zimbos_05 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:03 pm
Looks like England were awarded one run too many. Stokes and Rashid had not crossed when Guptill threw the ball that deflected off his bat for four.
I'm quite sure we've seen plenty of overthrows like that in cricket. I disagree with Taufel's take. If the overthrows hadn't occured, Stokes and Rashid would have completed 2 runs (provided no run outs, which Stokes' bat blocked inadvertently). The overthrows went for 4 extra runs. 4 + 2 = 6. Thus the umpires awarded the logically correct number of runs to England. This is just people's pro-underdog bias in trying to clutch at straws to support NZ, over England, IMO.
The real issue is should those 4 extra runs have been counted and since it always has, you can't change the rules now just because its a final or just because you need NZ to win. Stokes didn't intentionaly obstruct the ball and so its all kosher.
But 5 runs vs 6 runs is really pathetic way excuse here.
Another legitimate criticism is the boundary count thing. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Because at the end of the day runs are runs, and I think who hit more boundaries is a cheap way to decide who wins a game. It should rather be wickets lost in the original 50 over innings, in which case NZ would have won (8 vs 10).