Do you agree with the final result?

[Burgey]

JFC

z

Extremely rare gold from OS here. Very much on point.

 

[zorax]

No it's not when you can check with the 3rd umpire if it becomes relevant, which would be very rarely.

...did you not just read the posts above this?

 

[add_sauce]

There isn't a single person out there who is of sound mind who agrees with this result.

 

[sunilz]

Zorax, does ICC pay you to defend their every decision ? If it is a paid service , I want to share the work load ?

 

[GIMH]

There isn't a single person out there who is of sound mind who agrees with this result.

Just because you keep bleating out the same drivel doesn't make it any more true

 

[OverratedSanity]

Extremely rare gold from OS here. Very much on point.

He's "officiated" 2 Hong Kong gully cricket games and thinks he's dickie bird ffs

 

[Burgey]

He's "officiated" 2 Hong Kong gully cricket games and thinks he's dickie bird ffs

It’s genuinely awful isn’t it? The equivalent of me saying “Neesham’s six in the super over reminded me of the time I bombed a fat kid over the 40 metre mid wicket boundary at Pitt Park, Merrylands when I made a ton there in under tens.” It’s just embarrassing ffs.

 

[trundler]

Haha, I'm glad zorax is still on his appeal to (questionable) authority high horse.

 

[M0rphin3]

But it's not unfair because the rules sucked. That's literally not what unfair or unjust means.

It was a fair competition between two teams and England won. End of. The rules were a bit **** because they seem a bit arbitrary, sure. Should they change, probably yes. But unfair is not the word to use here.

I have plenty of time for people calling NZ unlucky. They absolutely were unlucky. But there was nothing unfair about this WC final.

Was underarm fair, in that case?

It's p dire, low tier take when you think 'it's fair coz that's what the rule book says' is a fair metric wrt analyzing any situation tbh. Reductive af.

(obv it's what it is, that's a different thing. No use being salty anymore)

 

[zorax]

Was underarm fair, in that case?

absolutely fair

unethical, but fair.

 

[DriveClub]

It’s genuinely awful isn’t it? The equivalent of me saying “Neesham’s six in the super over reminded me of the time I bombed a fat kid over the 40 metre mid wicket boundary at Pitt Park, Merrylands when I made a ton there in under tens.” It’s just embarrassing ffs.

Lol

 

[Daemon]

absolutely fair

unethical, but fair.

Very narrow definition of fair.

Stoning a gay bloke to death in Brunei is completely fair then. Unethical but fair.

 

[Burgey]

Vintage Daemon here. Superb.

 

[zorax]

He's "officiated" 2 Hong Kong gully cricket games and thinks he's dickie bird ffs

Quite the opposite. I was like you before, if you dig up my old posts here you'll see I was the first guy to rage against umpires not calling front foot no balls. I set the trend.

So unimpressed I was by umpires that I decided to go and try and become one myself - how hard can it be, eh?

Well It's ****ing hard, that's what I learnt. I don't think I'm good at umpiring. That's why I sympathise with them. Because it's not an easy job to be good at.

I know for a fact I would have melted out there trying to umpire that WC final. Such a ridiculously crazy, high stress game. I have lots of sympathy for Dharmasena and Erasmus for what they went though because I know I wouldn't have been able to handle it. But you and others here clearly think you could have done a better job in that situation, the way you speak of minor mistakes as though they committed the most obvious blunders of all time.

Show me one person during the game who spotted that maybe it should have been 5 runs for the deflection and not 6.

Everyone's got sympathy for Boult missing a catch because everyone here plays, or has played, cricket and gets how tough it is. Or they've been following the sport long enough to know it's not an easy grab. Not as many people can see things from the umpire's POV. All I try to do is to offer an alternative perspective.

 

[add_sauce]

Just because you keep bleating out the same drivel doesn't make it any more true

It actually does.

 

[zorax]

Very narrow definition of fair.

Stoning a gay bloke to death in Brunei is completely fair then. Unethical but fair.

what is it with people comparing cricket to life and death here? Cricaddict comparing a tiebreaker to not having a way to ensure people are safe during a fire, and now comparing what happens within the confines of a sport to an oppressive government killing it's own people?

dire posting

 

[OverratedSanity]

what is it with people comparing cricket to life and death here? Cricaddict comparing a tiebreaker to not having a way to ensure people are safe during a fire, and now comparing what happens within the confines of a sport to an oppressive government killing it's own people?

dire posting

The point is that not everything which is in the rulebook is fair. People aren't saying that the rule was magically invented at the last moment to screw over NZ, it's that the rule as it exists is unfair to whichever team gets screwed over. The "bOtH TeAmS kNeW AbOut it" posts are hence very tiresome.

 

[cpr]

You know there's a difference between goals scored in soccer and boundaries in cricket right? goals scored as somewhat reasonable, boundaries is just a random factor.

As someone mentioned the other day, it would be like decided a soccer tournament winner on number of corners.

Completely missing the point. I wasn't comparing goals and boundaries, I was comparing sports where a title has a number of reserve criteria for deciding the victor, and how in those sports, like cricket, no-one is considering it until right at the very end if the one in a million situation where it comes into play occurs. Again, they are rubbish distinguishers compared to the actual sport played normally, but they are there and people understand them. And in other sports, accept them if they are used.

Associating people who think the result is worth discussing and was pretty unjust with incest is really weird and unnecessary.

Nah, just those who think a world championship should be shared. Champions of the world (apart from those we couldn't beat). Strange concept to value - unless explained by the fact you just don't like the way the result fell.

 

[Daemon]

Quite the opposite. I was like you before, if you dig up my old posts here you'll see I was the first guy to rage against umpires not calling front foot no balls. I set the trend.

So unimpressed I was by umpires that I decided to go and try and become one myself - how hard can it be, eh?

Well It's ****ing hard, that's what I learnt. I don't think I'm good at umpiring. That's why I sympathise with them. Because it's not an easy job to be good at.

I know for a fact I would have melted out there trying to umpire that WC final. Such a ridiculously crazy, high stress game. I have lots of sympathy for Dharmasena and Erasmus for what they went though because I know I wouldn't have been able to handle it. But you and others here clearly think you could have done a better job in that situation, the way you speak of minor mistakes as though they committed the most obvious blunders of all time.

Show me one person during the game who spotted that maybe it should have been 5 runs for the deflection and not 6.

Everyone's got sympathy for Boult missing a catch because everyone here plays, or has played, cricket and gets how tough it is. Or they've been following the sport long enough to know it's not an easy grab. Not as many people can see things from the umpire's POV. All I try to do is to offer an alternative perspective.

You’re right about everyone being too quick to criticise the umps. The decision to trigger Guptill for example wasn’t a shocker imo, just a normal understandable error. Plenty of people outraged about it though which is a bit odd.

I think most people would acknowledge being an umpire is a thankless task and not an easy job.

 

[zorax]

The point is that not everything which is in the rulebook is fair. People aren't saying that the rule was magically invented at the last moment to screw over NZ, it's that the rule as it exists is unfair to whichever team gets screwed over. The "bOtH TeAmS kNeW AbOut it" posts are hence very tiresome.

You're conflating two different things here which is silly

Not every law is fair, and that's a big issue because oppressive governments create laws to hurt or marginalize people within their country, and the people often don't have any recourse or way to change that law

However, 10 full member cricket boards agreeing to a set of playing conditions for a tournament they themselves are all are going to take part in, and one team emerging victorious by that very ruleset, even if we fans don't like it, is completely fair. That's literally why they have a tie breaker to begin with. To ensure fairness. One team being superior by some completely arbitrary rule is not the same as a government killing it's own people