I'm now a cricket fan

The day i enjoy a moment of cricket or golf is the day i give myself both barrels omfg.
 
Sponsored Links
When I used to play golf, my mates would say I always ended up with something like a cricket score. 167(strikes) for 7(lost balls).
 
The throw was way before they crossed for the second run, but did the 'act' happen when it hit Stoke's bat?
The throw might have been but the ball didn't cross the boundary until a long time after the two runs were made.

Had the ball not crossed the boundary it would have been just the two runs (unless they ran more while the ball was being retrieved).
 
Sponsored Links
I've been waiting for this. :LOL:

So - you don't feel the need to integrate into the culture of England. Perhaps you should be asked or made to leave.
Well if I turned up wearing completely out of place clothing demanding the rules be changed to my rules as I found them offensive demanding free entrance, then turning up every week with new 'family members' and threatening legal action if you didn't let me in what would you do then.

Because I don't like cricket I completely exclude myself automatically (ok apart from thos thread :p)
 
I don't think the English Cricket Team is English enough for MOT and Festive.
 
The throw might have been but the ball didn't cross the boundary until a long time after the two runs were made.

Had the ball not crossed the boundary it would have been just the two runs (unless they ran more while the ball was being retrieved).
Irrelevant...

By the rules of the game it looks like it should have been 5, and the 'super over' would never have happened...

Stokes appeared to motion that it shouldn't count which given the situation was a great act of sportmanship...

As was the instant reaction of the NZ captain to call a six for England when the NZ 'catcher' put his foot on the boundary rope.

All that pressure to win, but the game was played in a great spirit!
 
Irrelevant...
Hardly.

By the rules of the game it looks like it should have been 5,
I don't see how you can argue for 5.
Maybe 4 - as in when a boundary is hit, any runs made do not count - just the four - but that must be the rules or someone would have said.

Stokes appeared to motion that it shouldn't count which given the situation was a great act of sportmanship...
Not up to him. He just motioned an apology for the fluke, like they do.

As was the instant reaction of the NZ captain to call a six for England when the NZ 'catcher' put his foot on the boundary rope.
Nevertheless they still checked the replays.

All that pressure to win, but the game was played in a great spirit!
Yes.
I wanted England to win, but didn't want New Zealand to lose.

I have just learned that Stokes was born in New Zealand. The family emigrated to England when he was twelve.



... but then, if Guptill had scored a century, things might have been different.
 
Irrelevant...

By the rules of the game it looks like it should have been 5, and the 'super over' would never have happened...

Stokes appeared to motion that it shouldn't count which given the situation was a great act of sportmanship...

As was the instant reaction of the NZ captain to call a six for England when the NZ 'catcher' put his foot on the boundary rope.

All that pressure to win, but the game was played in a great spirit!

No, the over throws are in addition to any runs the batters complete.

It would have been no different if Guptil had decided to throw the ball over the WK and it had gone to the boundary.

The ball was still in play as it was rolling to the boundary.
 
I don't see how you can argue for 5.
Maybe 4 - as in when a boundary is hit, any runs made do not count - just the four - but that must be the rules or someone would have said.
You obviously haven't read rule 19.8

If you had, you would understand that registering it as a 4 was impossible as the english batsmen had already run one, and adding that to the boundary makes 5...

The issue was whether they had added a second run by crossing before the throw was made (to make 6), and that clearly didn't happen...
 
No, the over throws are in addition to any runs the batters complete.
Read Rule 19.8

It is not the runs that the batters complete, it is "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."

They completed one run, but the ball was thrown before they had crossed a second time (the run in progress)...
 
Read Rule 19.8

It is not the runs that the batters complete, it is "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."
They not only had crossed for the second run, they were both home in their respective creases.

They completed one run, but the ball was thrown before they had crossed a second time (the run in progress)...
No, they had completed TWO.
When the ball was thrown is irrelevant.

There was no run still in progress when the ball reached the boundary.
 
Ah, I see the confusion.

I think it depends which 'act' caused the boundary.

The throw itself or the ball hitting Stokes' bat.
 
What are you talking about? Dunno about Festive but I support West Ham and the team is like the United Nations!

Agree I enjoy F1 my father and I are massive Lewis Hamilton fans hes arguably one of the greatest F1 Drivers ever.
In fact it was a weekend of GOAT watching Federer another legend.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top