Cricket World Cup 2019

steve1700

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
2,937
Reaction score
513
im blaming the south african umpire giving taylor out and not giving roy out. still was great game you never see this in a final match shame it came down to who had more boundaries, should be who had more wickets.
 

Typical dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
4,443
im blaming the south african umpire giving taylor out and not giving roy out. still was great game you never see this in a final match shame it came down to who had more boundaries, should be who had more wickets.
100%. The game is about scoring runs and taking wickets. If the runs are equal then it comes down to wickets. However, while wickets would be a better way to determine the result, both are a shit way to decide a final. Should've just had another super over with NZ batting first as they were already still out there.

We use the D/L method to determine scores in a rain affected game which factors in wickets but to determine a final we go off boundaries????
 

Shanked

U been Shanked
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
11,525
Reaction score
2,527
More arse than a room full of.. but I'll take the "win". I do enjoy reading the salt from pages like sportsbet though :p They should probably also make it an extra 5 PP overs, and then go to 1 if it's again still tied
 
Last edited:

coach

Kennel Legend
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
11,447
Reaction score
6,504
So 8/241
Poms all out for 241

Both 15 in super over and poms win from count back fucking boundaries
Wtf
How long has it been count back of boundaries, kiwis lost less wickets
Fucking poms win a World Cup without outscoring the opposition lololol
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,079
So 8/241
Poms all out for 241

Both 15 in super over and poms win from count back fucking boundaries
Wtf
How long has it been count back of boundaries, kiwis lost less wickets
Fucking poms win a World Cup without outscoring the opposition lololol
They should've kept playing Super Overs until a winner was eventually declared. Just like in the FIFA World Cup, the penalty goals keep being taken until there is an undisputed winner, that's what should've happened in this case as well - eventually something would've had to give.
 

Freakzilla

Kennel Immortal
2 x Gilded
Premium Member
SC H2H Champion
Tipping Champion
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
19,016
They should've kept playing Super Overs until a winner was eventually declared. Just like in the FIFA World Cup, the penalty goals keep being taken until there is an undisputed winner, that's what should've happened in this case as well - eventually something would've had to give.
What a bullshit way to decide a WC final. Also it's a bullshit rule how England got 4 runs because the ball hit the England bat while running between wickets and went for 4.
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,079
What a bullshit way to decide a WC final. Also it's a bullshit rule how England got 4 runs because the ball hit the England bat while running between wickets and went for 4.
I saw that and was thinking the same thing, but that was pure luck and it happens in sport.
 

Typical dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
4,443
What a bullshit way to decide a WC final. Also it's a bullshit rule how England got 4 runs because the ball hit the England bat while running between wickets and went for 4.
They actually got 6 runs for that..... 2 runs plus 4 over throws
 

Freakzilla

Kennel Immortal
2 x Gilded
Premium Member
SC H2H Champion
Tipping Champion
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
19,016
They actually got 6 runs for that..... 2 runs plus 4 over throws
I know, they got 4 bonus runs that they shouldn't have is what I was saying,
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,079
I think the rule states that if you hit a 4/6 then any run you make on top of that does not count. In this case I think they ruled that 2 runs were made, then the ball hit the bat for the boundary. So say for instance that they made another run after that, they would not have included that, it would've been 6 runs not 7.

The way it ended is the big picture and I agree with the bulk of posters... that was BS.
 

Wahesh

The Forefather of The Kennel
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
24,798
Reaction score
12,079
On the news this morning they said 5 should've been given, so they made 1 run, then on the way back, the ball hit the bat BEFORE the bat was over the line, meaning that run should not have counted. If they correctly had given England 5 runs, NZ would've won!
 
Top