Umpiring fuck-up gave England the World Cup

england won a ridiculously close cricket match on a tiebreak rule nobody knew existed because it's liyerally never been needed before
poos pakis and aussies shit the bed because they're ABE
if it had gone the other way they'd all be jeering and laughing
tl;dr they hate us cos they ain't us (and we ruled and/or invented their countries yonks ago)

i give the umpire the benefit of the doubt

>Lose
>Still win
AND DID THOSE FEET

IN ANCIENT TIMES

I DONT WANNA ROCK....... DJ

WALK UPON ENGLAND'S MOUNTAINS GREEN

they were nowhere near crossing for the second run when the ball was released
youtube.com/watch?v=n6WupnbUhNw

Attached: cric.jpg (632x431, 34K)

>England's mountains
nigga your country is literally flatter than Oklahoma

You're right, I'm sorry.

>And the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress
Is everyone just illiterate?

>if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act
why the hell did you leave that part out britbong

This

Are you of the opinion that they hadn't already started their 2nd run when the ball took over 4 seconds to reach Guptil?

they failed to complete the second run before guptill threw that ball. so it should have been 1 + 4.

Are you fucking stupid?
>runs completed by the batsmen, together with runs in progress
If the 2nd part only meant runs which had been completed then it would be an entirely redundant statement since that was already covered in the first part of the bullet point

also this isn't just my opinion, it's the opinion of experts.

If Stokes did that on purpose he was playing in the wrong final that afternoon.

they had not CROSSED. retard

refer to the kiwi poster's pic above. guptil releases the ball and they had not crossed each other yet.

It's quite clearly the opinion of many people such as yourself who can't comprehend basic English and for some bizarre reason think the rule book was just repeating itself rather than referring to 2 separate things

They had already started their 2nd run we know this because it took 4 seconds for the ball to reach Guptil and it only took Stokes 2 seconds to return on his 2nd run. If you are not disputing the fact that Stokes hadn't already started his 2nd run then you are fucking retarded.
>runs completed by the batsmen, together with runs in progress
The 2nd run was in progress how fucking illiterate are you?

cased closed you fucking retard. you'll forever be feeling cognitive dissonance about this world cup win.

Unless you think this image is displaying Stokes starting his run for the first run then you are wrong but that would be impossible for that to be the case since the ball was in flight for 4 seconds before it reached Guptil so this could only be displaying the 2nd run in progress. If you are of the opinion that this doesn't classify as 'together with runs in progress' because the run hadn't yet been completed you are also wrong because quite clearly the reason why it is specified 'together with runs in progress' is because it is referring to runs which have yet to be complete
It cannot get any more clear

stokes and rashid havent crossed each other yet for the run in progress (the second run) as this clearly shows

It is quite clearly referring to crossing the crease you fucking retard that's the definition of completing a run and starting another

LOL you fucking retard. your reasoning earlier was that the clause has a redundancy if that's what it refers to and that's correct. crossing here means the batsmen crossing each other as they run toward their ends of the pitch.

>crossing here means the batsmen crossing each other
That isn't a facet of any part of cricket and if it were referring to that then it would be explicitly mentioned since the entire point of rule books is to be perfectly descriptive

>Throw or ACT
Guptils throw didn't cause the overthrows it was the ball hitting Stokes' bat hence the act part and they already had crossed at that point.

of course it's a facet of cricket. whether they've crossed or not determines what side of the pitch the remaining batsman goes for the next ball when his partner is given out run out.

It is if the batsmen have passed each other. It's also used in the laws (not rules) in other scenarios.
The umpires made a mistake, it should've been only 5 runs from that ball. England lost by 1 run then won the world cup.

It's at the instant of the throw or act, you may read it again, it means as soon as he throws it and you can see that the batsmen had not crossed at that point.

Adil himself said Allah was on England's side

Who are you to doubt divine intervention?

>invent the english language
>still manage to fuck up the usage of less and fewer
Mashallah brother

Have you been tested for retardation lad?

Wait, so England scored one less run but still got the trophy? Wut

Kiwis were robbed

POO

lmao the angloys can't win without being helped

it's only 1 seething aussie tbf

there are a subset of sad mongs whose lives are apparently given meaning by hating england/the english

sometimes they have some obscure historical reason which they give as their justification, my family are all irish so i have heard the drivel before many times. some irish ppl actually blame the norman invasion of ireland on "the english" lmao

>Englander pig dog pirates NZ should have winned trophy. How dare ICC insult Sachin GIVE BACK KOH I NOOR imperialist you are as bad as a Pakistani!
The subcontinental salt of the last couple of days will sustain me for years to come. If only we'd beaten them the same way.

one retired umpire rules on a law that leaves room for interpretation
this means the is supposedly a settled and unambiguous thing

lol ok

>England lost by 1 run then won the world cup.
No they didn't. It was 241 all.

Wait England didn't win the cup but they cried and were given it? Huh.