|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Sun 14 Jul 20:03
Classic British Grand Prix, one of the all time great Wimbledon finals and then that amazing climax to the cricket world cup.
Not to mention our 3-2 win today.
Aye, sometimes you've just got to love the world of sport !
The good old days
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Sun 14 Jul 20:14
Am I allowed to love the world of sports even though I can't stand tennis or cricket?
Or does that rule me out?
Just checking 🤣
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parplod
Date: Sun 14 Jul 20:21
Despite the lack of coverage of the Pars on the national/international news, today beats the Olympic 2012 ‘Super Saturday’ all ends up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Ronaldo
Date: Sun 14 Jul 20:23
The cricket world cup final was unbelievably exciting ... just about the most thrilling sports event I have ever witnessed in all of my 58 years. And we won at Paisley. Happy days!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Sun 14 Jul 20:24
For pure tension, I have to agree with you Parplod.
I'll be needing new batteries for the remote, was never done switching channels today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stevepars
Date: Sun 14 Jul 20:43
At one stage today I had the F1 on the TV, the Pars game on the tablet, the tennis on my new phone, and the cricket on my old phone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Sun 14 Jul 20:50
F1 has been rightly slaughtered this season for some really awful races - the French Grand Prix was one of the most boring I've ever watched.
However after last week's belter in Austria, this one was even better today. Feel a bit for Bottas as it was the safety car that cost him, but some of the racing was epic. Verstappen v Le Clerc is going to be some battle in the future.
The good old days
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berry
Date: Sun 14 Jul 21:57
That 6 in the last over in the cricket was insane.
Fortuitous and makes it even more sickening for the Kiwi's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Raymie the Legend
Date: Sun 14 Jul 22:58
How can that be allowed as overthrows? Clearly accidental, but surely not right?
It`s bloody tough being a legend
Ron Atkinson - 1983
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sun 14 Jul 23:17
It's in the rules, Raymie. I'm not sure what the logic is though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Mon 15 Jul 00:36
I don't get cricket. Like watching paint drying. So slow and boring.But that's my boring version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Mon 15 Jul 08:10
Quote:
wee eck, Sun 14 Jul 23:17
It's in the rules, Raymie. I'm not sure what the logic is though.
Completely illogical. If it hadnt gone to the boundary then they had a choice whether to run or not. No choice if it crosses the rope.
Particularly unfortunately when Guptill had been immediately honest the ball before.
Certainly couldn't take my eyes off of it, but that single incident (no blame) tarnished it a wee bit for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Mon 15 Jul 08:24
Also the fact that England should have been awarded 5 runs for the overthrows, not 6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berry
Date: Mon 15 Jul 08:58
Quote:
Bandy, Mon 15 Jul 08:24
Also the fact that England should have been awarded 5 runs for the overthrows, not 6.
How is that, boundary for 4 runs and they ran for two?
Don't know much about NZ cricketers but given his form was surprised Guptil was picked for the super over.
Post Edited (Mon 15 Jul 08:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 15 Jul 09:25
Apparently if a fielder's throw accidentally hits one of the batsmen the accepted etiquette is that the batsmen wouldn't run any extra runs. However, because the ball was deflected over the boundary, the umpires had no alternative but to award England the extra four runs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Mon 15 Jul 09:34
How is that, boundary for 4 runs and they ran for two?
Law 19.8.
They hadn't ran two at the point Guptill threw the ball 'the wilful act' referred to in the laws - and the batsmen hadn't crossed for the second run, therefore it should have been 1 run + 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 15 Jul 10:09
Good spot, Bandy! The aerial view clearly shows the batsmen hadn't crossed when the fielder released the ball. Could the third (TV) umpire have intervened at that point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Mon 15 Jul 10:15
Yes - the third umpire could have intervened - they intervene on things like this all the time (e.g checking that Boult stepped on the boundary whilst he had the ball in his hands after 'catching' Stokes the previous over). They even video reviewed the incident to check that the ball hitting Stokes' bat wasn't intentional (if it was intentional he'd have been out).
Have to say the NZ team deserve great credit - very little gnashing of teeth. from them. In fact they showed great sportsmanship throughout, including Guptill immediately signalling '6' to the umpire in the aforementioned incident.
Shame their Rugby team aren't quite so classy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Mon 15 Jul 11:06
Bloody VAR 😉
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Mon 15 Jul 16:13
I'm a bit confused about the cricket.
Imagine a football World Cup final where one team are winning 4-2 going into injury time, then the other team pull it back to 4-4. That would be exciting.
Then the score is 5-5 after extra time. More excitement.
Then it is 5-5 after penalties. More excitement.
Then they decide give the cup to the team who did the most passes in the 120 minutes. WTF?!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Mon 15 Jul 17:02
That's just silly... Penalties go to sudden death and fine you know it.
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 15 Jul 17:46
Quote:
widtink, Mon 15 Jul 17:02
That's just silly... Penalties go to sudden death and fine you know it.
I think his point is. What if??? Settling a game of cricket by boundary count is just daft
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berry
Date: Mon 15 Jul 18:23
Quote:
Bandy, Mon 15 Jul 09:34
How is that, boundary for 4 runs and they ran for two?
Law 19.8.
They hadn't ran two at the point Guptill threw the ball 'the wilful act' referred to in the laws - and the batsmen hadn't crossed for the second run, therefore it should have been 1 run + 4.
Fair play. Every days a school day and I didn't know that.
It's got a wee article on it on Sky Sports app as well now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
