What's the most infuriating moment in any movie ever made?

 2012.

While taking my seat in the cinema, I lost one pair of my gloves. See, I have a habit of losing gloves so once I noticed, I was determined I have to recover it when the lights go on at the end of the movie.

The problem was that the movie was really crap.

My friends wanted to leave half way but I insisted that we have to wait for my glove. We ended up chatting most of the film, joking, laughing at the ridiculous hero hollywood moments in the movie.

We all noticed that while the whole world was trying to save itself from destruction in the plot of the movie, Africa was not mentioned even once.

Not once!

We joked about it normally until the end scene. When the director/writer/producer/whoever created that brilliant piece of art, until they decided ...

~ cheesy Hollywood music on the background ~

that the whole world was doomed except - wait for it - Africa. And the whole world is going back to the mother land.

At the moment, I stood up and pushed my way out of my seat: "Fuck the gloves, I am going home"

What was Queen Elizabeth's wildest moment?

 My favorite moment I read about the Queen was when she received the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles recounts that he had a private audience with the Queen when he was appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia in 2003.

At that time, Abdullah was still (theoretically) the crown prince, although he had effectively ruled for several years.

During the meeting, the queen happily recounted the story of Abdullah's first visit to Balmoral , her castle in Scotland . It all began quite innocently, with an offer to visit the property.

After lunch, the Queen asked her royal guest if he would like a tour of the property. At the request of his Foreign Minister, the urbane Prince Abdullah, initially hesitant, agreed.

The royal Land Rovers were parked in front of the castle. As instructed, the Crown Prince climbed into the front seat of the lead Land Rover, his interpreter in the back seat.

But then, a surprising twist!

The queen herself was Abdullah's driver.

To his surprise, the Queen climbed into the driver's seat, started the SUV, and drove off. Women—still—were not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, much less a queen.

And she wasn't just driving, she was DRIVING Abdullah, and leaving his nerves in tatters.

His nervousness increased further when the Queen, a former Army driver in wartime, sped along the narrow roads of the Scottish estate in the Land Rover, talking the whole time. Through his interpreter, the Crown Prince pleaded with the Queen to slow down and concentrate on the road ahead.

That's right: Queen Elizabeth basically spent an afternoon using her military-grade driving skills to confuse the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

What is the most controversial moment in cricket history, and why?

 I remember two incidents straightaway, both equally controversial and would've been very significant in big results of two different world cups.

22(13) becomes 22(1) !!!

South Africa took on England in the semifinals match of 1992 world cup in Sydney. It was a rain affected game. As a result, both the sides could bat for only 45 overs. Opting to bat first, England had scored 252/6 in their 45 overs. South Africa were going pretty good in the run chase despite the hiccups.

South Africa needed just 22 runs in 13 balls with 4 wickets in hand and two batters with good nick [Brian McMillan 21(21) and David Richardson 13(10)] in the middle. But suddenly, the rain gods appeared. The brainfade rule of the organisers (That no play could continue after 9:30pm Australian Eastern Daylight Time) meant that no play could continue.

Add to that, lowest-scoring-over rules (Not today's Duckworth lewis rule) meant that the equation came down ridiculously from 22 off 13 to 22 off 1. That's gotta be Cricket’s most controversial match of All-time (Both technologically and regulationally).

6 runs, instead of 5 runs !!!

It was the 2019 world cup finals between England and New Zealand. Opting to bat first on a big day, New Zealand could post only 241/8 in their 50 overs. In reply, England were in a tough situation, having to score 15 runs in the last over with just 2 wickets in hand.

Ben Stokes was the batter and Trent Boult was the bowler. The equation came down to 9 from 3. That's when Stokes hit a low full toss of Boult towards deep midwicket region. Guptill collected the ball and threw towards the keeper's end, where the ball collided with Stokes' bat and raced towards the boundary ropes for the four.

Here's the rule of ICC for deflection off the bat -

Law 19.8 of the ICC rules, pertaining to '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."

But it was very evident even for the viewers that the second run was incomplete. But the collective brainfade decision from the main umpire and the leg side umpire meant that England were awarded an extra run. At that moment, nobody would've thought how costly would that decision turn out to be.

In the end, the match not just ended in a tie after the first 50 overs, but also got tied in the super over !! For such an incredible cricket match, the winner was decided based on the boundary count ! Imagine what would've been the result if that extra run wasn't awarded for England !

These two incidents are unarguably the most controversial ones in Cricket till date.

Image - Google.