Cricket

[ronanm]

Morgan's mum is English and he's had a British passport since birth. He's as eligible to play for England than anyone else

yeah, yeah..

[Norbs]

yeah, yeah..

[Kenneth]

My point is just that if I 'put my Harv hat on' and try desperately to make as few of them qualify as English, that's the sort of bull**** you need to start applying and even then you don't get down to four. You're nowhere near.

By your criteria these are all presumably beyond reproach:
Jason Roy - moved here when 10
Jonny Bairstow - born in Bradford
Joe Root - born in Sheffield
Ben Stokes - moved here when 12
Jos Buttler - born in Taunton
Chris Woakes - born in Birmingham
Liam Plunkett - born in Nunthorpe
Adil Rashid - born in Bradford
Mark Wood - born in Ashington

It's not difficult to see my point. To get to only four being 'actually English' you need to chuck out the browns and the immigrants and you're still left scratching your head. Can we exclude names that sound potentially foreign as well, for instance Jos Buttler as opposed to Josh Butler

[Buzzo]

Congrats to England.

You’d have to be massively, massively bitter to not be able to concede that’s a hard win and well deserved title.

[Tee]

That overthrow should have been 5 runs and not 6 apparently...oops

[Yozza]

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/11763533/should-stokes-six-have-been-a-five

Should England's Ben Stokes' six have been a five in Cricket World Cup final?

Ben Stokes' outstretched bat deflected the New Zealand fielder's throw for four, and the umpire gave England six runs. That decision is being disputed...

England's batsmen clearly had not crossed after the ball had been thrown, and it has been suggested this means they should have been awarded five runs instead of six

England benefited from a "clear mistake" from the officials during their thrilling World Cup final win over New Zealand, according to former international umpire Simon Taufel.

With nine needed from three deliveries, Ben Stokes and Adil Rashid pushed for a second run when a throw from a fielder deflected off Stokes' outstretched bat and away to the boundary for four byes and six in total.

[ame]https://twitter.com/SkySports/status/1150464741816578051[/ame]

But Taufel, a neutral Australian, who was named ICC's Umpire of the Year on five occasions, told foxsports.com.au: "They should have been awarded five runs, not six.

"It's a clear mistake. It's an error of judgement.

"In the heat of what was going on, [the umpires] thought there was a good chance the batsmen had crossed at the instant of the throw. Obviously TV replays showed otherwise."

According to the MCC rule book, in the instance of a fielder's overthrow, the runs scored shall include the boundary and the runs completed by the batsmen if they had already crossed by the time the ball had been thrown.

In response, the ICC told Sky Sports News: "The umpires take decisions on the field with their interpretation of the rules and we don't comment on any decisions as a matter of policy."

MCC RULE 19.8

If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be:

• any runs for penalties awarded to either side
• and the allowance for the boundary
• and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.

[Yozza]

[ame]https://twitter.com/englandcricket/status/1150746174271496192[/ame]

[Yozza]

Bets on Black Caps refunded

Meanwhile down under, an Australian bookmaker has refunded bets by anyone who backed New Zealand to win the Cricket World Cup final.

The company said it had refunded 11,458 people a total sum of $426,223 after the host nation won the final on a controversial boundary countback rule following tied scores after 102 overs of cricket.

According to AAP, Sportsbet spokesperson Rich Hummerston said it wouldn't be fair to take money off New Zealand fans after the Black Caps technically didn't lose.

England may have "won" the World Cup but it's OK, we're refunding all bets on New Zealand.

"Punters who backed New Zealand in both the head to head and the outright tournament market will be refunded their stakes in bonus bets.

"Let's not beat around the bush, for a World Cup to be decided in that manner is an absolute disgrace, and the punters shouldn't have to pay for the ineptness of the ICC," Hummerston said.



It's hilarious!

[Kenneth]

https://twitter.com/englandcricket/s...46174271496192

Ok. Give it to New Zealand.

[Alex]

https://www.skysports.com/cricket/ne...ve-been-a-five

Should England's Ben Stokes' six have been a five in Cricket World Cup final?

Ben Stokes' outstretched bat deflected the New Zealand fielder's throw for four, and the umpire gave England six runs. That decision is being disputed...

England's batsmen clearly had not crossed after the ball had been thrown, and it has been suggested this means they should have been awarded five runs instead of six

England benefited from a "clear mistake" from the officials during their thrilling World Cup final win over New Zealand, according to former international umpire Simon Taufel.

With nine needed from three deliveries, Ben Stokes and Adil Rashid pushed for a second run when a throw from a fielder deflected off Stokes' outstretched bat and away to the boundary for four byes and six in total.

https://twitter.com/SkySports/status/1150464741816578051

But Taufel, a neutral Australian, who was named ICC's Umpire of the Year on five occasions, told foxsports.com.au: "They should have been awarded five runs, not six.

"It's a clear mistake. It's an error of judgement.

"In the heat of what was going on, [the umpires] thought there was a good chance the batsmen had crossed at the instant of the throw. Obviously TV replays showed otherwise."

According to the MCC rule book, in the instance of a fielder's overthrow, the runs scored shall include the boundary and the runs completed by the batsmen if they had already crossed by the time the ball had been thrown.

In response, the ICC told Sky Sports News: "The umpires take decisions on the field with their interpretation of the rules and we don't comment on any decisions as a matter of policy."

MCC RULE 19.8

If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be:

• any runs for penalties awarded to either side
• and the allowance for the boundary
• and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.

I get it, it sucks for NZ that this happened. But if we are going to dispute it, we need to dispute anything. Look at every ball for a no ball. Look at the balls hit after, as that would have had a bearing.

It sucks, but move on. Game wont be replayed, its a mistake.

[Shaggy]

But Taufel, a neutral Australian

[Shaggy]

The bitterness is off the charts

If people are gonna split hairs, that Archer wide was debatable.

[Yozza]

The bitterness is off the charts

If people are gonna split hairs, that Archer wide was debatable.

Yeah the Kiwi commentator was rabid - a 100% convinced it was wide but it really wasn't

Even the languid West Indian co-commentator simply said 'depends on who you ask'

[Harv]

But Taufel, a neutral Australian,

Such a thing does not exist

[Shaggy]

Jesus ****ing Christ

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AKWCtgUduVugdvA&cid=EA0A9620EFBB05B1&id=EA0A9620EFBB05B1%21248&parId=root&o=OneUp