Why was this allowed

At least they have the decency to look embarrassed about it.

Stokes raises his arms in celebration.

Disgraceful scenes

stokes did nothing wrong but yeah it's unfortunate. people will talk about this for years to come.
honestly, though, blame the dumbcunt shartner for ducking the final ball of nz's innings rather than going for a meme swing / running no matter what.

>what is the difference between flukey rub of the green and deliberate bad sportsmanship

fuck off paki
go back to india

Fucking deliberate
Cheaters

How do you write the rule to stop it, especially in a way that won't lead to it being abused by fielders? That's the problem. This is a one in a million thing.

FUCK OFF CHEATING PERFIDIOUS ALBUMIN CUNT

>Stokes raises his arms in celebration
wrong. stokes raised his arms as an apology, since there was literally nothing he could do. he didn't look at the ball, change course or anything. completely unintentional, a categorical misfield by NZ
>fuck off paki
>go back to india
you know those are 2 different countries m8 right

fuck off browno

pakis and indians are the same brand of subhuman tb h

It's technically allowed and he didn't mean to do it

>browno

Howling

How do you prove intention?

The ball should become dead as soon as it is fielded and accidentally hits a batsman.

>How do you prove intention?
deviating from the line of your run

How would that work? Are the batsman not allowed to keep running if they get hit against the ball by rthe fielders? Doesn't that encoruage fielders "accidentally" hitting runners? The rules become a fucking mess.

Leaving the ball live is the only thing that makes sense.

>trying THIS hard to fit in

Virath kohli is god, we should have won.

he never deviated from his line. really just a freak one in a million chance of something like this happening. its literally mindblowing that it happened in a world cup final and ended up being the difference.
really, i dont think the rules of cricket in general could have predicted this game
>tied after 100 overs
>ties in the super over
>the stokes obstruction
insane stuff

such a CHAD move

Just change the rule so that if it travels all the way to the boundary those runs dont count

>responding to yank flags

True but blocking the stumps isnt meant to result in additional runs.

Why would you want to hit a batsman if you can hit the stumps? Or throw to the keeper. There is no incentive to kill the ball for a fielding side.

They'll change this rule now. They have to, it's fucking braindead. Accidental or not, it doesn't make much sense.

Also - why the fuck is overthrows five? Should it not just be a four, the fact that they've completed a run already doesn't matter for boundaries of any other sort

250IQ MOVE

>Why would you want to hit a batsman if you can hit the stumps?
a batsman is a bigger target?

They ran 2

Batsman getting hit by the ball isn't that uncommon. Having it hit the bat and go for 4/6 is rare but is a logical continuation of the rule.

So if a team gets a four/six off it, it gets written off, making it worse than if it stayed in and where you could potentially gert 3+ more runs? What sort of shitty illogical rule is that?

But it wouldn't result in an out. And the run would still count.

You’re a fucking mong. kys

that's what i mean. i cant remember the last time i saw a throw hit the batsmen and go for four, and i watch every game of cricket played around the world kek. it's especially insane in the context of this game.

Who?

If the ball gets thrown in and the batsman gets in the way accidentally, it Should still be regarded as fielded.

>Why would you want to hit a batsman if you can hit the stumps?
Because, for example, you're the bowler and you've scrambled on the wicket to get the ball and a batsman is standing right in front of you?

Again, this shit gets really complicated fast. The rule makes logical sense as it stands.

This looks based and lucky, I wish I understood it

BWAHAHAHAHA KIWIS BTFO

GREATEST ODI IN HISTORY

>you're the bowler and you've scrambled on the wicket to get the ball and a batsman is standing right in front of you?
Why would you throw it at the batsman? That makes no sense

My stream glitched out at that moment. But holy shit. How is that legal? So you can now technically hit the ball a second time when running between the wickets for extra runs?

>aussies kiwis and brits trying to act tough toward americans on an image board for pedophiles
>while our nation constantly produces the greatest fighters and has the largest, most powerful military and can turn any of your shitstain countries into a glass parking lot overnight
this is my favorite thing about Yea Forums. all that pent-up rage from the inferiority complex gets unleashed by you frail knobs in the asshole of the internet

Attached: 1435486620500.jpg (775x821, 104K)

Butthurt false-flagging.

Attached: Robbed2.jpg (1024x768, 103K)

I can think of multiple reasons. What if you're unlikely to hit the stumps and he's behind the wicket keeper? What if it's a shit batsman that you want to bowl at them again rather than a much better batting partner? Do you really want a rule that could potentially encourage fielders to throw at batsman for an advantage?

If the ball hits you or the bat, the ball remains live. You can't deliberately obstruct fielding.

This is why I feel so sorry for the Kiwis, they weren't even properly robbed, it was totally valid and legal. Just a freak incident at the worst possible time.

Can't do it deliberately. GOATes just got hit. You could say he was clever to do his best to get in the way to prevent getting out, but that's another matter.

anyone who thinks stokes acted deliberately is seriously retarded

If you're going to ask dumb questions like this, at least have the common decency to change to an American VPN so that we'll all know how ignorant you are.

Attached: Retard2.jpg (900x900, 105K)

it's shouldn't have been given as extra, c that's all we're saying

Fun fact: according to the laws, it shouldn't even matter if it was deliberate or not, as long as it had touched a fielder first and it wasn't obstruction.

Honestly though, the game would be far more exciting for casuals if the 2 attacking players could try and smack the ball out of mid-air to try and extend their runs.

lel live I thought it was just standard overthrows, 90000000000/1 shot

>it's shouldn't have been given as extra, c that's all we're saying
And you shouldn't be should you?

The only reason you're saying it is to blag a few extra (you)s.

Attached: USALetters.jpg (500x500, 34K)

Cricket is for street shitters.

(If anyone is interested, see law 34 and law 37)
>34.2 Not out Hit the ball twice
>34.2.2 wilfully strikes the ball after it has touched a fielder. Note, however the provisions of Law 37.1 (Out Obstructing the field).

You don't seem to understand. Throwing the ball at the batsman wouldnt achieve any benefit over throwing it to your keeper.

it's literally a high-class sport. all that gear isn't cheap. it's on the same level as horseracing and falconing: all three are the sports of kings.

/cric/'s up

Intredasting. Thanks for clearing that.

>all that gear