Hardware17 wrote:

roll on Football season.

Ah yes, football. The sport for those that think the offside rule is complicated...

Narpy wrote:

I know rules are rules etc. and that was the way the game was decided but there's a side of me that thinks the Kiwi's got a rough deal.
At 241 - 241, when the normal game ended, England were all out, NZ had only lost 8 wickets.




Ah well, congratulations England.

 New Defender L663 110 SE (known as Noddy!)

Sold Volvo XC90 R-Design (known as Basil)

Sold - D4 HSE (Known as Gerty)

No longer the Old Buses original owner
231,000 miles and counting
05 S manual owned from March 2005
D4 Face lifted
Still original injectors and turbo
V8 Front brakes
BAS Remap, Allisport Intercooler and deCat
EGRs blanked
T-Max split charge
Hanibal Expeedition rack
Prospeed ladder
Duratrac tyres
IID BT
BAS FBH control 

Madrilleno wrote:

Oh dear, EX-umpire Taufel has stuck his oar in and stated that the controversial 6 for Stokes should only have been five. Wonder where that's going?

https://bit.ly/2JAyfw7

Link only allows you to read if you're logged in.

Might Help Explain Link

Some Poor Loser wrote:

Former leading umpire Simon Taufel says England should have been awarded five runs and not six off the third-last ball of their innings in the Cricket World Cup final.

Taufel didn't go as far as to suggest the umpiring error cost New Zealand the cup but says the umpires got it wrong.

Taufel, who was named ICC umpire of the year every year between 2004 and 2008, has defended officiating umpires Kumar Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus but says they got it wrong.

"There was a judgment error on the overthrow," he told The Age and Sydney Morning Herald.

"The judgment error was the timing of when the fielder threw the ball. The act of the overthrow starts when the fielder releases the ball. That's the act.

"It becomes an overthrow from the instant of the throw."

Taufel, who stood in the 2011 World Cup final, knows just how many things the umpires had to consider with every ball.

"In this particular case, the umpires have got a lot on their plate, because like every ball, they've had to watch the batsmen complete the first run, they've had to watch the ball being fielded, to understand how it's in play, whether the fielder's done the right thing," he explained.

"Then they've got to look to see when the ball is released, in case there is an overthrow. And that happens every delivery of the game. And then they've got to go back to see where the two batsmen are.

"They've then got to follow on and see what happens after that, whether there is a run-out, whether there's an 'obstructing the field', whether the ball is taken fairly. There's multitudes of decisions to be taken off the one delivery. What's unfortunate is that people think that umpiring is just about outs and not outs. They forget we make thousands of decisions every match.
He said "it's unfortunate that there was a judgment error on the timing of the release of the ball and where the batsmen were".

"They did not cross on their second run, at the instant of the throw. So given that scenario, five runs should have been the correct allocation of runs, and Ben Stokes should have been at the non-striker's end for the next delivery," he added.

Taufel says it's unfair to say the cup was decided by that one event. "There's a lot of 'what ifs' and 'what should bes' and 'what could bes' that happen off those 600-plus deliveries. That's the nature of sport."

According to Law 19.8, pertaining to an "overthrow or wilful act of fielder", Stokes should only have been credited for five runs.

Madrilleno wrote:

Usual crappy Lords wicket, though. Why can't we prepare the Lords track as well as the other traditional test grounds?

Iguana wrote:

Well done England (and Wales of course )

Other than the official name, did the Welsh bring anything to the team? Not sure there was a Welsh player this time around (happy to be shown otherwise).

An interesting little stat - England are the only men's team to win the title in cricket, rugby and football.