[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand * Official Match Thread *

Sussex Nomad · Jul 14, 2019

Blue Valkyrie said:
I think they said on the commentary that on the computer generated ball trajectory prediction that 50+% of the ball has to connect with 50+% of the width of the stump.

It looked like about 48% of the ball.

I missed that bit, was that really the reason? I find that wrong personally, if the ball is going to hit the wicket and it is impeded by a pad, that is out to me, inline or not.

Blue Valkyrie · Jul 14, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
I missed that bit, was that really the reason? I find that wrong personally, if the ball is going to hit the wicket and it is impeded by a pad, that is out to me, inline or not.

It allows for a margin of error in the computer generation ( doubt ).

Milano · Jul 14, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
I missed that bit, was that really the reason? I find that wrong personally, if the ball is going to hit the wicket and it is impeded by a pad, that is out to me, inline or not.

No, it’s what VAR needs to become - it went back to the umpires original decision because it was not obviously incorrect.

Willow · Jul 14, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
Just one question if someone can answer, why was Jason Roy not out LBW first ball? I'm still not quite sure.

He should have been given out, pure and simple, but because the ball wasn't hitting a stump full on he gets the benefit of the umpires mistake. If the umpire had given the exact same delivery as out, and Roy appealed, he still would have been out. One of crickets peculiarities, and on such decisions, games can rest.

clapham_gull · Jul 14, 2019

Astonishing game. I'm struggling to think of something with so many twists and turns at that level. 1979 cup final comes to mind.

Sussex Nomad · Jul 14, 2019

So basically Roy should have got the index finger.

LlcoolJ · Jul 14, 2019

Milano said:
No, it’s what VAR needs to become - it went back to the umpires original decision because it was not obviously incorrect.

Exactly. DRS works. Especially now the review isn't lost for umpire's call.

VAR in football has a long way to go. It's taken many years and lots of refining rules/advances in technology to get it right in cricket, and it's still not perfect.

Unfortunately football seems to have gone balls deep on a totally imperfect system.

GT49er · Jul 15, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
Was always the first two weeks in August, in fact cricket starting in April has encroached on football. However on a nice warm Sunday when we are being crowned world champions I have no arguments.

Not always. Since the 40s and 50s it has crept forward by a couple of weeks.

Sussex Nomad · Jul 15, 2019

GT49er said:
Not always. Since the 40s and 50s it has crept forward by a couple of weeks.

Way before my time, but in those days they played back to back games the next day, pretty crazy.

hart's shirt · Jul 15, 2019

Sussex Nomad · Jul 15, 2019

hart's shirt said:

Watched it 4 times already :lol:

GT49er · Jul 15, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
I missed that bit, was that really the reason? I find that wrong personally, if the ball is going to hit the wicket and it is impeded by a pad, that is out to me, inline or not.

It's not out if that's the decision the umpire has given. The umpire's decision will only be overturned if the video evidence is clear and obvious that he's got it wrong; there is a margin of error allowed for in the computer generation, so if it's marginal, the umpire's decision stands.

If only football used VAR so sensibly! Perhaps one day they will ...................... we can always hope.

Sussex Nomad · Jul 15, 2019

GT49er said:
It's not out if that's the decision the umpire has given. The umpire's decision will only be overturned if the video evidence is clear and obvious that he's got it wrong; there is a margin of error allowed for in the computer generation, so if it's marginal, the umpire's decision stands.

If only football used VAR so sensibly! Perhaps one day they will ...................... we can always hope.

Roy looked plum to me.

GT49er · Jul 15, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
Roy looked plum to me.

That matters? It didn't look plum to the umpire - so ultimately the record will show that he wasn't. End of.

colinz · Jul 15, 2019

Ridiculous rule, should have just played another Super Over. In the history of sport never has & will a team ever lose by a closer margin, and be as undeserving to miss out.

Sussex Nomad · Jul 15, 2019

[MENTION=659]fleet[/MENTION], when you get home, memorable day?

Sussex Nomad · Jul 15, 2019

GT49er said:
That matters? It didn't look plum to the umpire - so ultimately the record will show that he wasn't. End of.

You really don't need to be so aggressive.

Sussex Nomad · Jul 15, 2019

colinz said:
Ridiculous rule, should have just played another Super Over. In the history of sport never has & will a team ever lose by a closer margin, and be as undeserving to miss out.

And if it had gone the other way?

GT49er · Jul 15, 2019

colinz said:
Ridiculous rule, should have just played another Super Over. In the history of sport never has & will a team ever lose by a closer margin, and be as undeserving to miss out.

Never heard of football cup ties being decided by the toss of a coin? Or the bloody 'golden goal' fiascos?

colinz · Jul 15, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
And if it had gone the other way?

In terms of the Super Over, justice to NZ because of the decisions that went against them during the regular game.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand *** Official Match Thread ***

Well-known member

Not seen such Bravery!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Legacy Fan

Well-known member

Mama said knock you out.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Share this page

[Cricket] Cricket World Cup Final: ENGLAND v New Zealand * Official Match Thread *