Page 103 of 115 FirstFirst ... 35393100101102103104105106113 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,030 of 1148
  1. #1021
    Members sheebo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    20,867


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodian View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    These are from the MCC's e-learning for umpires and others. The top one is the main slide, the other two are the transcript of the video referred to.

    Attachment 113055
    Attachment 113056
    Attachment 113057

    MCC clearly state that completed runs means 'all runs completed BEFORE the instance of the throw', and that the run in progress means the one taking place AT the instance of the throw.

    The interpretation by MCC for umpires is clearly "The runs scored before the fielder released the ball are counted, as well as the runs awarded for the boundary". Nothing whatsoever about a 'completed run' being after the fielder released the ball. If we are arguing purely about the 'throw' - then it should have been five runs, wherever the comma is placed. If we are arguing about the 'act' being the hitting of Stokes' bat - then that is a nonsense as 'act' is referring back to the only other mention of 'act' in the law, which is a wilful act by the fielder.

    Not sure we can really argue this much more either way. MCC set the laws, and this is their guidance.
    I’ve not followed the ‘controversy’ on this thread or the media - but they’d both just started the run when the throw came in so 6 wa correct yeh?

    Even if it should have been 5 it most definitely doesn’t mean NZ would have won either. (Different scenario affects shot selection at end).
    Seeing kids in the school or in the parks with Albion shirts instead of the big clubs and easy ones, that’s it. We have done it.

    Inigo Calderon
    May 2016

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #1022
      Mama said knock you out. LlcoolJ's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Location
      Sheffield
      Posts
      11,853


      3 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Geestar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      And people were saying it was a bigger world cup win than the rugby

      Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk
      Of course it is. It's cricket.
      "I never mentioned horses!"
    • #1023
      We wunt be druv ManOfSussex's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2016
      Location
      Rape of Hastings, Sussex
      Posts
      12,435


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by knocky1 View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The fact you state, that the sub committee member has asked the MCC to state what the law means, is proof of ambiguity. The postulation continues.
      The Times said they've approached The MCC for comment. All they did in regards to Taufel's actual remarks is just report what he'd said, they didn't say he was right or wrong. I see The Cricketer magazine has done exactly the same thing too.
      Each to his choice, and I rejoice the lot has fallen to me
      In a fair ground-in a fair ground -
      Yea, Sussex by the sea!
    • #1024
      Members
      Join Date
      Jan 2010
      Posts
      10,941


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by knocky1 View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The fact you state, that the sub committee member has asked the MCC to state what the law means, is proof of ambiguity. The postulation continues.
      Quote Originally Posted by ManOfSussex View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      We can't. The on-field umpires made their decision which stands and a member of The MCC Laws sub-committee disagreed with it.

      As arguably the doyen of cricketing newspapers The Times this morning didn't either and merely reported MCC Laws sub-committee member Taufel's remarks and stated they've approached The MCC for further comment, I'm more interested in the response now, if any, of The Marleybone Cricket Club to The Times of London and others for clarification on a matter of the laws of the game than the continuing postulation on here.
      Quote Originally Posted by ManOfSussex View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The Times said they've approached The MCC for comment. All they did in regards to Taufel's actual remarks is just report what he'd said, they didn't say he was right or wrong. I see The Cricketer magazine has done exactly the same thing too.
      They are postulating in between counting the ££££££s.
    • #1025
      Members Geestar's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2012
      Location
      Shoreham Beach
      Posts
      3,436


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by sheebo View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Don’t get the need for anyone to compare these things - it cannot be and shouldn’t be compared to anything... Muxh like the whole club v country tosh - they’re 2 completely separate things!
      It's two sporting world cups won by the same country.....hardly 'completely separate things'



      Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk
    • #1026
      Members sheebo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Posts
      20,867


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Geestar View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      It's two sporting world cups won by the same country.....hardly 'completely separate things'



      Sent from my TA-1020 using Tapatalk
      One sport is cricket, one is Rugby Union. What is the need to possibly compare which is bigger?! They were both great
      Seeing kids in the school or in the parks with Albion shirts instead of the big clubs and easy ones, that’s it. We have done it.

      Inigo Calderon
      May 2016
    • #1027
      Members Bold Seagull's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2010
      Location
      Hove
      Posts
      23,254


      2 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by sheebo View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      One sport is cricket, one is Rugby Union. What is the need to possibly compare which is bigger?! They were both great
      The cricket world cup trophy is 600mm tall and weighs 11 kg. The Webb Ellis Trophy for rugby is 282mm tall and weighs 4.5kgs. So that is a definitive answer to which one is bigger.
    • #1028
      Members
      Join Date
      Apr 2017
      Location
      London
      Posts
      713


      2 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by sheebo View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      I’ve not followed the ‘controversy’ on this thread or the media - but they’d both just started the run when the throw came in so 6 wa correct yeh?

      Even if it should have been 5 it most definitely doesn’t mean NZ would have won either. (Different scenario affects shot selection at end).
      A run is only a run once the batsmen have crossed, thus the controversy. Frankly, the last ball was a rank full toss against the best hitter in the game. It would've left the ground had we needed 3 to win. Stokes only bunted it to make sure we didn't lose the game.

      Ultimately, the game is played live, in the moment, not in retrospect. The action was so full on that you could argue a million little things changed the game, not just a single run. New Zealand had the opportunity the previous over when Boult stood on the rope - it didn't work out. They also needed 3 runs to win from 2 balls in the super over. Had Neesham not shanked the (great) bouncer by Jofra, it would've been New Zealand's game.

      I think NZ have every right to be a bit upset about losing by boundaries (it skews the match to the chasing team, just like wickets skews it to the team batting first) but to say that it was down to an umpire's mistake is wrong.
      "Do what you do, stay as you are, let's keep having fun." Sam Baldock
    • #1029
      Mama said knock you out. LlcoolJ's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Location
      Sheffield
      Posts
      11,853


      1 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Beanstalk View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      A run is only a run once the batsmen have crossed, thus the controversy. Frankly, the last ball was a rank full toss against the best hitter in the game. It would've left the ground had we needed 3 to win. Stokes only bunted it to make sure we didn't lose the game.

      Ultimately, the game is played live, in the moment, not in retrospect. The action was so full on that you could argue a million little things changed the game, not just a single run. New Zealand had the opportunity the previous over when Boult stood on the rope - it didn't work out. They also needed 3 runs to win from 2 balls in the super over. Had Neesham not shanked the (great) bouncer by Jofra, it would've been New Zealand's game.

      I think NZ have every right to be a bit upset about losing by boundaries (it skews the match to the chasing team, just like wickets skews it to the team batting first) but to say that it was down to an umpire's mistake is wrong.
      Concise and correct.
      "I never mentioned horses!"
    • #1030
      Members banjo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2011
      Location
      Deep south
      Posts
      9,393


      3 Not allowed!
      Honestly who cares. We’re world champions.
      "The first 90 minutes of the match are the most important"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •