Spirit of game.

[CG]

England talk about spirit of game but they are at wrong end .NZ should have protested about that boundary .

[Norman]

1 minute ago, CG said:

 

England talk about spirit of game but they are at wrong end .NZ should have protested about that boundary .

 

That's exactly what I thought. Williamson must have talked to the umpires about that. They just carried on like it's some odi bilateral. 

[CG]

That's exactly what I thought. Williamson must have talked to the umpires about that. They just carried on like it's some odi bilateral. 

It's shocking NZ let it go so easily .they should have protested that stokes knowingly dived to block the throw.

[WeStMiDz]

What is this thread. Protest a moment of sheer luck in a World Cup final?! The rules are the rules. Absolutely nothing in that other than bad luck for the Kiwis. 

[CG]

What is this thread. Protest a moment of sheer luck in a World Cup final?! The rules are the rules. Absolutely nothing in that other than bad luck for the Kiwis. 

You do remember England team made Dhoni bring back Ian Bell after he was runout for upholding spirit of game.

[WeStMiDz]

6 minutes ago, CG said:

10 minutes ago, WeStMiDz said:

What is this thread. Protest a moment of sheer luck in a World Cup final?! The rules are the rules. Absolutely nothing in that other than bad luck for the Kiwis. 

You do remember England team made Dhoni bring back Ian Bell after he was runout for upholding spirit of game.

This was just pure bad luck though. Literally nothing anyone could have done. What did you want, the ball to be replayed? 

[chewy]

NZ probably thought they could pull it off without making it a fuss.

 

But pretty sure if England or Australia were at receiving end and batting team was an Asian site, they would be total chaos on the field, no way English or Aussies would have allowed those four runs and would have put pressure on opposition captain to withdraw the runs 

 

You only have to look at the arrogance behaviour of the deep shitehead Jason Roy in SF and also in the Final. 

 

But yeah, the world cup win is a slightly tarnished with those overthrows off Stokes' bat, call it what you want fluke, unlucky, bad sportsmanship, spirit of the game. It happened, and the English players, media and pundits should remember that before blabbering the mouths about fantastic win, be gracious.  

[CG]

This was just pure bad luck though. Literally nothing anyone could have done. What did you want, the ball to be replayed? 

Nz did not even appeal .they should asked umpires if stokes does not want the overthrow they should not give runs.In tests they don't run of overthrow if it deflects of bat.

[The Realist]

Which is why cricket will never become a popular sport beyond a handful of countries. Nonsensical rules that have never been updated since the 19th century. 

[Adi BB]

2 minutes ago, The Realist said:

Which is why cricket will never become a popular sport beyond a handful of countries. Nonsensical rules that have never been updated since the 19th century. 

So True 

[Vijy]

3 minutes ago, The Realist said:

Which is why cricket will never become a popular sport beyond a handful of countries. Nonsensical rules that have never been updated since the 19th century. 

and even in these countries, for most of them, it is not the no. 1 sport - Oz, Eng, RSA, NZ, etc. only in SC, it's numero uno but even in ind I feel it's declining slowly.

[Pollack]

58 minutes ago, WeStMiDz said:

What is this thread. Protest a moment of sheer luck in a World Cup final?! The rules are the rules. Absolutely nothing in that other than bad luck for the Kiwis. 

It's as if India is playing. Indian public is rattled. Everyone supported NZ.

[WeStMiDz]

2 minutes ago, Pollack said:

It's as if India is playing. Indian public is rattled. Everyone supported NZ.

I did too but that was just pure bad luck on their part. Calling foul/spirit of the game is ridiculous. 

[goose]

what exactly should NZ have protested about? Stokes didn't alter his direction, didn't turn around to see the ball trajectory, he simply dived to make his ground. where's your proof? NZ summed up the moment and moved on. stop confusing being hurt with the rules.

[DGBOSS]

5 hours ago, Norman said:

That's exactly what I thought. Williamson must have talked to the umpires about that. They just carried on like it's some odi bilateral. 

Umpires even if they wanted could not have been able to do anything. Remember the ball went to the boundary. As per rules thats a 4. 

[goose]

if Stokes offered to claim only 2 runs not 6 are the umpires at liberty to agree?

[Cricketphile]

Exceptional spirit shown by both teams in the final. Martin guptill signaled straight away after the Trent boult boundary catch. Stokes immediately apologized and wasn’t running again after the deflection. Both Williamson and Morgan were outstanding. 2 outstanding teams. Sadly one team had to lose. England deserving winners of the World Cup although New Zealand didn’t do a lot of things wrong 

[CG]

if Stokes offered to claim only 2 runs not 6 are the umpires at liberty to agree?

England made Dhoni recall a batsman after run-out so anything is possible.

[goose]

27 minutes ago, CG said:

1 hour ago, goose said:

if Stokes offered to claim only 2 runs not 6 are the umpires at liberty to agree?

England made Dhoni recall a batsman after run-out so anything is possible.

Yes we have seen rules broken before on the pretense of spirit of the game. Pundits and social media are strangely silent on whether Stokes should have declined the extra runs. Probably too big a can of worms to open up just yet.

Edited July 15, 2019 by goose

[Cricketphile]

14 minutes ago, CG said:

1 hour ago, goose said:

if Stokes offered to claim only 2 runs not 6 are the umpires at liberty to agree?

England made Dhoni recall a batsman after run-out so anything is possible.

I could be wrong but I don’t think stokes can ask to withdraw the 4 runs as what he did happen. And we all unambiguously saw it happening. There’s no room for doubt. The only thing stokes could have said was claim that he purposely did it. That would be the only way stokes can ask to withdraw what happened. But then if he purposely did it, there was a legitimate obstructing the field appeal that Williamson could have appealed for. Anyway stokes signaled sorry straight away beforehand it ran to the boundary so it is what it is