Popular Post bowl_out Posted July 14, 2019 Popular Post Posted July 14, 2019 The team needs to plan and score more boundaries during the innings to make sure that they get an advantage when there happens to be a super over and it gets tied? How stupid is that? How can a team plan in advance for that? If a super over happens and get tied, you either : 1. Play another super over and another till you're able to break the tie (or) 2. Share the trophy How is England a better side today to be called Champions when they scored the same number of boundaries as NZ (albeit including a questionable overthrow) and losing more wickets than NZ? Moochad, GolGappe, SrinjayDutta and 8 others 3 1 7
IndianRenegade Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 Just now, bowl_out said: The team needs to plan and score more boundaries during the innings to make sure that they get an advantage when there happens to be a super over and it gets tied? How stupid is that? How can a team plan in advance for that? If a super over happens and get tied, you either : 1. Play another super over and another till you're able to break the tie (or) 2. Share the trophy How is England a better side today to be called Champions when they scored the same number of boundaries as NZ (albeit including a questionable overthrow) and losing more wickets than NZ? There is no rationale. It’s just plain stupid. Unstable Joe, mani sha, nitinbwj and 3 others 1 2 1 2
flamy Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 NZ got more wickets. That should have sealed the deal right there. Boundaries criteria is the most stupid I have heard nitinbwj, GoldenSun, Cricketics and 6 others 2 1 6
CG Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 The team needs to plan and score more boundaries during the innings to make sure that they get an advantage when there happens to be a super over and it gets tied? How stupid is that? How can a team plan in advance for that? If a super over happens and get tied, you either : 1. Play another super over and another till you're able to break the tie (or) 2. Share the trophy How is England a better side today to be called Champions when they scored the same number of boundaries as NZ (albeit including a questionable overthrow) and losing more wickets than NZ?Oversight from icc as nobody thought it would happen. Unstable Joe 1
coffee_rules Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 England deserves the WC for inventing the game! Period. Suhaan, JourneyMan, haiwan and 1 other 4
Moochad Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 ICC lives in the stone age. This is the only sport where something this stupid can happen in the biggest game in the sport. You play until someone wins, not pick some arbitrary standard to choose a winner. How exactly is anyone hurt by playing a 2nd super over? Vilander, Stradlater, Unstable Joe and 3 others 1 1 4
Vijy Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, bowl_out said: The team needs to plan and score more boundaries during the innings to make sure that they get an advantage when there happens to be a super over and it gets tied? How stupid is that? How can a team plan in advance for that? If a super over happens and get tied, you either : 1. Play another super over and another till you're able to break the tie (or) 2. Share the trophy How is England a better side today to be called Champions when they scored the same number of boundaries as NZ (albeit including a questionable overthrow) and losing more wickets than NZ? it makes no sense - the trophy should have been shared. but it's done now. we should be grateful for seeing an ATG ODI match that truly reveals the subtleties of the ODI game which combines elements from Tests and T20s, but the synthesis yields something new. Unstable Joe and GoldenSun 1 1
Pollack Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 Stop whining. Rules were defined before and not on the go. Understandably NZ seem to be unfortunate. No unfair. No injustice. Unstable Joe, YCCC, Cricketphile and 2 others 2 1 2
IndianRenegade Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, Pollack said: Stop whining. Rules were defined before and not on the go. Understandably NZ seem to be unfortunate. No unfair. No injustice. All rules are defined before the game, that doesn’t mean they are not absurd. The question isn’t about injustice, but whether a rule makes sense. Vilander, Stradlater, nitinbwj and 1 other 1 3
nitinbwj Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 It’s a stupid rule and needs to be looked at again.
srh08 Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 31 minutes ago, CG said: 33 minutes ago, bowl_out said: The team needs to plan and score more boundaries during the innings to make sure that they get an advantage when there happens to be a super over and it gets tied? How stupid is that? How can a team plan in advance for that? If a super over happens and get tied, you either : 1. Play another super over and another till you're able to break the tie (or) 2. Share the trophy How is England a better side today to be called Champions when they scored the same number of boundaries as NZ (albeit including a questionable overthrow) and losing more wickets than NZ? Oversight from icc as nobody thought it would happen. Its lazy rule making, as they expected this to be a highly unlikely scenario. Play super overs until someone wins and after 3 super overs, declare joint winners. chewy 1
Moochad Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 32 minutes ago, Vijy said: it makes no sense - the trophy should have been shared. but it's done now. we should be grateful for seeing an ATG ODI match that truly reveals the subtleties of the ODI game which combines elements from Tests and T20s, but the synthesis yields something new. Trophy sharing is also bad imo. In all tournament finals the match should continue until there is a winner. The chances a 2nd or then a 3rd, 4th, super over would also have been a tie are so small, it seems obvious to let the teams play it out on the field until there is a winner.
bowl_out Posted July 14, 2019 Author Posted July 14, 2019 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Pollack said: Stop whining. Rules were defined before and not on the go. Understandably NZ seem to be unfortunate. No unfair. No injustice. Doesn't stop us from questioning the absurdity of them... How can a team go back and change what happened 6 hours back. Why should it be more boundaries.. why not the team that took more wickets or the team that played fewer dots.. Nobody thinks of scoring more boundaries or losing fewer wickets than the other team to get an advantage.. The rules are plain stupid. Edited July 14, 2019 by bowl_out flamy 1
CG Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 Its lazy rule making, as they expected this to be a highly unlikely scenario. Play super overs until someone wins and after 3 super overs, declare joint winners.Reduce the balls of each super over like sudden death . srh08 and Vilander 2
chewy Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 Should have just played another super over Unstable Joe 1
cowboysfan Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 having lost fewer wickets does nothing in a LOI game,scoring runs is the key and there has to be a way to differentiate between 2 teams withe the same amount of runs.
bowl_out Posted July 14, 2019 Author Posted July 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, cowboysfan said: having lost fewer wickets does nothing in a LOI game,scoring runs is the key and there has to be a way to differentiate between 2 teams withe the same amount of runs. How about then look at which team ran more runs or scores more singles. The rule is plain absurd
chewy Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 D/L rewards/penalises based on wickets lost, not boundaries scored so stupidity tie is based on boundaries Unstable Joe and bowl_out 1 1
The Realist Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 No wonder cricket barely qualifies as a sport. Arcane rules that make absolutely no sense. One could even argue that since NZ bowled Eng out in 50 overs then they should have won. Makes a lot more sense than number of boundaries. haiwan, GoldenSun, srh08 and 4 others 1 6
Singh bling Posted July 14, 2019 Posted July 14, 2019 1 minute ago, The Realist said: No wonder cricket barely qualifies as a sport. Arcane rules that make absolutely no sense. One could even argue that since NZ bowled Eng out in 50 overs then they should have won. Makes a lot more sense than number of boundaries. Lol what about football. Hitting 5 balls in goal makes you champion. Remember Ghana vs Uruguay When Suarez stopped ball from hand going into goal and robbed ghana semi final spot.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now