Aussie Awful Taufel is assuming the act was the throw but other umpires say the act is the moment the ball hit Stokes.
I suppose, at a push, one could argue that the deliberate act was Stokes sticking his bat out to make his ground without the intention of obstructing the field.
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)
Thinking about it Taufel has to be wrong because I've seen on a number of occasions a player attempt a run out, hit the stumps [but the batsman was safe] and the ball goes flying off and the batsmen can then run off again and get overthrow runs.
Given that they are setting off running after the ball hit the stumps, let alone when the ball was thrown, Taufel must surely be wrong?
While personally I don't subscribe to the Tyndallite view that Brexit must be delivered before anything else for the sake of "democracy", the optics of this would be terrible.
It would be deemed a "stitch-up". Yes, yes, it is entirely legit in a parliamentary democracy. Yes, yes, it is just as legit as 70,000 not-entirely-demographically-typical Conservative members choosing our next PM. No matter. If you want to reinforce the view of an elite ruling just for themselves, that is exactly how you do it.
Just have a general election. It's how Britain works.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Stoke's apologised on the field the minute it happened.
Umpire's make mistakes all the time, non more so when Roy was given out closing in on his century v Australia and he was not out by any stretch of the imagination
There's a big difference between an official making an error of judgement and error of law. On this occasion I think there's sufficient wriggle room in the law meaning it's plausible that they got it right. And I didn't notice NZ kicking off about it at the time.
The act had to have been "wilful". If Stokes act had been "wilful" then he would have been out obstructing the field. Since it was not "wilful" the throw clearly should have been the correct point at which the runs were considered.
It's unclear if it was an error of law anyway, since they could easily have known the law but failed to realise the batsmen hadn't crossed. Which reduces the mistake to a simple error of judgment.
Thinking about it Taufel has to be wrong because I've seen on a number of occasions a player attempt a run out, hit the stumps [but the batsman was safe] and the ball goes flying off and the batsmen can then run off again and get overthrow runs.
Given that they are setting off running after the ball hit the stumps, let alone when the ball was thrown, Taufel must surely be wrong?
I guess in that scenario the batsmen are running the overthrows rather than running the original runs.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Stoke's apologised on the field the minute it happened.
Umpire's make mistakes all the time, non more so when Roy was given out closing in on his century v Australia and he was not out by any stretch of the imagination
There's a big difference between an official making an error of judgement and error of law. On this occasion I think there's sufficient wriggle room in the law meaning it's plausible that they got it right. And I didn't notice NZ kicking off about it at the time.
The act had to have been "wilful". If Stokes act had been "wilful" then he would have been out obstructing the field. Since it was not "wilful" the throw clearly should have been the correct point at which the runs were considered.
In that case this is quite a serious error, though a good example of why competitive sports people should know the laws.
That said, it seems an odd law to me - why give the umpires the hassle of something else to look out for?
It's a very rare occurrence, though. Almost invariably a ball hitting a batsman in these circumstances won't get anywhere near the boundary, and it is convention that the batsmen don't run overthrows (though under the laws they may do so), hence Stokes's reaction.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Stoke's apologised on the field the minute it happened.
Umpire's make mistakes all the time, non more so when Roy was given out closing in on his century v Australia and he was not out by any stretch of the imagination
There's a big difference between an official making an error of judgement and error of law. On this occasion I think there's sufficient wriggle room in the law meaning it's plausible that they got it right. And I didn't notice NZ kicking off about it at the time.
The act had to have been "wilful". If Stokes act had been "wilful" then he would have been out obstructing the field. Since it was not "wilful" the throw clearly should have been the correct point at which the runs were considered.
It's unclear if it was an error of law anyway, since they could easily have known the law but failed to realise the batsmen hadn't crossed. Which reduces the mistake to a simple error of judgment.
I wonder if it could have gone to the third umpire to check?
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Stoke's apologised on the field the minute it happened.
Umpire's make mistakes all the time, non more so when Roy was given out closing in on his century v Australia and he was not out by any stretch of the imagination
There's a big difference between an official making an error of judgement and error of law. On this occasion I think there's sufficient wriggle room in the law meaning it's plausible that they got it right. And I didn't notice NZ kicking off about it at the time.
The act had to have been "wilful". If Stokes act had been "wilful" then he would have been out obstructing the field. Since it was not "wilful" the throw clearly should have been the correct point at which the runs were considered.
In that case this is quite a serious error, though a good example of why competitive sports people should know the laws.
That said, it seems an odd law to me - why give the umpires the hassle of something else to look out for?
It's a very rare occurrence, though. Almost invariably a ball hitting a batsman in these circumstances won't get anywhere near the boundary, and it is convention that the batsmen don't run overthrows (though under the laws they may do so), hence Stokes's reaction.
It is not convention that batsmen don't run overthrows. If there is a misfield and they get the chance to, they run them.
Stoke's reaction is due to the overthrows being in part his fault and not a misfield by the Kiwis.
While personally I don't subscribe to the Tyndallite view that Brexit must be delivered before anything else for the sake of "democracy", the optics of this would be terrible.
It would be deemed a "stitch-up". Yes, yes, it is entirely legit in a parliamentary democracy. Yes, yes, it is just as legit as 70,000 not-entirely-demographically-typical Conservative members choosing our next PM. No matter. If you want to reinforce the view of an elite ruling just for themselves, that is exactly how you do it.
Just have a general election. It's how Britain works.
Without the October 31st deadline a general election works. With the October 31st deadline that deadline needs to be removed and if the PM isn't willing / able to do so for a sane general election to occur another PM needs to be appointed to ensure the deadline is removed.
I see the eco fascists are in bristol all this week...have they not got jobs to be doing?
Good to see that the oft-repeated PB centre right line that indiscriminate use of the word fascist renders the term useless when society comes up against real fascism is now universally accepted.
Government loses a VONC but a new PM emerges in the 14 day window of the fixed term Parliament act.
While I would love to see Ken Clarke as PM, I don't see how he gets a majority in the Commons. Would he even get a majority of Tory MPs, given so many of them have gone the full Viceroy?
But wouldn't him being elected leader and on day one being replaced as PM by someone chosen by the House be the more fantabulous result imaginable.....
Better than the '66 Word Cup the Rugby Word Cup the Cricket World Cup and Murray's Wimbledon all rolled into one
I wish I shared your optimism. I have long considered that we will crash out of the EU and that it will be a humiliating mess. Likewise no-one will do anything about Corbyn.
There are too few principled MPs willing to act in accordance with their principles if it would cost them personally. So we will trundle on into second rate irrelevance or possibly much worse.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)
Surely it's 2.7million viewers (miles) away...
If my maths is correct 50 million people in the UK missed it all. they don't have many spokesmen today but there's a lot of them out there.
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)
Surely it's 2.7million viewers (miles) away...
If my maths is correct 50 million people in the UK missed it all. they don't have many spokesmen today but there's a lot of them out there.
I made sure my three-year old niece was watching the TV at the crucial moment. I wanted her to be able to say she'd seen England win the World Cup. It might not happen again.
Government loses a VONC but a new PM emerges in the 14 day window of the fixed term Parliament act.
While I would love to see Ken Clarke as PM, I don't see how he gets a majority in the Commons. Would he even get a majority of Tory MPs, given so many of them have gone the full Viceroy?
But wouldn't him being elected leader and on day one being replaced as PM by someone chosen by the House be the more fantabulous result imaginable.....
Better than the '66 Word Cup the Rugby Word Cup the Cricket World Cup and Murray's Wimbledon all rolled into one
I wish I shared your optimism. I have long considered that we will crash out of the EU and that it will be a humiliating mess. Likewise no-one will do anything about Corbyn.
There are too few principled MPs willing to act in accordance with their principles if it would cost them personally. So we will trundle on into second rate irrelevance or possibly much worse.
I have been surprised at the number of respectable MPs who have decided to hold their noses as the grab hold of Johnson's coat tails in order to curry favour with the great man.
Fortunately all but a few of Labour's unprincipled MP's will be looking for alternative employment soon after Boris' snap election.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)
Surely it's 2.7million viewers (miles) away...
If my maths is correct 50 million people in the UK missed it all. they don't have many spokesmen today but there's a lot of them out there.
I always wonder how accurate these figures are? Especially given the number of people who will have been watching the events in pubs, which given it was sunny could have been busier than average.
I'm surprised the viewing figures for the cricket was so low - we flicked over as soon as the tennis was finished...
If you add those Sky and C4 peaks together, you get to about 6.3m which is not a million miles away from the 9m peak for Wimbledon (which everyone knew was scheduled, and on BBC1!)
Surely it's 2.7million viewers (miles) away...
If my maths is correct 50 million people in the UK missed it all. they don't have many spokesmen today but there's a lot of them out there.
Probably more, since adding together different channels introduces double counting. Even below that post there are fans saying they had both on simultaneously
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.
Annoyingly I was pretty sure I had followed TSE's tip and bet on Turing. Now can't find any record of it.
That’s a Ladbrokes system issue, you can’t view older bets, you need to contact customer services.
What I do is keep a record of all my bets on a spreadsheet with the transaction ID.
I have been able to check my bets, but you have to search by when it was placed (in my case 17 October 2018) - I've lost a tenner but Ada Lovelace was a good value loser at 50/1.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.
At least when an election is decided on the orientation of a cock drawing it can be settled in court.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
You do talk utter rubbish. Are we to expect replays on every error of judgment by a referree or umpire, and this was not an error of judgment
Stokes ran the second run and in order to make the crease he dived with bat outstretched which is usual practice. The fielder threw the ball and amazingly it hit Stokes bat and richoched for four overthrow runs. Perfectly legitimate unless Stokes had done it deliberately which he did not
As a matter of interest have you ever played or enjoyed sport any sport
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.
Stop being such a party pooper man.
I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. Justice and fair play matters far more to me. It is a pity really that such issues cannot be taken to the Courts.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.
Stop being such a party pooper man.
I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. Justice and fair play matters far more to me. It is a pity really that such issues cannot be taken to the Courts.
I assume that you think if NZ were awarded the World Cup in six months' time by a judge, that would give them a "sense of triumph"?
Viceroy ranting from Spain about the threat from foreigners...
As a Brit abroad myself I get the irony but his lunacy is a product of who he is not where he lives.
Has it occured to you 'he' might be your next door neighbour? The woman sitting beside the pool with the big breasts pretending to do the crossword......
All of my neighbour's are Spanish. Your prejudices and stereotypes continue to amuse.
Annoyingly I was pretty sure I had followed TSE's tip and bet on Turing. Now can't find any record of it.
That’s a Ladbrokes system issue, you can’t view older bets, you need to contact customer services.
What I do is keep a record of all my bets on a spreadsheet with the transaction ID.
I have been able to check my bets, but you have to search by when it was placed (in my case 17 October 2018) - I've lost a tenner but Ada Lovelace was a good value loser at 50/1.
I only wish that those from secret services and police who hounded Turing to his death were alive to see this day. Maybe one or two are?
Annoyingly I was pretty sure I had followed TSE's tip and bet on Turing. Now can't find any record of it.
That’s a Ladbrokes system issue, you can’t view older bets, you need to contact customer services.
What I do is keep a record of all my bets on a spreadsheet with the transaction ID.
I have been able to check my bets, but you have to search by when it was placed (in my case 17 October 2018) - I've lost a tenner but Ada Lovelace was a good value loser at 50/1.
I only wish that those from secret services and police who hounded Turing to his death were alive to see this day. Maybe one or two are?
I doubt it.
A tenner aside, I am happy with the choice, but I know there are people who feel very strongly about ethnic minority and female representation
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
So after all the obfuscation , it was really new Zealand that won the trophy but were robbed by an "innocent" mistake of umpire not understanding the rules. Pyrrhic victory.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.
Stop being such a party pooper man.
I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. Justice and fair play matters far more to me. It is a pity really that such issues cannot be taken to the Courts.
I assume that you think if NZ were awarded the World Cup in six months' time by a judge, that would give them a "sense of triumph"?
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
So after all the obfuscation , it was really new Zealand that won the trophy but were robbed by an "innocent" mistake of umpire not understanding the rules. Pyrrhic victory.
Not at all sure it was a mistake. If the return ball had been overthrown the players are entitled to run overthrows.
In this case the overthrow richoched of a grounded bat and went for four runs. I see no breach of the rules in those actions
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
So after all the obfuscation , it was really new Zealand that won the trophy but were robbed by an "innocent" mistake of umpire not understanding the rules. Pyrrhic victory.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
"Fair play" is respecting that the umpire's decision is final.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that the Umpire's decision is final.
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.
That reflects well on them, but does not prevent the result appearing seriously flawed - effectively a fake victory.
Stop being such a party pooper man.
I have never been inclined to jump on bandwaggons. Justice and fair play matters far more to me. It is a pity really that such issues cannot be taken to the Courts.
I assume that you think if NZ were awarded the World Cup in six months' time by a judge, that would give them a "sense of triumph"?
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.
As Arsenal fans we have watched with frustration as the team’s football performances have declined over the past decade. When Stan Kroenke began buying Arsenal shares the club had just competed in a first Champions League final. Twelve years on Arsenal are about to play in the Europa League for the third year running.
Ouch. Which umpire made the ruling on the day ...?
Too late to affect the result, but we ought to apologise to NZ.
Though Adil is quite capable of having hit the winning runs (or getting out to an absurd swipe).
Surely if a mistake has been clearly identified, it ought to be corrected! We would expect nothing less from an error discovered in an election count.Failing to do so makes the result appear pretty fraudulent - or at best contrived.
Umpires regularly make mistakes in cricket, its part of the game. Roy was given out in the semi final and wasn't.
It certainly takes away any sense of triumph when so much is owed to incompetent umpiring. I would make the same point re-tennis umpires.
No it doesn't. Cricketers and their fans respect the umpires and I wouldn't say it was incompetent, especially since the umpires seem to have made the right call.
Others appear to disagree.Honour would only really be satified - and the interests of justice and fair play best served - by holding a replay - as was formerly the norm for draws at FA Cup and World Cup Finals.
"Fair play" is respecting that the umpire's decision is final.
Surely if there is a counterargument it is for Williamson to make, not anyone else on his behalf.
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.
Deary me...its sport...its part of the attraction that there is luck, incorrect decisions and cheating. Its why people watch, its why they still talk about great matches 50 years later.
Can we rerun the Argentina game where Maradona hand-balled it in the net? What about when Sol Campbell headed a perfectly good goal against Portugal?
If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals...nobody wants to see that.
As Arsenal fans we have watched with frustration as the team’s football performances have declined over the past decade. When Stan Kroenke began buying Arsenal shares the club had just competed in a first Champions League final. Twelve years on Arsenal are about to play in the Europa League for the third year running.
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.
Deary me...its sport...its part of the attraction that there is luck, incorrect decisions and cheating. Its why people watch, its why they still talk about great matches 50 years later.
If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals.
But why would a replay be so unreasonable - given that was the norm for FA and World Cup Finals when the teams remained level following Extra Time?
Thatcher far too divisive a figure - we'll all be long gone before (if ever) Thatcher appears on a note (if we still have them).
Edit - Thatcher wasn't even on the shortlist which was "Scientists":
The shortlisted characters, or pairs of characters, considered were: Mary Anning, Paul Dirac, Rosalind Franklin, William Herschel and Caroline Herschel, Dorothy Hodgkin, Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage, Stephen Hawking, James Clerk Maxwell, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Ernest Rutherford, Frederick Sanger and Alan Turing.
As Arsenal fans we have watched with frustration as the team’s football performances have declined over the past decade. When Stan Kroenke began buying Arsenal shares the club had just competed in a first Champions League final. Twelve years on Arsenal are about to play in the Europa League for the third year running.
BiB - They just can't help themselves, can they? Three FA Cups between 2013-14 and 2016-17, a second place finish in 2015-16. What's done for Arsenal isn't Kroenke, but the idiots signing the players in the last few years.
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.
Deary me...its sport...its part of the attraction that there is luck, incorrect decisions and cheating. Its why people watch, its why they still talk about great matches 50 years later.
If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals.
But why would a replay be so unreasonable - given that was the norm for FA and World Cup Finals when the teams remained level following Extra Time?
We would first need to replay all the previous 47 matches in the world cup, as in each there were equally incorrect decisions.
Remember a number of games got rained off, that alone would have changed who got in the final 4.
Always fascinating to see that a boring, crappy sport like Cricket produces such passion in my fellow PBers
Wouldn't go that far, but it's one of those things that are not as universally appealing as fans think. I mentioned it at work today - nobody had been following it, though one guy said he'd caught up with the final moments and they "seemed quite exciting".
Politics strikes most of them the same way - a hobby for other people. By contrast, football interests nearly everyone.
As Arsenal fans we have watched with frustration as the team’s football performances have declined over the past decade. When Stan Kroenke began buying Arsenal shares the club had just competed in a first Champions League final. Twelve years on Arsenal are about to play in the Europa League for the third year running.
BiB - They just can't help themselves, can they? Three FA Cups between 2013-14 and 2016-17, a second place finish in 2015-16. What's done for Arsenal isn't Kroenke, but the idiots signing the players in the last few years.
I was astonished to see that since Klopp took over Arsenal's net spend was higher than Liverpool's.
Is down to the really good prices we got not only for Coutinho but we offloaded the likes of Jordon Ibe and Dom Solanke each for more than Arsenal got for Ramsey, Wilshire, Wellbeck.
Just logged into Ladbrokes for first time in months and can't go any further until I upload my driving licence.
I am presuming this is genuine?
Yes, it is because of new regulations tightening up the rules on ID verification for bookies.
What if you don't have a drivers license? Not happy about uploading my passport.
There's a range of documents you can use. It's all the standard stuff; sadly we now in the UK have levels of pointless bureaucracy comparable to that you get in France and the US.
You can have all the tech you like in sports, and that *should* reduce errors (And will in the long run) but there is always an element of probability and random variation (luck for want of a better word) that can decide things.
One of the hawk-eye reviewed balls in the tennis my other half distinctly saw some white chalk fly up, but the ball was out by a millimetre or so - perhaps the chalk was outside where the lines should have been (Which is what I think hawkeye works off).
It happens in all sports, Kane WIlliamson would not want a repeat of yesterday due to a misruling - the umpire's decision is always final and he always plays the game with the utmost class and respect which shone through yesterday. Stuff can always be improved (I think LBWs will become progressively less in favour of the batsmen over time for instance) but there'll always be the potential for freak stuff to happen that's totally outside what might be envisioned. That can never be eliminated.
I would prefer to see a replay such as used to occur when FA and World Cup Finals were drawn.. Far better than a victory which already appears tarnished.
Deary me...its sport...its part of the attraction that there is luck, incorrect decisions and cheating. Its why people watch, its why they still talk about great matches 50 years later.
If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals.
But why would a replay be so unreasonable - given that was the norm for FA and World Cup Finals when the teams remained level following Extra Time?
A replay would be unreasonable because it is against the laws of cricket and the laws of football decades ago has nothing to do with the laws of cricket.
You can have all the tech you like in sports, and that *should* reduce errors (And will in the long run) but there is always an element of probability and random variation (luck for want of a better word) that can decide things.
One of the hawk-eye reviewed balls in the tennis my other half distinctly saw some white chalk fly up, but the ball was out by a millimetre or so - perhaps the chalk was outside where the lines should have been (Which is what I think hawkeye works off).
It happens in all sports, Kane WIlliamson would not want a repeat of yesterday due to a misruling - the umpire's decision is always final. Stuff can always be improved (I think LBWs will become progressively less in favour of the batsmen over time for instance) but there'll always be the potential for freak stuff to happen that's totally outside what might be envisioned. That can never be eliminated.
I think the challenge system in tennis and cricket is a very good middle ground. If you genuinely think you are on the end of a terrible decision you can challenge it, if (in cricket) it is touch and go, the balance is left with the original decision.
Thatcher far too divisive a figure - we'll all be long gone before (if ever) Thatcher appears on a note (if we still have them).
Edit - Thatcher wasn't even on the shortlist which was "Scientists":
The shortlisted characters, or pairs of characters, considered were: Mary Anning, Paul Dirac, Rosalind Franklin, William Herschel and Caroline Herschel, Dorothy Hodgkin, Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage, Stephen Hawking, James Clerk Maxwell, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Ernest Rutherford, Frederick Sanger and Alan Turing.
Dorothy Hodgkin was Mrs Thatcher's tutor at Oxford iirc.
You can probably have Mrs Thatcher on your bank card these days. Most let you add your own pictures.
Comments
Given that they are setting off running after the ball hit the stumps, let alone when the ball was thrown, Taufel must surely be wrong?
While personally I don't subscribe to the Tyndallite view that Brexit must be delivered before anything else for the sake of "democracy", the optics of this would be terrible.
It would be deemed a "stitch-up". Yes, yes, it is entirely legit in a parliamentary democracy. Yes, yes, it is just as legit as 70,000 not-entirely-demographically-typical Conservative members choosing our next PM. No matter. If you want to reinforce the view of an elite ruling just for themselves, that is exactly how you do it.
Just have a general election. It's how Britain works.
Almost invariably a ball hitting a batsman in these circumstances won't get anywhere near the boundary, and it is convention that the batsmen don't run overthrows (though under the laws they may do so), hence Stokes's reaction.
Stoke's reaction is due to the overthrows being in part his fault and not a misfield by the Kiwis.
There are too few principled MPs willing to act in accordance with their principles if it would cost them personally. So we will trundle on into second rate irrelevance or possibly much worse.
If my maths is correct 50 million people in the UK missed it all. they don't have many spokesmen today but there's a lot of them out there.
Fortunately all but a few of Labour's unprincipled MP's will be looking for alternative employment soon after Boris' snap election.
Edited extra bit: ought*
The Kiwi's themselves have accepted it with good grace.
https://twitter.com/theanfieldwrap/status/905736040564051968
So England were denied a free hit.
I tipped Alan Turing at 33/1
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/17/who-will-be-the-face-of-the-new-50-note/
https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1150710805265911814?s=21
Annoyed I didn't back that. Ah well.
What I do is keep a record of all my bets on a spreadsheet with the transaction ID.
I am presuming this is genuine?
Stokes ran the second run and in order to make the crease he dived with bat outstretched which is usual practice. The fielder threw the ball and amazingly it hit Stokes bat and richoched for four overthrow runs. Perfectly legitimate unless Stokes had done it deliberately which he did not
As a matter of interest have you ever played or enjoyed sport any sport
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1150714254892441600
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1150667802262614016
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1150713531643387905
A tenner aside, I am happy with the choice, but I know there are people who feel very strongly about ethnic minority and female representation
"I only take Turings mate."
In this case the overthrow richoched of a grounded bat and went for four runs. I see no breach of the rules in those actions
As Arsenal fans we have watched with frustration as the team’s football performances have declined over the past decade. When Stan Kroenke began buying Arsenal shares the club had just competed in a first Champions League final. Twelve years on Arsenal are about to play in the Europa League for the third year running.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/15/arsenal-fans-stan-kroenke-investment-vehicle
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1150714320969486337
Can we rerun the Argentina game where Maradona hand-balled it in the net? What about when Sol Campbell headed a perfectly good goal against Portugal?
If we took your approach, they would still be just about finishing the rerunning of most sporting competitions from the 90s about now. 60 year old sprinters in the 10th rerun of the 1988 100m finals...nobody wants to see that.
Edit - Thatcher wasn't even on the shortlist which was "Scientists":
The shortlisted characters, or pairs of characters, considered were: Mary Anning, Paul Dirac, Rosalind Franklin, William Herschel and Caroline Herschel, Dorothy Hodgkin, Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage, Stephen Hawking, James Clerk Maxwell, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Ernest Rutherford, Frederick Sanger and Alan Turing.
Remember a number of games got rained off, that alone would have changed who got in the final 4.
Politics strikes most of them the same way - a hobby for other people. By contrast, football interests nearly everyone.
Is down to the really good prices we got not only for Coutinho but we offloaded the likes of Jordon Ibe and Dom Solanke each for more than Arsenal got for Ramsey, Wilshire, Wellbeck.
One of the hawk-eye reviewed balls in the tennis my other half distinctly saw some white chalk fly up, but the ball was out by a millimetre or so - perhaps the chalk was outside where the lines should have been (Which is what I think hawkeye works off).
It happens in all sports, Kane WIlliamson would not want a repeat of yesterday due to a misruling - the umpire's decision is always final and he always plays the game with the utmost class and respect which shone through yesterday.
Stuff can always be improved (I think LBWs will become progressively less in favour of the batsmen over time for instance) but there'll always be the potential for freak stuff to happen that's totally outside what might be envisioned. That can never be eliminated.
You can probably have Mrs Thatcher on your bank card these days. Most let you add your own pictures.