Cricket Thread

[Umaga's Witness]

...just checking back here to see if the whole thing was a dream...

But what's it going to be called? Bat of god is misleading. Maybe "gods overthrows "or "when god ran 4"? Any other suggestions?
What's it called in pin ball when you shake the table?

 

[smartcooky]

Or you could say that boundaries are an indication of the risks a team has taken in actively trying to win the game and should be rewarded.

The super over concept was OK, but maybe 2 overs a side, one from either end would be better.

Its as ridiculous as deciding a soccer match by the number of corners awarded... that's why FIFA dropped it decades ago.

Also, boundaries is so arbitrary, why not wickets lost? Why not dot balls? Why not wides, or no-balls? All of those are just as important as boundaries.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

...just checking back here to see if the whole thing was a dream...

But what's it going to be called? Bat of god is misleading. Maybe "gods overthrows "or "when god ran 4"? Any other suggestions?

What's it called in pinball when you shake the table?

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Its as ridiculous as deciding a soccer match by the number of corners awarded... that's why FIFA dropped it decades ago.

Also, boundaries is so arbitrary, why not wickets lost? Why not dot balls? Why not wides, or no-balls? All of those are just as important as boundaries.

Why not simply the number of runs scored not from boundaries?

 

[Zapphod]

Good grief.
It doesn't matter what criteria are used to determine the winner as long as both sides know that criteria before they play and can meet them.

They can be arbitary and I would suggest most actually are (number of wickets lost is in reality just as arbitary as number of boundaries hit).

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Stoke of luck

 

[Umaga's Witness]

The fire twice stoked

Stoked as bro

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Good grief.
It doesn't matter what criteria are used to determine the winner as long as both sides know that criteria before they play and can meet them.

They can be arbitary and I would suggest most actually are (number of wickets lost is in reality just as arbitary as number of boundaries hit).

Why does it matter if both teams know them beforehand? (Leading question warning)

 

[Umaga's Witness]

The wife reckons stokes-a-daisy

 

[Umaga's Witness]

2 hits 1 ball

 

[Umaga's Witness]

1 Stoke 2 stroke

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I guess whenever the ball comes off the bat for four overthrows people will say "he/she stoked it"

 

[ncurd]

Jabby your own biases are bertraying you, your still treating it like a stone cold fact NZ would of won had the call been correct. You won't even acknowledge that there is also a not minuscule chance England could of won outright.

And you treat my feeling NZ would of won like I've said NZ would of definitely won...it's more 60% chance in my book.

It was a minor mistake, the major factor was the additional 4 runs which were awarded which was nobodies fault and correctly given.

I acknowledge my biases.

Stokes apologised but then he took the trophy all the same and celebrated. You'll notice in this thread that every England fan acknowledged it was a rubbish way to lose and NZ were unlucky. Now we want to celebrate with him not constantly have our win called into question.


As to giving it a name it may have won in NZ but it will be dismissed as hoo haa about nothing in England. In fact pretty much already has. At most it'll be like the goal in 66 an anecdote, a what if,a maybe. Nobody cheated and we have nothing to feel bad about unlike the Hand of God.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I've never said it was 100% likely....and I said that before, I don't know how else to say it...you now seem detained to take even our right we be upset about loosing

All I've said is I think it MIGHT have been the thing that changed the result, which I believe is just as likely as anything else....but winnings not enough, you need to try and prove I'm wrong with calls of naive or inexperienced with how cricket works

Stop playing the victim, you won, I haven't heard a single person say the result should be overturned or asked England to apologise, your the only one suggesting that, you want to celebrate? Go

 

[ncurd]

Didnt say you don't have right to be upset but to bang on about a decision that didn't definitively decide who won the game...yeah that's sour grapes.

Every Cricket fan knows the wrong amount of runs was awarded. Everyone will now know if it ever comes up again. Now it's time to move on.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Jabby your own biases are bertraying you, your still treating it like a stone cold fact NZ would of won had the call been correct. You won't even acknowledge that there is also a not minuscule chance England could of won outright.

And you treat my feeling NZ would of won like I've said NZ would of definitely won...it's more 60% chance in my book.

It was a minor mistake, the major factor was the additional 4 runs which were awarded which was nobodies fault and correctly given.

I acknowledge my biases.

Stokes apologised but then he took the trophy all the same and celebrated. You'll notice in this thread that every England fan acknowledged it was a rubbish way to lose and NZ were unlucky. Now we want to celebrate with him not constantly have our win called into question.


As to giving it a name it may have won in NZ but it will be dismissed as hoo haa about nothing in England. In fact pretty much already has. At most it'll be like the goal in 66 an anecdote, a what if,a maybe. Nobody cheated and we have nothing to feel bad about unlike the Hand of God.

It's not about having something to feel bad about, sorry for analogising it with hand of god.

But I'd be surprised if it isn't talked about for another 30 years, or until the climate apocalypse, whichever comes first. It's not just New Zealand talking about it. I don't think New Zealand will talk about it much to be honest.

I think we will get over it very soon, in time to celebrate a close second place where the team battled together as one, with everyone contributing. For the most part we are already doing that.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Didnt say you don't have right to be upset but to bang on about a decision that didn't definitively decide who won the game...yeah that's sour grapes.

Every Cricket fan knows the wrong amount of runs was awarded. Everyone will now know if it ever comes up again. Now it's time to move on.

To be fair, you have banged on about the decision more than anyone else. What is that? Sweet grapes? I don't really think either of you have veered anywhere near as far as you are accusing each other into unsportsmanlike territory.

It's actually a **** result for both teams. In the other hand it was frigging amazing.

 

[ncurd]

Eh I was talking about it because I wanted to understand what the correct decision was. It took a little while because of actual poor reporting.

1st reporters were missing the part of the law and I just though ah they missed they crossed. I was also getting ready for work so didn't have time to read the chapter when I thought the clear mistake was not reading the entire law.

Then I saw a replay and clearly they hadnt.

Then the reporting was saying it was ambiguous where the 'instant' was determined.

Simon Tarful a hugely respected Umpire weighed in.

When I got home I rechecked what is essentially the Umpire training manual and went for the examples. Says clearly the instant is when the fielder releases the ball.

At that point as far as I was concerned the discussion was over.

 

[Zapphod]

Didnt say you don't have right to be upset but to bang on about a decision that didn't definitively decide who won the game...yeah that's sour grapes.

Every Cricket fan knows the wrong amount of runs was awarded. Everyone will now know if it ever comes up again. Now it's time to move on.

I can see why people are getting annoyed when your counter to "we won because of a bad umpiring call" (which is is another way of saying we got awarded the wrong amount of runs) it's all sour grapes.
I can accept losing the match to a better team who out play us on the day (Christ it is the NZ cricket team the lose on a regular basis) but it is hard to tolerate losing to the umpires so I would suggest no one is angry at the English team but there is a lot of anger towards the games officials.

Anyway we have a rugby world cup to deal with coming up and I still can't decide who is going to win it.

 

[ncurd]

Yeah umm that's because we didn't win because of a bad umpiring call. That assertion assumes England don't get enough in the next two balls. Your putting a defintive statement on it the call.

If it were the last ball of the game you'd be right but it wasn't.