I'm I the only one in thinking there was nothing wrong with the run out? Sidebottom was going for the ball and the bastman was trying to get to the other end both were equally to blame for the collosion!
I cant remember which commentator said it but they basically said "...is this about winning the game or about the game of cricket?" Its about winning the game, in a couple of years time nobody would have said England won the series but there was a run out which was controversial.
Also, although obviously not as relevant now, if England hadnt have appealed would the run still have counted?
Final question, I am bit confused with the circumstances of the last ball. I am right in thinking NZ needed two to win, they managed to run one, but then due to over throws managed to get the second? Is it not the case that if the game is tied after 50 overs it goes down to the amount of wickets you lose, meaning NZ would have won anyway??