I think the Club deserve a little praise for staging a magnificent Finals Day - especially Gary Barwell for yet another excellent pitch, a true surface with a bit of lift and carry plus a hint of spin.
Only negative - that wretched scoreboard that freezes at key moments. Maybe they should try a large blackboard with hooks and pieces of tin with numbers on.

It was an excellent day.
However the controversy of the final result will rumble on a bit. Lancashire never should have let it get to that, they should have coasted, but still think the umpires made a couple of key mistakes in that last ball.

What actually happened on that final, final ball? Did anybody legally break the stumps with a batsman out of his ground? The keeper broke the stumps his end but the runner was in. Then all sorts of people were pulling up stumps at both ends with or without the hand holding the ball.

Just being pedantic, wouldn't question the result as given.

Answer - nobody broke the stumps with the batsman out of his ground but the umpires regarded the ball as dead, probably wrongly. Lancashire should have been allowed the second run and would have won. Also, Hampshire changed the field for the free hit - not allowed.
Overall, I don't think the umpires covered themselves in glory but they must feel the pressure along with everyone else.
At least the Bears can say they were beaten by the eventual winners. And Hampshire won their last seven games in the Blast so were certainly the form team.

Hampshire bowlers benefitting from Graeme Welch's coaching.......

Would love to have seen Hampshire lose as they got away with last ball mayhem a few years ago when they had a runner for a batsman and on the last ball, all 3 ran and it caused all sorts of confusion and Somerset should have been awarded the game.

Might have already been mentioned but that's the 2nd year in a row that the team who has beat us in the quarters has gone on to win the comp. We have such a galvanising effect...

I remember going to the finals at Trent Bridge when the final over was being played in a downpour - standing square to the wicket I am sure the final ball was a high full toss and would have been no-balled if the umpires had not wanted to get in the dry!!

All this confusion and with paulbear recalling a past incident proves one fact - cricket should only be played at a pedestrian civilised pace !!!

I remember going to the finals at Trent Bridge when the final over was being played in a downpour - standing square to the wicket I am sure the final ball was a high full toss and would have been no-balled if the umpires had not wanted to get in the dry!!

All this confusion and with paulbear recalling a past incident proves one fact - cricket should only be played at a pedestrian civilised pace !!!

Yes, too much excitement is not good for you!
I recall that when I used to go to Edgbaston as a kid, there was an old member (probably younger than I am now but he seemed ancient to me) who had a weak heart and had been told by his doctor to avoid excitement. He would watch a match for two and a half days; but if it was heading for a close finish, he would go home. That seemed pretty sad to me at the time and still does.

Gerry back then, as a kid, you couldn't get too excited. You would end up with splinters from the wooden benches - certainly in the Rea bank (Hollies) stand - we all wore shorts in those days regardless of the weather!!! I remember the sun burnt knees !!

The MCC has come to the aid of the umpires:
"The match concluded when the ball was deemed to be dead by the umpire, who signalled a bye. Under Law 2.12.3, the signal for a bye shall be made to the scorers only when the ball is dead. Analysis of the footage of the match showed that, when the umpire signalled the bye, the original non-striker was standing still, about four yards behind the striker’s wicket, while the striker was slowing down in his attempt to reach the other end."

"Therefore it was reasonable to consider that the ball was dead and consequently, it's not relevant that the wicket was not lawfully put down at the bowler's end.

"Once the umpire has made the decision that the ball is dead, that decision cannot be revoked."

By the letter of the law they are right but seeing as the 'keeper attempted a run out and the ball broke the stumps with the batsman well in, under normal play, the batting side could try for what could be deemed, as an overthrow and go for a run. I doubt it makes a difference whether it is the first or last ball. If this is the case in future, any team can break the stumps on the last ball and assume the game will be over and the ball called dead. I agree with Vilas and that the umpires were too hasty to 'Assume' the ball was dead. If it happened to us, I would be furious and it looks as though luck has shone on Hampshire yet again.

It definitely seems like the umpires made an “assumption” in terms of what they thought would happen if it were a normal ball.
Obviously in that situation a team would never go for a second run. But there seems to have been some naivety in not letting the whole thing play out then signalling.
I wondered at the time if they just wanted to signal and get off, as I’m sure they’d have been glad Hampshire won after the no ball signal on the original final ball.

There are two parts to the MCC defence of the umpires. One is that, according to the Laws of the game, the ball is dead once the umpire has signaled a bye and therefore, because the signal had been made, the second run couldn't count. That much is factually correct. The dodgy part is the suggestion that the timing of the signal for a bye was correct. It would surely have been better for the umpires to have made sure that no second run would be attempted - as the MCC says, the striker was still on the move so it would have been best to wait and see what happened next.
Anyway, it was the end of a long day and we all make mistakes. Most of us are lucky enough that our errors aren't shown on TV and mulled over by posters on this Forum and elsewhere.

I think in a situation like this, when whatever umpires meetings happen (If they do), they need to clarify this situation in case it happens again and so that every player/umpire/management, have a clear message about how the laws work in this situation. Unfortunately, I doubt that it will happen and that it will be forgotten. In normal circumstances, with the stumps broken and the batsman ,Well in', if the ball ricocheted away, the batsmen would try and get another run and to run them out, the fielding side would need to have ball in hand with a stump taken out. If all stumps are in the fielders hands because they assume they won and are gathering souvenirs, tough, they should be told "You assumed it was over and if you remove all stumps then that is your fault". Looks like this will ramble on, just a pity it was in a final and not a meaningless game where neither side had anything riding on the result. I feel for Lancashire and think they were hard done by.

The first thing that occurred to me on seeing the TV clip was to ask whether the wickets had been put down properly. It would be nice if, occasionally, a side were rewarded for actually knowing the laws.
I wouldn't have wanted to be the umpire who called for another TV review live, though.

The vast majority of players, and coaches at any level have a very poor knowlege of the laws of the game.

The umpires dealt with the situation correctly.

As I see it, Lancashire did know the laws by going (Or thinking about it until told otherwise) for a run once the stumps were broken knowing that overthrows are allowed in this way. I think the umpires just wanted to get off and in this situation the ECB will always back the officials, being the conformists that they are.