Cricket World Cup

[SusanDoris]

On the way to Tesco this morning, I mentioned the cricket and the taxi driver was describing to me what happened when the batsman fell and the ball bounced off his back, and about the NZ fielder who caught the ball and stepped back outside the line!

[ad_orientem]

Yes.

What is it with sports that they are unable to get to a point and just call it a draw? Same with tennis and penalty shootouts.

I find it pathetic - if not disgusting.
 
 

Eh?

[Sriram]

Thought provoking piece....

https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/no-england-did-not-win-the-world-cup-2069692?pfrom=home-topstories

[ProfessorDavey]

Thought provoking piece....

https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/no-england-did-not-win-the-world-cup-2069692?pfrom=home-topstories

Yes I've seen that and firstly it is unclear whether the point at which the time is taken is when the fielder throw the ball (at which point the batsmen hadn't crossed) or when the ball hits Stokes (at which point they had). There is disagreement between respected and experienced umpires.

But nonetheless you cannot take this in isolation - if you want to rewrite the on field umpires decision on this one, you'd also need to do so on wides etc and who know which team was up or down on incorrectly called wides over the course of the game (I'll come back to that later).

But even if England had been awarded 5 runs rather than 6 you cannot conclude that England would have lost as there remained a couple of balls to go and Stokes would have made different decisions as to how to play those balls had England required 4 from 2 rather than 3 from 2. Likewise NZ in terms of blowing and fielding tactics.

Back to errors - although it made no difference - the calling of Archer's first ball as a wide was also incorrect as the ball was on the line and the law requires it to be outside the marked line.

[wigginhall]

It's pathetic when people try to rewrite results of games.   As Prof D. says, you could probably find other errors which hurt England.  They had a lot of luck, but so what?  NZ won the toss, major luck.  It reminds me of football fans going on about some goal 10 years ago, which should have been off-side.  Grow up.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's pathetic when people try to rewrite results of games.   As Prof D. says, you could probably find other errors which hurt England.  They had a lot of luck, but so what?  NZ won the toss, major luck.  It reminds me of football fans going on about some goal 10 years ago, which should have been off-side.  Grow up.

Sure there are plenty of people who complain about wrong decisions in matches in a 'we was robbed' kind of way. But the point is that if you change any event in a match everything thereafter will change too in a manner that you cannot predict. So in this case, were Stokes to have needed 4 to win off 2, likely he'd have made the decision to go for a boundary rather than to try to play safe. Who knows whether he would have succeeded or not - but that's the point - we simply cannot conclude that if 5 had been awarded and not 6 that England would have lost as there were still 2 ball to go.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thought provoking piece....

https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/no-england-did-not-win-the-world-cup-2069692?pfrom=home-topstories

From the article:

'Simon Taufel, a respected international umpire told The Guardian that the officiating umpires made a clear mistake'

So clear that neither the on field nor off field umpires noted it. Nor is there any indication that either side thought the decision was wrong - surely if it was a clear error the New Zealand team would have indicated as such at the time. Nor, as far as I'm aware, did any of the commentators think the decision was wrong, nor any of the news reports straight after the game. This 'clearly' wrong decision only seems to have come to light the day after - hardly clear is it.

On the other hand the decision to call Archer's first ball of the super over a wide was indicated as being wrong by one of the commentators right away with the other commentator merely making the point that the decision had been given so wouldn't be changed (not that it was correct).

Until this one guy piped up everyone accepted that 6 runs should have been given, not 5. Why is his view correct and everyone else's wrong.

[jeremyp]

On the way to Tesco this morning, I mentioned the cricket and the taxi driver was describing to me what happened when the batsman fell and the ball bounced off his back, and about the NZ fielder who caught the ball and stepped back outside the line!

That last incident was a moment of exceptional sportsmanship in the circumstances. The fielder realized he was going to step on the boundary and so tried to toss the ball to another fielder who was about five yards in front of him. Unfortunately, he did it too late (he was still holding the ball when he stepped on the boundary), but the other fielder turned round and signaled to the umpire that it was a six. He didn’t have to do that.

[jeremyp]

It's pathetic when people try to rewrite results of games.   As Prof D. says, you could probably find other errors which hurt England

Well ok Jason Roy was out first ball. However, the umpire called it not out and the review rules are such that the decision was not reversed on review.

Umpires often make mistakes. You can’t turn back time to change the result based on just one of them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well ok Jason Roy was out first ball. However, the umpire called it not out and the review rules are such that the decision was not reversed on review.

Umpires often make mistakes. You can’t turn back time to change the result based on just one of them.

Absolutely - there will be a whole load of decisions that weren't right that directly impact on runs and if you are going to make a point about one of them you need to consider them all, which is impossible.

Also each of those decisions makes a difference to the later stages of the game, so a team will play differently. As such you cannot simply conclude that if England had scored one less run somewhere earlier in their innings that they would necessarily have lost - for the simple reason that had that happened they'd have known they needed to score an additional run later on and would have played differently and made different decisions on shots etc.

[jeremyp]

Absolutely - there will be a whole load of decisions that weren't right that directly impact on runs and if you are going to make a point about one of them you need to consider them all, which is impossible.

Also each of those decisions makes a difference to the later stages of the game, so a team will play differently. As such you cannot simply conclude that if England had scored one less run somewhere earlier in their innings that they would necessarily have lost - for the simple reason that had that happened they'd have known they needed to score an additional run later on and would have played differently and made different decisions on shots etc.

Absolutely. Needing three to win off the last ball, Stokes might have chosen to play it differently.

It should be noted that he wasn't at all happy about scoring the four overthrows, but there's no way to take the runs back under the rules.

[ProfessorDavey]

Absolutely. Needing three to win off the last ball, Stokes might have chosen to play it differently.

Exactly the point that Ashley Giles has made - the final ball was a full toss on leg stump - had England needed 3 to win and 2 to tie Stokes would probably have looked to smash it over the boundary rather than play safe as he did, knowing that a single would at least take England into a super over.

It should be noted that he wasn't at all happy about scoring the four overthrows, but there's no way to take the runs back under the rules.

True

[jeremyp]

When your tailender nightwatchman makes more runs by himself than your entire team did in the first innings, it's time to panic about meeting Australia in the Ashes.

[ProfessorDavey]

When your tailender nightwatchman makes more runs by himself than your entire team did in the first innings, it's time to panic about meeting Australia in the Ashes.

Shame he didn't make it to the century