The 'Couldn't think where to put this' thread part 2 or 'does my comment merit a NEW THREAD?'

thornburyiron

“Law 19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder:

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;
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.”

It’s the last point that appears to be the issue

Lukerz

Ridiculous to say that England should really have lost by 1 run.

Stokes’ approach would have changed for the last two balls knowing he needed 4 to win. He may well have just won it without it going to the super over. As it was he knew he could get a couple of singles to ensure England had that extra over opportunity. 5 instead of 6 changes the whole outlook of the game because he would have known he needed 4 off two balls.

Vorselaarhammer

always like reading the Aussie press after cricket success, not surprising they are all over that story..

Also after the semis all about Aussie rubbish no credit for us..

They also seem to forget that we won 4 games in a row against the semi teams in which we beat NZ twice...

Biter down under... they do seem a touch nervous for the Ashes... :thumbsup:

thornburyiron

Neither of the teams are saying that. It’s just been pointed out that there was an additional run. Who knows what might have happened. If it hadn’t have hit his bat it would have been either 1 and a run out or 2. If it had been 2 we would have needed 7.

It’s down to the umpires to interpret and use the laws. They use VAR unnecessarily at times especially run outs when it’s clear the batsman had gone past the keeper before he breaks the wicket. If they thought there was an issue they could have called for a replay. They did it when Boult stepped on the rope even though the fielder signalled it was a six.

IronHerb

He’s a Kiwi isn’t he? Anyway you cannot say we would have lost by 1 run as Stokes intent with 4 needed off 2 balls rather than 3 needed may have been different.

baracks_a_hammer

I think there could have been a better method of arriving at the result overall - ie sudden death should continue until a winner is found - As you would find in any other sport. The ICC need to look at that for the future.

However, England are rightly champions - easily the best limited overs side in the world over the past 3-4 years. Will do wonders for the sport in this country

IronHerb

But Golden Goal was done away with pretty quick as it didn’t really work. To my, limited, knowledge that was the first tied Super Over, definitely in a major event, that I’m aware of. And come to think of it we only win major World Cups when there’s a bit of controversy. :biggrin:

baracks_a_hammer

But a penalty shoot out is still a sudden death outcome Herb. They need to avoid resorting to a strange countback.

By my reckoning this is surely the first instance in cricket that the side batting last has been bowled out yet still managed to win

thornburyiron

They stopped using wickets lost for some reason and opted for this boundaries business. I expect no side ever envisages a tied super over so making sure you score boundaries for that reason probably doesn’t come into the thinking.

whupathman

Trying to encourage positive cricket thus boundaries, works for me

baracks_a_hammer

Not really

Picking gaps , singles and twos and running well between the wickets is a skill in itself.

IronHerb

I’d rather watch Buttler over Williamson though they are both top players.

Kuchinghammer

I think Buttler did both. Singles when England was becalmed, fours when needed - especially the last! He was mom for me: Stokes struck me as a slogger who had a fair amount of luck. First time I've seen either of them play, mind.

baracks_a_hammer

IronHerb said:

I’d rather watch Buttler over Williamson though they are both top players.

But others would disagree. I would watch Root or say a Laxman over Buttler (if I had to choose), even though the latter is an incredible talent

The ICC ranking a boundary and three dot balls over fours singles is bizarre in my view.

thornburyiron

Lukerz youre forgetting that if the umpire had said it was 5 not six he would have sent Stokes to the non strikers end and Rashid would have been on strike for the last two balls.
Let’s just accept we benefitted from an umpire mistake cancelling out the same umpire mistake when he gave Roy out against Australia.

IronHerb

Where in the rule did it state that? In the case of a short run the batsmen do not change ends.

baracks_a_hammer

I’m sure I read somewhere that even if 5 were awarded Stokes would still have been on strike for the next ball, so I think IH is right

thornburyiron

I read somewhere this afternoon but can’t now find it that in these circumstances it’s not treated as a short run but a single plus 4 overthrows. The writer, who used to be an umpire said the batsman should change ends because technically they only ran a single but agreed it happens so rarely the umpire wasn’t checking whether they crossed or not when the ball was picked up. He intimated that it’s the same as when the batsmen run but the hitter was caught out and if they hadn’t crossed then the new batsman takes strike even if the non striker has reached more than halfway. This is something the umpires do check.
Anyway who cares, we won and it’s too late to do anything about it now.

IronHerb

Oh, and Sir Geoffs second goal In the World Cup Final definitely crossed the line :biggrin:

ASLEFshrugged

Taufel is an Aussie so he'd be unhappy with England winning anything.

alderz

Nolan talking about Ravel:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49013846

Nobby said:

We played a game at Oxford in pre-season and me an Nobes were on the back of the bus with him saying how wonderful it was.

"He gets off the bus after we've bigged him up and we've said 'we'll see you tomorrow in training' - and we don't see him for a week.

"No-one can get in touch with him. You're trying to ring him and we are all trying to ring him.

baracks_a_hammer

So we all thought that the whole Arnie chapter is well and truly behind us now right?

Well not quite

I think I’ve just stumbled across something from Ex where he says we only signed Haksabanovic because we promised an agent we would do so if he managed to get Arnie to sign for us in 2017.

And when Sead pitched up for training, Slav had no idea who he was!

And Sead is on our payroll until 2022 I think.

MrsGrey

Sounds a bit unlikely, isn't Arnie's agent his brother?

Even if it's true, Haksabanvic was signed for the Academy (was 17? 18? I think). I don't think it's normal practice for the 1st team manager to have oversight of Academy signings?

He signed a 5yr contract as a 17/18 yr old. Can't imagine he's on much of a wage. Was reported in the press as being a signing 'for the future' and was listed in the Development Squad part of the website, not the 1st team.

Doesn't seem like much of a story, does it?

ASLEFshrugged

Sturridge banned for six weeks and fined £75k after being found guilty of breaching FA betting rules.

I think we now know who kidnapped his dog...

Ace of Clubs

Bazshuayi

Am I bovvered

Ace of Clubs

I was searching Amazon for a cooling fan and came across this Question ask by someone.

Does the fan need electricity to run or does it use perpetual motion?
These are some of the answers.

I've had a degree of success powering the device by positive thought

No, it does not run on perpetual motion (that's silly). Star Agent Zig Tharg flies in from the Oogle Constellation the first of every month, sticks his cosmic wand into the back of it and recharges it.

I use several hamsters on a wheel, by attaching a belt to the motor to power this.

I don't want to be a know it all here but I'm fairly certain that you can power this with about 20 - 30 cats
tie them in a neat bundle behind the fan and tickle their chins as quickly as you can.
the collective purring should cause the fan to wiggle a bit.
adjust accordingly.
Ask a silly question.

Moojor

veet for men still has the best reviews on Amazon.

Ace of Clubs

Moojor, I agree, but you could not put it on here.

Expat_Hammer

I think that City deserved to lose after wearing that kit