It's never straightforward when England win a world cup.
The Association Football in 1966 remains a murky business in some conspiratorial places. The 2003 Rugby Union was won by a perfectly legitimate last kick of the game, not that I'd noticed the game having any comprehensible rules. The cricket in 2019 was also perfectly legitimate although ostensibly unfair, the rules of cricket in such esoteric circumstances needing to be consulted carefully. (Footnote- one might also note that the Wimbledon Men's Final happening at the same time was awarded to Djokovic, who won 23 games and 3 tie-breaks compared to Federer's 30 games. So there was no need for tie-breaks.)
It is the six runs awarded to England from the boundary resulting from overthrows that has raised doubts, notwithstanding the arbitrariness that in the event of a tied super over, the side who scored the most boundaries are deemed the winners. And neitherwithstanding that New Zealand lost 8 wickets whereas England were all out, which is surely better and was once how it was.
It has been suggested, by New Zealand, that only five runs should have been awarded because the batsmen hadn't crossed when the fielder released the ball for that ill-fated run out attempt. They must wish they'd never tried. But let's have a look at the law.
19.8 Overthrow or wilful act of fielder
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.
Oh, I see. 'If the boundary results from an overthrow'. But it didn't result from the overthrow, which a top professional side like New Zealand had covered by a fielder 'backing up' on the opposite side of the stumps. It resulted from the subsequent, accidental impact with Stokes's bat that diverted it to an unprotected area of the boundary.
That was very hard luck on New Zealand. The super over, the wide, the six, the three yards short on the second run attempted on the last ball should all have been unnecessary but you need a bit of luck in running and England got all of theirs in one enormous lump when the match, and the world cup, had really eluded them.
But even that is not the point these days. We had the thrills, possibly the greatest game of cricket ever played with the most unlikely finish and everybody had a good time. It was a nice day, plenty of cash was spent and regarded as well spent. Who wins isn't really the point. As it says of the scorer in the poem, The Summer Game,
For his
is the drudgery of knowing
who, if anyone, won and why