OUT
GIMH said:
Because of all those times I’ve whined about such things?

My point is fairly clear, which is I also think it’s a silly differentiator but regardless it was set beforehand. Those final balls played out with both teams knowing what they needed to do. That’s the sum of my argument. I’d be sore if my team lost that way but it wouldn’t change the fact that you know the rules up front.
Click to expand...
At no point did I disagree with your point or say that you were wrong. I just said I would like to enjoy your cricket-related suffering, so get down off your milk crate and drink your juice.
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Can we all agree on the following and only discuss other more interesting stuff

1. The “six”

- Should have been 5 according to the laws
- Should have been 2 if the laws rightfully said nothing except the run being completed can count once the batsman is hit by a throw
- There is a high probability NZ would have won if not for the overthrow, but it is not improbable by any means that Stokes could have finished the job

2. Dharmasena

- No more please

3. The more boundaries tiebreaker

- Rubbish, half arsed way to decide a winner
- Using the lost less wickets rule isn’t much of an upgrade, if at all
- You may continue to discuss alternatives such as more super overs, no super overs, position in table, more combined instagram followers, etc

4. “ThEy bOth kNew thE rUlez”

- Everyone knew about the underarm rule, didn’t make it any less dumb

5. sledger

- A champion poster and top human being
 
add_sauce

add_sauce

Cricket Spectator
Jezroy said:
I don’t like the final result, it hurts.

But the rules are the rules, and if New Zealand had won by those same rules, I would have had no issue at all.
Click to expand...
I think you're forgetting that NZ did in fact win. You must've dreamed that they lost?
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Daemon said:
Can we all agree on the following and only discuss other more interesting stuff

1. The “six”

- Should have been 5 according to the laws
- Should have been 2 if the laws rightfully said nothing except the run being completed can count once the batsman is hit by a throw
- There is a high probability NZ would have won if not for the overthrow, but it is not improbable by any means that Stokes could have finished the job

2. Dharmasena

- No more please

3. The more boundaries tiebreaker

- Rubbish, half arsed way to decide a winner
- Using the lost less wickets rule isn’t much of an upgrade, if at all
- You may continue to discuss alternatives such as more super overs, no super overs, position in table, more combined instagram followers, etc

4. “ThEy bOth kNew thE rUlez”

- Everyone knew about the underarm rule, didn’t make it any less dumb

5. sledger

- A champion poster and top human being
Click to expand...
Good post. Would you like to join the Lord Protector Squad?
 
morgieb

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
OverratedSanity said:
I find it a bit odd seeing so many "both teams knew about the rule". Well no ****, obviously they did. The issue isn't that NZ were somehow robbed by the rules, it's that it simply didn't make for a good way to decide the outcome. Just as a spectacle it felt like a very odd climax.

Dumb rules have been in place before and I'm pretty both teams knew about them too. They can and should be changed to be less dumb.
Click to expand...
In this case I took the question meaning to be "was New Zealand robbed by the rules". Agree that boundaries as a tiebreaker makes little sense in ODI cricket tournaments (I can kinda get it at T20 level where the Super Over orginates from)
 
P

Pup Clarke

Cricketer Of The Year
Is it weird to not know about the number of boundaries dictating the winner in the instance of a tie? Been watching cricket for 20 years and had no idea - thought it went with wickets left
 
9

91Jmay

International Coach
Social media is hilarious, now have England fans who have found some footage appearing to show Kiwi fielder foot on the rope when saving a boundary of that was ruled a 2 by 3rd Ump.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
OverratedSanity said:
Haha that's actually the correct choice isnt it. England shouldnt be begrudged their win but it was pretty dumb how it happened.
Click to expand...
Yeah I've decided to vote for both as well. England winning fair and square and the rules being stupid aren't mutually exclusive. It's not like they cheated.
 
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I have time for the view that England did not win fair and square because they could not win fair and square because of the rules being what they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top