Had New Zealand won based on boundaries, would public reactions have been the same?

[Unstable Joe]

18 hours ago, I6MTW said:

Yes. If a match is tied, then a super over will be conducted to determine the winner. And if the super over itself is tied, then the team which scored more no of boundaries will win the match. And if boundaries are tied, then I think it goes to the team which finished higher in the group stage(though this I am not sure, I remember reading a coin toss to decided the winner also somewhere).

Apparently if boundary count is same, they check boundary count in main 50 overs and if that is tied as well, then they count from 50 overs in reverse, till a delivery comes up where one side hit a boundary and the other didn't. 

[Pollack]

18 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Had umpire not given 6 over throws, it would not have reached to that situation. NZ would won by one run

Had 6 over throws happened in 1st 30 overs, nobody would have even remembered.

And that's not how you apply logic. Had 6 over throws not given, England would have played accordingly and put in more efforts as per remaining target. Players play according to situation. I can understand your logic if that was last ball of the game.

[New guy]

21 hours ago, bowl_out said:

There's lot of public outrage given how NZ "lost" and England "won" the World cup. Immense criticism of poor rules and NZ hard done by ICC.

 

I wonder if public reaction would have been the same had NZ won on the basis of scoring more boundaries. Would public have said rules are rules and NZ won fair and square, or would there have been the same level of criticism of rules that we have today

 

Adding a poll too.

if India or England had lost based on what happened in the final (overthrows, tied, boundaries, etc) the outrage would be a million times worse, politicians and celebrities would join in, BCCI would talk about boycotting ICC, news media would have a feild day, protest marches would have started

 

New Zealand doesnt have any power which is why everything has been muted

Edited July 17, 2019 by New guy

[New guy]

1 hour ago, Pollack said:

Had 6 over throws happened in 1st 30 overs, nobody would have even remembered.

And that's not how you apply logic. Had 6 over throws not given, England would have played accordingly and put in more efforts as per remaining target. Players play according to situation. I can understand your logic if that was last ball of the game.

But tailender would have been on strike which would be a completely different situation than Stokes being on strike. it was the last over of the innings and these things make a huge difference. Rashid being on strike with 4 needed of 2 balls and then he being out means stokes needs 4 of 1 ball

Edited July 17, 2019 by New guy

[Pollack]

16 minutes ago, New guy said:

But tailender would have been on strike which would be a completely different situation than Stokes being on strike. it was the last over of the innings and these things make a huge difference. Rashid being on strike with 4 needed of 2 balls and then he being out means stokes needs 4 of 1 ball

Rashid Bhai hardly a tailender. England has no tailender. Not like Stokes scored boundaries after that. He managed just 2 runs in 2 balls after it. Even Rashid could manage it. And how can you assume Rashid being out next ball after the incident just because which is what happened when Stokes had been allowed the strike. They wouldn't have run for the second run.  Final delivery of the innings was a juicy full toss, I still don't get it why wouldn't Stokes go for a smash or a big one. Too much Dhoni virus I guess.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Pollack

[zen]

In my book, both the teams are winners. I would have liked it to be decided over another super over or shared. 

 

But the rules were already laid out. Before the super over, NZ knew it could not tie much like how SA knew that in the SF of 1999. So can’t complain. 

 

The overthrows too are a part of the game. Batsmen run “for the throw” as well so an act of throwing constitutes from when the ball leaves the hand to when it hits the batsman (or something) to go for overthrows. Additionally, on the last ball of the super over, if the ball had hit Guptill and got deflected, he would still have completed the run. And many of those complaining would have been happy. 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by zen

[Suhaan]

20 hours ago, SK_IH said:

I am neither pro NZ nor anti England, but a world title concluded in the most inconclusive way.

Exactly,you wont accept or acknowledge a winner without actually winning the damn thing fair and square so what if it came within the boundary of so called "rules"

[New guy]

14 hours ago, Pollack said:

Rashid Bhai hardly a tailender. England has no tailender. Not like Stokes scored boundaries after that. He managed just 2 runs in 2 balls after it. Even Rashid could manage it. And how can you assume Rashid being out next ball after the incident just because which is what happened when Stokes had been allowed the strike. They wouldn't have run for the second run.  Final delivery of the innings was a juicy full toss, I still don't get it why wouldn't Stokes go for a smash or a big one. Too much Dhoni virus I guess.

Stokes intentionally played in a calculating way. Rashid with the pressure of 4 of 2 balls can definitely be out trying to slog

 

Stokes missed the full toss because he was aiming for 2 runs just like Guptil was in the super over. That Guptil last ball from Archer was not a yorker, it was a half volley but he didnt try to hit a boundary but tried to play for 2 runs. Basically pressure

Edited July 18, 2019 by New guy

[rkt.india]

17 hours ago, Pollack said:

Had 6 over throws happened in 1st 30 overs, nobody would have even remembered.

And that's not how you apply logic. Had 6 over throws not given, England would have played accordingly and put in more efforts as per remaining target. Players play according to situation. I can understand your logic if that was last ball of the game.

like the effort they put in the last 2 balls where they could not score 3 runs to win?  they would have had 4 runs to win in that situation in those 2 balls.

[Pollack]

50 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

like the effort they put in the last 2 balls where they could not score 3 runs to win?  they would have had 4 runs to win in that situation in those 2 balls.

Because equation got a lot more easier due to those 6 runs and Stokes visibly was trying to score those off without taking undue risk by going for the big shot. You must be blind not to see how Stokes played the last ball. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Pollack

[Sachinism]

The fact is an arbitary ruling would have had to be used to decide the winner. It just happened to be boundaries in this case.

It's extremely rare circumstances, nobody really foresaw having to implement those rules, but the rules were decided beforehand and all captains agreed to play under them.

 

It's only now when an incident such as the one that occurred in the final has been brought to our attention we see it's actually a pretty garbage rule considering there really wasn't anything to separate the two teams.

 

NZ has every right to feel aggrieved when they were on even footing with England all the way. England will be known as the champions and NZ will be forgotten about.

 

Should this have happened the other way, would the English have not be aggrieved? 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Sachinism

[Unstable Joe]

4 hours ago, Pollack said:

Because equation got a lot more easier due to those 6 runs and Stokes visibly was trying to score those off without taking undue risk by going for the big shot. You must be blind not to see how Stokes played the last ball. 

It isn't just the batsman's mentality that changes if the equation was different, what if Boult had bowled differently considering the different equation? Point is, we don't know how it would have turned out. England could still have won, but so could NZ and that chance was taken away by a wrong umpire decision which ultimately led to a super over. 

[Pollack]

31 minutes ago, Unstable Joe said:

It isn't just the batsman's mentality that changes if the equation was different, what if Boult had bowled differently considering the different equation? Point is, we don't know how it would have turned out. England could still have won, but so could NZ and that chance was taken away by a wrong umpire decision which ultimately led to a super over. 

Absolutely bro. Anything was possible. We couldn't say for sure. Precisely my point. I am just amazed how even knowledgeable posters get carried away in emotions. "If not for 6 runs, NZ wouldve won! etc. " They calculate remaining runs minus extra 4 runs and say see England wouldve fall short. It doesn't work like that.

[Unstable Joe]

4 hours ago, Pollack said:

Absolutely bro. Anything was possible. We couldn't say for sure. Precisely my point. I am just amazed how even knowledgeable posters get carried away in emotions. "If not for 6 runs, NZ wouldve won! etc. " They calculate remaining runs minus extra 4 runs and say see England wouldve fall short. It doesn't work like that.

I'm a huge NZ fan and the stupid rules and the result broke my heart. But I'm not going to be jaded and say NZs win was guaranteed if not for the extra runs because as you said, we don't know what would have happened, I will say NZ had a good chance if not for those extra 4 runs as the equation would have been 7 off 2 and it isn't easy to get it but Stokes could still have done it. Same goes for the 4 off 2 equation especially with Rashid on strike. I'm mainly angry at the incompetence of the umpires in such a big match in such a close game, there were so many poor decisions in this game like Taylor's dismissal. Not to mention ICCs nonsensical rules which are quite frankly, ridiculous. It's like if you draw a chess game, the win goes to the player who captured more pieces, which is stupid. If there's one thing this WC has shown us, it's that ICC is the most incompetent sporting body imo. 

[cricketfan28]

no .. people wanted nz to win.