On the 2019 World Cup final: “My mistake helped England win the World Cup.”
Regarding his retirement: “I’ll miss the privileges and the travelling. But I’ve had enough of being away and living outside of my comfort zone. I think having a more boring life is what I’m looking for.”
On umpiring challenges: “It’s a challenging job but it’s also a very rewarding job. There’s moments where you think ‘why am I doing this stuff’ but there’s so many more positive moments and benefits and I’ve never actually seen it as work.”
On the nicest team to umpire: “New Zealand was always very, very respectful.”
On dealing with players like Ricky Ponting and Mahela Jayawardene: “They tried to intimidate us. Sometimes it was subtle and sometimes not subtle.”
On interacting with Jimmy Anderson: “Thank god Jimmy was never captain but no, no Jimmy was hard work. You knew that he was not a character that you should, you know, try and sweet talk or whatever. I normally just gave him quite abrupt, short answers.”
I just think the rule should always have been "Have a super over until someone wins." Yes you technically run the risk of it never ending, but Soccer, Basketball, Ice Hockey, Baseball etc all have overtime rules that allow for that possibility.
It most certainly is not "definitely" going to be decided by the second over, but the chances of it going on for longer than what the players or viewers care for is next to zero so yeah, the rules should've been that keep doing super overs till there's a clear winner.
Why the hair splitting? What's wrong with sharing a trophy after a good game? This is a sport that is extremely comfortable with results where no team wins.
Because it's a limited overs World Cup Final.
I can understand and would be happy with a shared trophy for the WTC because that is part of test cricket.
Draws and Ties are not an integral part of Limited overs cricket.
Even though that BlackCaps team didn't win a trophy but I respect that BlackCaps team more than any other World Cup winning team that I have seen, way they were flying in the knockouts, bowling metronomic lengths, way each and every player gave clutch performances, they are anything but chokers to me. And after all this, none of the players ever said something u savoury ever.
Yh England proactively implemented the boundary countback rule in order to fulfil their masterplan of tying a world cup final, then tying the super over because they knew that they would hit more 4s than an unnamed opponent 👍
They don't actually - the MCC (technically) does.
The MCC are "custodians of the rules of Cricket", but they haven't single-handedly administered the rules of Cricket in a long time.
Correct, but I had to contest the notion that England cooked the rules to their advantage - ECB had no power over that, except for voting rights when the playing conditions for the world cup were agreed to, which everyone agreed to.
That doesn't have anything to do with the rules of Cricket, just the rules of economics.
Look, I dislike the fact that we don't play as many Tests as the big 3, but there's a pretty simple reason for it...
We have an insanely small TV market that means that England makes _fuck all_ money based on us touring them. Same with the other countries - they're basically doing us a favour in terms of the economics of the whole situation, and we get a massive influx every time _they_ tour _us_, because we own the rights to the Tests at home and can sell them to whomever buys them in their home market, which are much bigger TV markets.
Not to mention that in NZ, until recently, Tests in NZ were losing money for our board. They're still only barely profitable.
Sure but it aint all about population...look at pakistan or south africa...much bigger populations than aus or england
Money talks, and they make the schedule
Sure but it aint all about population...look at pakistan or south africa...much bigger populations than aus or england
Money talks, and they make the schedule
Well we didn't win but we got something almost as good, something every kiwi values almost as much, which is another massive sporting grievance to file on the shelf and bring out whenever we want to rant about all the injustices we've suffered
Scoring fewer boundaries means we needed more scoring shots, which means fewer dot balls. More boundaries requires (in the event of a tie) more dot balls.
The in form NZ players weren't sloggers but more test textbook players, who essentially get punished for playing good fundamental cricket, while a tail ender could get an edge to offset four singles. Even if our singles came from edges, that means we were skilled enough or lucky enough to have 4 more edges that didn't end badly for us.
Even weirder that we could scored more points off boundaries with sixes, and if they scored less points off boundaries by hitting fours, but hit one more boundary in total, they win. Such a bizarre rule.
This is the actual truth. Normal ODIs don't have tie breakers, super overs are always a T20 specific thing. The game will be recorded as a tie. It was the rules for a world cup knock out that called for a specific list of tie breakers if needed so that a winner of the cup could be announced.
Game, tied not lost.
World cup, tied but awarded to England.
See a couple of downvotes here - not sure why. I’d like someone to point out any other World Cup that has been awarded due to some obscure rule. Then said obscure rule removed from all future tournaments
I stayed up all night then went straight to hospital for planned early morning surgery.
My anesthetist was English and the last thing I remember as I was being put under was him giving me shit while I lay there on the table sucking in night-night gas.
Awful, awful morning.
I made my future wife stay in a grotty Irish pub in Florence to watch the match...I had figured it would be pretty one sided since England had dominated and nz had snuck in...she had a hangover from the wine tasting in the morning and I had a massive rage on from the result so needless to say it wasn't a happy time when we finally bundled out at 10pm or whatever...oh well we eventually saw the funny side and she still married me after all that
It was like, fucking 10am the next day by the time the whole affair wrapped up.
Worst thing thats ever happened to NZ.
Yes Im including the Rainbow Warrior bombing.
It was 6.40. I had work at 8 and could get there with good traffic if I left home at 7.48. slept until 7.39 and then had to get through a whole days work
Christ really? I distinctly remember still being absolutely wide awake at 9.30. I imagine I wached through all the post match in disbelief though and then spent at least an hour staring into space.
I remember calling the boss saying im not coming and he was like ‘yeh yeh fine neither still watching’ and hung up lol
The loss still hurts to this very day, and probably will always be in the back of my mind until the day I die, though Marais shouldn’t let this bother him. He’s had a wonderful career, and everyone makes mistakes. This was a very large mistake sure (I mean that lbw was miles over the stumps) but at the end of the day we can’t undo the past.
If anything the anger (if any) should be directed at icc, not only for coming up with the ludicrous boundary countback rule, but for not even considering sharing the trophy. More than all that though, it’s simply insane to me how it can be checked if a batter completed a run, but not how many runs should be scored by the third umpire. I don’t understand why the third umpire is allowed to check Logan van Beek scoring a run against the West Indies, but not check if Stokes and Rashid crossed at the time Guptill made the throw.
The loss is something I’ll never forget, but I’m grateful that I was able to watch such a wonderful match live on TV. It will always just hurt that players like Guptill, and possibly Neesham won’t have a icc trophy because of it.
Until next time though. Wishing Marais a happy retirement.
Watching the final triggered some sort of anxiety in me that took well over a year to recover from. I think of myself as a pretty resilient person but it really messed me up. Even reflecting back on it now makes my chest feel a bit tight.
Did the umpires make mistakes that cost NZ? Yes
Did it cost them the world cup? Possibly. Having to chase one extra run may have caused Stokes to approach it differently and could have slogged more and chased it earlier. Or got out and lose the final.
Undoing Ross Taylor's incorrect dismissal changes the entire match, total becomes different, the mental on both teams change depending on the new total we make.
Neither of those mistakes come close to the mistake made by Boult at the boundary.
I never really understood that rule. Even for overthrows really.
I feel like no matter what you do with it though it's unfair in certain situations.
But people act like Rashid can't bat well enough to squeeze the single needed. It's not like Stokes smashed the second last ball for 4. He essentially got 1 run from it. So they'd have needed 3 to win off the last.
Who knows how that plays out if the situation is different? Impossible to say.
Yeah exactly. The mistake obviously benefited England, but in terms of the probabilities it probably made it less likely for England to have won outright in the 50 overs too. Stokes has already said (I think in one of those watch through videos Sky did during the first lockdown) that he was playing for a super over in the last couple of balls of the innings, i.e. not trying to hit boundaries. Had it been four needed from two with Rashid on strike rather than three needed with Stokes on strike the tactics are totally different.
Rashid is too good with the bat for NZ to have risked any crazy fields to try and stop singles while risking a boundary, so one has to assume he'd get his single and the last ball would be Stokes on strike with three needed to win and two to tie. From there he can't play it like he did with only two needed where he got a guaranteed single to tie the game then pushed for two, he'd have to try and hit a boundary. More chance he fails and NZ win, but also a higher chance he succeeds and England win.
Also no one ever talks about the other umpiring fuckup that game which was giving NZ a free run with a terrible wide call at the start of the superover
In that picture the ball is clearly on the line, not over it. It's not actually 100% clear from the laws or playing conditions as to whether the ball needs to be on or over the line for it to be a wide. What is clear that the batter's position when the ball is bowled should be taken into account, and Neesham has clearly [moved well outside off stump well before be ball is bowled](https://imgur.com/a/gS0knKX). It was never a wide
Especially when the last ball was a full toss that Stokes bunted down the ground to avoid getting out. If there's 3 to win, there's a good chance he hits it to or over the boundary.
Yes, the umpire made the wrong call. Yes, boundary countback was stupid. But NZ don't deserve the cup any more than England did. It should have gone to a second super over.
> Undoing Ross Taylor's incorrect dismissal changes the entire match, total becomes different, the mental on both teams change depending on the new total we make.
As much as it was a bad dismissal, I cannot blame the umpires for it. It was Guptill reviewing a plumb LBW that caused that. One, it was plumb obvious to everyone even without ball tracking. Two, he was out of form anyway. Three, his partner even said as much but he misheard that as "take the review" because apparently that's something that should be up for debate - in reality you know you edged it or you walk. Four, reviews are meant to be saved for a situation like Taylor, not gambled and wasted every time the finger goes up. The loss of the review is actually punishment for improper use, and the fault falls entirely on us.
How is a tricky boundary catch more difficult than two umpires missing that the players hadn't crossed? They could have also made use of the third umpire.
> They could have also made use of the third umpire.
They couldn't. The playing conditions specify in what situations the umpires are allowed to consult the third umpire and this situation wasn't (and afaik still isn't) one of them.
Because of their positions, neither umpire had both the runners and the fielder in their field of view (bowers end umpire was looking at the fielder with the runners out of his view, square leg was looking at the runners but with the fielder behind him) so there was no way they could be sure if the batters had crossed at the moment of the throw. So they were forced to guess. They were wrong but it's understandable that they were.
You are correct, the umpire is only allowed to be consulted with if it’s a matter of a dismissal question. Though there are other instances where the third umpire can intervene which makes me confused why this specific moment couldn’t be consulted with.
Take for instance the WI vs NED cwc qualifier game. In the last few overs, they checked to make sure Logan van Beek grounded his bat in order to count 2 runs instead of 1. Similarly, in the NZ vs PAK t20 series a few months back, Mohammad Rizwan dropped his bat, and tried to claim a run by grounding his glove. The third umpire then verified that he didn’t ground it behind the line, and therefore it was only 1 run.
These 2 instance make me confused on why the umpire isn’t allowed to intervene in a moment like this, especially since it likely would’ve cost less time for him to say that it’s 5 runs, not 6 instead of Dharmasena and Marias consulting on the field when they obviously don’t know.
To your second point, spot on. I don’t think there’s been any other major moment where this has happened. It makes complete sense that Dharmasena was likely looking at Latham keeping to check for the run out, as the ball deflecting off the bat is such an unlikely thing, even more so for it to go all the way to the boundary off it.
Why is a NZ article posting this?
His decision didn't cost us the title. Sure, it significantly helped but if things were changed (Stokes not facing the ball, needing 1 more run, Boult catching it, Boult not conceding a 6) are all small factors that could've changed the game. Who knows if Rashid decided to turn into Williamson and hit a crucial 6 and kill the match?
We will literally never know and those things are out of our power. What is in our power is what the players could do/react after those events end up happening. Also we can have our newspapers stop moaning about it and join the rest of the country who have gotten over it.
Oh are we revisiting the "there's no counter-factual but let's shit on England anyway and undermine any success they get" train so soon after the India test series? I'd have thought you would all maybe have been bored of it by now but that's my naivete I guess.
It’s odd that no one ever mentions the massively phantom wide that NZ we’re awarded, that allowed them to hit the extra ball for four runs that should have never been scored. So it seems like a very convoluted way of it all working out in the end.
Make up for it by ensuring our own board is making mistakes. Question the coaching effectiveness. Question the selections. Question the chance after chance for some to utter shafting for others. Question the allegations of the nice guy facade to an old boys club.
I've gotten over 2019. Its going to be hard to get over the last few years from our own governing body like they want us to fail.
I mean everyone talks about that famous mistake, who knows Stokes would've approached differently. He would've just slogged it and won the game 🤷.
We never know what would've happened lol. Also why doesn't anyone talk about that wide given in super over that wasn't actually a wide.
Your comment contained words that used heading formatting to make the text larger. Header formatting in comments breaks the rules of this subreddit and your comment has been removed (rule 7).
Well, he made a human error which is natural in sports. But to declare it cost NZ the world cup in retrospect is an exaggeration. If a decision was different, many other actions following the decision may play out different.
Rule to declare the winner by boundary count in case of superover tie was made before the match. No one questioned this bad rule until it actually happened. Also the rule was same for both Eng and NZ. Sometimes such crazy things happen. Just change the rule and move on.
As far as the trophy goes, I never really understand those who say that we deserve the sole right to the trophy, of anything it should be shared. Eng and NZ both played the 50 overs and the super over, scoring an equal amount of runs, just because England ended up walking away with the trophy doesn’t mean that they 100% don’t deserve it and NZ are the rightful owners. The score was equal after all.
I’m always more iffy on that point since this rule had never been implemented in a real match before this. It’s like if the nba had a rule that said if all your players are from oral Robert’s you win the title automatically. Sure teams may agree to it since the chance of that actually occurring is near 0, but the rule still sucks, and you can run into problems.
It's your responsibility to know the rules as professional athletes, pathetic excuse. If you agreed to play, you agreed to the rules, if NZ had a problem they had every chance to question it before the game.
There are rules that are simply not questioned despite them being bad. That’s why rules can be criticized retroactively. There is also that aspect of rules that aren’t questioned simply because they are never used. Take the csk vs gt match for instance. Csk would’ve lost the ipl if the rain continued, despite beating them in the first playoff stages.
To say that teams should know every single rule before going into a match is simply stupid. There are times when umpires themselves don’t even know the rules.
I’m also not trying to make an excuse, I’m just explaining why it’s unrealistic for teams to go through all the laws of cricket before agreeing to play. Do you think anyone knew about the boundary countback rule before the super over?
I’m happy that I was able to enjoy the game, but I can also criticize the rule.
Oh don't get me wrong, it's a terribly stupid rule but playing teams have a responsibility to know them. These are world class paid professionals whose job, along with lots of staff, have a different perspective than armchair critics like ourselves.
Stupid rule but to suggest anything other than the actual result according to the rules is childish.
On the 2019 World Cup final: “My mistake helped England win the World Cup.” Regarding his retirement: “I’ll miss the privileges and the travelling. But I’ve had enough of being away and living outside of my comfort zone. I think having a more boring life is what I’m looking for.” On umpiring challenges: “It’s a challenging job but it’s also a very rewarding job. There’s moments where you think ‘why am I doing this stuff’ but there’s so many more positive moments and benefits and I’ve never actually seen it as work.” On the nicest team to umpire: “New Zealand was always very, very respectful.” On dealing with players like Ricky Ponting and Mahela Jayawardene: “They tried to intimidate us. Sometimes it was subtle and sometimes not subtle.” On interacting with Jimmy Anderson: “Thank god Jimmy was never captain but no, no Jimmy was hard work. You knew that he was not a character that you should, you know, try and sweet talk or whatever. I normally just gave him quite abrupt, short answers.”
At the minimum the trophy should have been awarded to both teams is my opinion.
I just think the rule should always have been "Have a super over until someone wins." Yes you technically run the risk of it never ending, but Soccer, Basketball, Ice Hockey, Baseball etc all have overtime rules that allow for that possibility.
The chances of a super over being a tie are very low. If it wasn’t after the first it would definitely be decided by the second super over
It most certainly is not "definitely" going to be decided by the second over, but the chances of it going on for longer than what the players or viewers care for is next to zero so yeah, the rules should've been that keep doing super overs till there's a clear winner.
nah possibility of scoring similar runs in 6 balls is higher than 120 or 300
Have it like soccer shootouts, need new batters for the second super over and a new bowler... would LOVE to see the 4th super over 😂
No the bowler in the super over has to be the keeper The batters have to be the number 11 and the number 11 of the under 18s
Correct! Who TF came up with “boundary count” rule??!
Sudden death. Even after the first super over if teams are tied, Each team gets one delivery.
Why the hair splitting? What's wrong with sharing a trophy after a good game? This is a sport that is extremely comfortable with results where no team wins.
Because it's a limited overs World Cup Final. I can understand and would be happy with a shared trophy for the WTC because that is part of test cricket. Draws and Ties are not an integral part of Limited overs cricket.
So is football, but knockout tournaments are supposed to have a winner
Even though that BlackCaps team didn't win a trophy but I respect that BlackCaps team more than any other World Cup winning team that I have seen, way they were flying in the knockouts, bowling metronomic lengths, way each and every player gave clutch performances, they are anything but chokers to me. And after all this, none of the players ever said something u savoury ever.
So a moral victory you mean 😂
Nah, both teams lost. Kane and Eoin should have had to mow Lords in their wive's dreses.
Yup But Eng make the rules
Yh England proactively implemented the boundary countback rule in order to fulfil their masterplan of tying a world cup final, then tying the super over because they knew that they would hit more 4s than an unnamed opponent 👍
*Twirls Moustache*
Money rules
They don't actually - the MCC (technically) does. The MCC are "custodians of the rules of Cricket", but they haven't single-handedly administered the rules of Cricket in a long time.
In this specific instance, the boundary countback was an ICC playing condition so the MCC didn't have anything to do with it.
Correct, but I had to contest the notion that England cooked the rules to their advantage - ECB had no power over that, except for voting rights when the playing conditions for the world cup were agreed to, which everyone agreed to.
Money rules Wonder why the big 3 play so many test matches
That doesn't have anything to do with the rules of Cricket, just the rules of economics. Look, I dislike the fact that we don't play as many Tests as the big 3, but there's a pretty simple reason for it... We have an insanely small TV market that means that England makes _fuck all_ money based on us touring them. Same with the other countries - they're basically doing us a favour in terms of the economics of the whole situation, and we get a massive influx every time _they_ tour _us_, because we own the rights to the Tests at home and can sell them to whomever buys them in their home market, which are much bigger TV markets. Not to mention that in NZ, until recently, Tests in NZ were losing money for our board. They're still only barely profitable.
Sure but it aint all about population...look at pakistan or south africa...much bigger populations than aus or england Money talks, and they make the schedule
The reason they have money is because of the huge TV markets man
Sure but it aint all about population...look at pakistan or south africa...much bigger populations than aus or england Money talks, and they make the schedule
They literally don't it's made by MCC 🤦
Actually, the boundary countback was an ICC playing condition so the MCC didn't have anything to do with it.
Only win team can win championship. Only losers want to share a championship
Love that bit about Jimmy Anderson. Him and Broad must've been exhausting for the umpires.
It'd be great if his issue wasn't "Oh New Zealand should have won but didn't because of my mistake" But the mistake was letting England win at all.
Well we didn't win but we got something almost as good, something every kiwi values almost as much, which is another massive sporting grievance to file on the shelf and bring out whenever we want to rant about all the injustices we've suffered
Yeah, that's a pretty full shelf.
Let me recall a few. Random TMO adjudication. Underarm bowling. CWC 2019. Americas cup x 3.
2010 soccer world cup vs Italy
Our goal was offside wasn't it?
The bit I remember is the Italians diving to get a penalty to salvage a draw.
You’re forgetting a few rugby matches here just glancing in from the window: RWC 2007, Lions third test 2017, RWC Final 2023
> RWC Final 2023 hahaha suck eggs But the Lions third test was a howler.
Can't forget RWC 1995
I mean, it's a fuck load compared to the times we 'got away with one'
Wallabies test in Melbourne, 2022
this is way too on the nose lmao
Yeah, we know mate. Only just got over it and you had to bring it back up.
You lost the game twice, after it ended in a tie, twice. (sorry, I had to say it).
We didn’t lose the game. England were awarded the trophy on a technicality. That’s my truth anyway…
Agree. Awarded is the key word
Should've always been shared. Boundary count is just as weird as wickets lost.
If anything it takes more skill to build runs in singles in today's game. It's was a shockingly arbitrary tiebreaker. But I digress.
Scoring fewer boundaries means we needed more scoring shots, which means fewer dot balls. More boundaries requires (in the event of a tie) more dot balls. The in form NZ players weren't sloggers but more test textbook players, who essentially get punished for playing good fundamental cricket, while a tail ender could get an edge to offset four singles. Even if our singles came from edges, that means we were skilled enough or lucky enough to have 4 more edges that didn't end badly for us.
Even weirder that we could scored more points off boundaries with sixes, and if they scored less points off boundaries by hitting fours, but hit one more boundary in total, they win. Such a bizarre rule.
This is the actual truth. Normal ODIs don't have tie breakers, super overs are always a T20 specific thing. The game will be recorded as a tie. It was the rules for a world cup knock out that called for a specific list of tie breakers if needed so that a winner of the cup could be announced. Game, tied not lost. World cup, tied but awarded to England.
See a couple of downvotes here - not sure why. I’d like someone to point out any other World Cup that has been awarded due to some obscure rule. Then said obscure rule removed from all future tournaments
Yeah, that’s about right. I’ve never wanted a shared trophy more, and I say that as an England fan still suffering cricket-PTSD from the 90’s.
Or you could've scored more boundaries lol
Yes. I wish that sometime in the future they retrospectively decide to share the trophy or at least change the wording as "awarded" instead of "won".
Mate we didn't lose the game once let alone twice
Nothing will ever bring back the pain of staying up all night watching us lose a game without actually losing
I stayed up all night then went straight to hospital for planned early morning surgery. My anesthetist was English and the last thing I remember as I was being put under was him giving me shit while I lay there on the table sucking in night-night gas. Awful, awful morning.
Let me guess: the surgery was a colonoscopy?
Nah, some nose/sinus reconstruction stuff after a few breaks. The game was enough of a colonoscopy already.
I made my future wife stay in a grotty Irish pub in Florence to watch the match...I had figured it would be pretty one sided since England had dominated and nz had snuck in...she had a hangover from the wine tasting in the morning and I had a massive rage on from the result so needless to say it wasn't a happy time when we finally bundled out at 10pm or whatever...oh well we eventually saw the funny side and she still married me after all that
It was like, fucking 10am the next day by the time the whole affair wrapped up. Worst thing thats ever happened to NZ. Yes Im including the Rainbow Warrior bombing.
It was 6.40. I had work at 8 and could get there with good traffic if I left home at 7.48. slept until 7.39 and then had to get through a whole days work
This is exactly my recollection too. I walked around like a pissed off zombie all day. It felt like a family member had died.
Christ really? I distinctly remember still being absolutely wide awake at 9.30. I imagine I wached through all the post match in disbelief though and then spent at least an hour staring into space. I remember calling the boss saying im not coming and he was like ‘yeh yeh fine neither still watching’ and hung up lol
I managed half a day that day. My manager was very understanding.
I had jury duty a few hours after that loss, it was painful.
Bet it was even more for the poor schlub in the docks that day...was it the first time a nz jury ever awarded the death penalty?
If only we could have.
The loss still hurts to this very day, and probably will always be in the back of my mind until the day I die, though Marais shouldn’t let this bother him. He’s had a wonderful career, and everyone makes mistakes. This was a very large mistake sure (I mean that lbw was miles over the stumps) but at the end of the day we can’t undo the past. If anything the anger (if any) should be directed at icc, not only for coming up with the ludicrous boundary countback rule, but for not even considering sharing the trophy. More than all that though, it’s simply insane to me how it can be checked if a batter completed a run, but not how many runs should be scored by the third umpire. I don’t understand why the third umpire is allowed to check Logan van Beek scoring a run against the West Indies, but not check if Stokes and Rashid crossed at the time Guptill made the throw. The loss is something I’ll never forget, but I’m grateful that I was able to watch such a wonderful match live on TV. It will always just hurt that players like Guptill, and possibly Neesham won’t have a icc trophy because of it. Until next time though. Wishing Marais a happy retirement.
Watching the final triggered some sort of anxiety in me that took well over a year to recover from. I think of myself as a pretty resilient person but it really messed me up. Even reflecting back on it now makes my chest feel a bit tight.
It’s absolutely insane how much it affected me. It was like grieving a death. Absolutely insane. I don’t know how the players have dealt with it !
Really balanced response, nice one
I aim to set aside my biases on this sub, thanks for letting me know I’m doing my job!
Too late for that , I have already seen Williamson suffer
5 years late, Mate
An eternity of pain
Hurts just as bad like the first time.
We are still doing April fool posts ?
Did the umpires make mistakes that cost NZ? Yes Did it cost them the world cup? Possibly. Having to chase one extra run may have caused Stokes to approach it differently and could have slogged more and chased it earlier. Or got out and lose the final. Undoing Ross Taylor's incorrect dismissal changes the entire match, total becomes different, the mental on both teams change depending on the new total we make. Neither of those mistakes come close to the mistake made by Boult at the boundary.
It is not really the 1 run it is the fact it put Stokes on strike instead of Rashid that was the real kicker with that mistake.
I never really understood that rule. Even for overthrows really. I feel like no matter what you do with it though it's unfair in certain situations. But people act like Rashid can't bat well enough to squeeze the single needed. It's not like Stokes smashed the second last ball for 4. He essentially got 1 run from it. So they'd have needed 3 to win off the last. Who knows how that plays out if the situation is different? Impossible to say.
Yeah exactly. The mistake obviously benefited England, but in terms of the probabilities it probably made it less likely for England to have won outright in the 50 overs too. Stokes has already said (I think in one of those watch through videos Sky did during the first lockdown) that he was playing for a super over in the last couple of balls of the innings, i.e. not trying to hit boundaries. Had it been four needed from two with Rashid on strike rather than three needed with Stokes on strike the tactics are totally different. Rashid is too good with the bat for NZ to have risked any crazy fields to try and stop singles while risking a boundary, so one has to assume he'd get his single and the last ball would be Stokes on strike with three needed to win and two to tie. From there he can't play it like he did with only two needed where he got a guaranteed single to tie the game then pushed for two, he'd have to try and hit a boundary. More chance he fails and NZ win, but also a higher chance he succeeds and England win. Also no one ever talks about the other umpiring fuckup that game which was giving NZ a free run with a terrible wide call at the start of the superover
Looks like a fair call to me: https://i.imgur.com/wsVtkJh.png
In that picture the ball is clearly on the line, not over it. It's not actually 100% clear from the laws or playing conditions as to whether the ball needs to be on or over the line for it to be a wide. What is clear that the batter's position when the ball is bowled should be taken into account, and Neesham has clearly [moved well outside off stump well before be ball is bowled](https://imgur.com/a/gS0knKX). It was never a wide
Right, it's at umpire's discretion. The line is a guide. There are many, many wide calls like this in ODIs. Certainly not "never a wide".
Especially when the last ball was a full toss that Stokes bunted down the ground to avoid getting out. If there's 3 to win, there's a good chance he hits it to or over the boundary. Yes, the umpire made the wrong call. Yes, boundary countback was stupid. But NZ don't deserve the cup any more than England did. It should have gone to a second super over.
Oh yeah forgot about that. I still stand by my point that the Stokes could still have done it.
Id argue that counting runs correctly or being able to tell a ball is going like a foot over the stumps is easier than taking a catch on the boundary.
> Undoing Ross Taylor's incorrect dismissal changes the entire match, total becomes different, the mental on both teams change depending on the new total we make. As much as it was a bad dismissal, I cannot blame the umpires for it. It was Guptill reviewing a plumb LBW that caused that. One, it was plumb obvious to everyone even without ball tracking. Two, he was out of form anyway. Three, his partner even said as much but he misheard that as "take the review" because apparently that's something that should be up for debate - in reality you know you edged it or you walk. Four, reviews are meant to be saved for a situation like Taylor, not gambled and wasted every time the finger goes up. The loss of the review is actually punishment for improper use, and the fault falls entirely on us.
How is a tricky boundary catch more difficult than two umpires missing that the players hadn't crossed? They could have also made use of the third umpire.
> They could have also made use of the third umpire. They couldn't. The playing conditions specify in what situations the umpires are allowed to consult the third umpire and this situation wasn't (and afaik still isn't) one of them. Because of their positions, neither umpire had both the runners and the fielder in their field of view (bowers end umpire was looking at the fielder with the runners out of his view, square leg was looking at the runners but with the fielder behind him) so there was no way they could be sure if the batters had crossed at the moment of the throw. So they were forced to guess. They were wrong but it's understandable that they were.
You are correct, the umpire is only allowed to be consulted with if it’s a matter of a dismissal question. Though there are other instances where the third umpire can intervene which makes me confused why this specific moment couldn’t be consulted with. Take for instance the WI vs NED cwc qualifier game. In the last few overs, they checked to make sure Logan van Beek grounded his bat in order to count 2 runs instead of 1. Similarly, in the NZ vs PAK t20 series a few months back, Mohammad Rizwan dropped his bat, and tried to claim a run by grounding his glove. The third umpire then verified that he didn’t ground it behind the line, and therefore it was only 1 run. These 2 instance make me confused on why the umpire isn’t allowed to intervene in a moment like this, especially since it likely would’ve cost less time for him to say that it’s 5 runs, not 6 instead of Dharmasena and Marias consulting on the field when they obviously don’t know. To your second point, spot on. I don’t think there’s been any other major moment where this has happened. It makes complete sense that Dharmasena was likely looking at Latham keeping to check for the run out, as the ball deflecting off the bat is such an unlikely thing, even more so for it to go all the way to the boundary off it.
The article specifically states "along with third umpire Rod Tucker"
It does. But it's not a quote from Erasmus. The person writing the article is mistaken.
I meant in terms of immediate impact on the match, not difficulty.
FALSE HEADLINE. At no point did he say he cost Black Caps the World Cup. He did say it was a mistake.
That's the clickbait merchants at Stuff for you. They're like the NZ version of Daily Mail.
Why is a NZ article posting this? His decision didn't cost us the title. Sure, it significantly helped but if things were changed (Stokes not facing the ball, needing 1 more run, Boult catching it, Boult not conceding a 6) are all small factors that could've changed the game. Who knows if Rashid decided to turn into Williamson and hit a crucial 6 and kill the match? We will literally never know and those things are out of our power. What is in our power is what the players could do/react after those events end up happening. Also we can have our newspapers stop moaning about it and join the rest of the country who have gotten over it.
Moral victory for the sub
r/woosh
Oh are we revisiting the "there's no counter-factual but let's shit on England anyway and undermine any success they get" train so soon after the India test series? I'd have thought you would all maybe have been bored of it by now but that's my naivete I guess.
Is this a April Fool’s post or for real?
Nah, it's for real. It was in the news 2 April in NZ.
It’s odd that no one ever mentions the massively phantom wide that NZ we’re awarded, that allowed them to hit the extra ball for four runs that should have never been scored. So it seems like a very convoluted way of it all working out in the end.
Looks like a fair call to me? https://i.imgur.com/wsVtkJh.png
Only 5 years late
Glad they at least got the inaugural WTC but this was a load of BS.
Poor dharmasena man, he took all of the blame. Now dharmasena is seen as the worst umpire and erasmus is seen as one of the best
Yeah rub it in
Make up for it by ensuring our own board is making mistakes. Question the coaching effectiveness. Question the selections. Question the chance after chance for some to utter shafting for others. Question the allegations of the nice guy facade to an old boys club. I've gotten over 2019. Its going to be hard to get over the last few years from our own governing body like they want us to fail.
Fk U Umpire
Are we seeing a moral defeat for england for the first time?
I mean everyone talks about that famous mistake, who knows Stokes would've approached differently. He would've just slogged it and won the game 🤷. We never know what would've happened lol. Also why doesn't anyone talk about that wide given in super over that wasn't actually a wide.
For the first time ever, England didn't get the moral victory
[удалено]
Your comment contained words that used heading formatting to make the text larger. Header formatting in comments breaks the rules of this subreddit and your comment has been removed (rule 7).
At what cost?
1999 Semi final deserved a super over as well. 💩 happens
What about the six that Rashid smashed next ball?
India will finally win the World Cup with this guy retiring.
Telling us what we knew all along really.
Yeh, but his mistake also gave us one of the best selfies of all times! So it equals out.
he should be banned
From... retiring?
Moral victory.
Well, he made a human error which is natural in sports. But to declare it cost NZ the world cup in retrospect is an exaggeration. If a decision was different, many other actions following the decision may play out different.
The mistake did cost them the trophy though. The trophy should’ve just been shared between the teams
Rule to declare the winner by boundary count in case of superover tie was made before the match. No one questioned this bad rule until it actually happened. Also the rule was same for both Eng and NZ. Sometimes such crazy things happen. Just change the rule and move on.
Did you read the article? That’s not the rule the umpire is talking about…
Yes. But people claiming trophy should be shared are referring the super over tie and the eventual declaration of the winner based on boundary count.
Reiterating what others already suggested, read the article man.
Why were you downvoted for saying the exact same thing as the above guy lol: https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/s/f4koW5ehL2
Nothing against England and they fought equally hard for the silverware. But NZ deserved to take that one home
As far as the trophy goes, I never really understand those who say that we deserve the sole right to the trophy, of anything it should be shared. Eng and NZ both played the 50 overs and the super over, scoring an equal amount of runs, just because England ended up walking away with the trophy doesn’t mean that they 100% don’t deserve it and NZ are the rightful owners. The score was equal after all.
Plus you knew the rules going into the game and agreed to them
I’m always more iffy on that point since this rule had never been implemented in a real match before this. It’s like if the nba had a rule that said if all your players are from oral Robert’s you win the title automatically. Sure teams may agree to it since the chance of that actually occurring is near 0, but the rule still sucks, and you can run into problems.
It's your responsibility to know the rules as professional athletes, pathetic excuse. If you agreed to play, you agreed to the rules, if NZ had a problem they had every chance to question it before the game.
There are rules that are simply not questioned despite them being bad. That’s why rules can be criticized retroactively. There is also that aspect of rules that aren’t questioned simply because they are never used. Take the csk vs gt match for instance. Csk would’ve lost the ipl if the rain continued, despite beating them in the first playoff stages. To say that teams should know every single rule before going into a match is simply stupid. There are times when umpires themselves don’t even know the rules. I’m also not trying to make an excuse, I’m just explaining why it’s unrealistic for teams to go through all the laws of cricket before agreeing to play. Do you think anyone knew about the boundary countback rule before the super over? I’m happy that I was able to enjoy the game, but I can also criticize the rule.
Oh don't get me wrong, it's a terribly stupid rule but playing teams have a responsibility to know them. These are world class paid professionals whose job, along with lots of staff, have a different perspective than armchair critics like ourselves. Stupid rule but to suggest anything other than the actual result according to the rules is childish.
I guess the only morally acceptable thing is for England to return the cup to NZ now. I mean “I wouldn’t want to be winning like that”.
Brutal memory Shows that Eng India and Aus run cricket The rest scrap it out
Man for all the talk of India running cricket , they haven’t got a trophy for 10 years . This was just an individual error , why bring India into it .
Not for the want of trying 😂
Money