Can someone explain the rationale of these rules

[Singh bling]

I guess after tie the team with more wins overall should be awarded trophy.

[Pollack]

14 minutes ago, Singh bling said:

I guess after tie the team with more wins overall should be awarded trophy.

Most sensible. It was England,  I guess. So fair enough.

[Stuge]

1 hour ago, nitinbwj said:

It’s a stupid rule and needs to be looked at again.

Imo ,they should have done one more super over instead of using such silly rules.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Stuge

[bowl_out]

1 hour ago, Singh bling said:

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.

dude... there is a big difference... hitting 5 balls in the goal happens after the match is tied.. that is equivalent of a super over or bowl out in cricket and tie-breaker in tennis...

 

Deciding a game based on some irrelevant events that happened in the last 8 hours is nonsense.. 

 

The equivalent example would be if they determined the winner of a football game based on which team's players ran more during the game or which team took more shots at the goal (irrespective of whether they scored the goal or not)

Edited July 14, 2019 by bowl_out

[bowl_out]

1 hour ago, Singh bling said:

I guess after tie the team with more wins overall should be awarded trophy.

After the tie, they should have simply shared the trophy. That would have been most apt

[mishra]

India lost to England because boundries were smaller 

[Cricketphile]

Also just to add, England did crush New Zealand in the group stages. So head to head, more wins, net run rate, whichever way, England deserved to win the World Cup. They have been the best side over the past 2 years, unbeatable at home, reinvented the game, the most improved side after the 2015 World Cup (similar to India between 2007 and 2011), and showed great mental strength and character playing 4 high pressure games back to back when they were pushed. Against the 3 best sides in the tournament. And they didn’t back off. They played their aggressive brand of cricket too and showed a plan b game to lift the trophy 

[Deleted_User_1]

Keep playng super over until someone wins. As simple as that. Here is baseball, ice hockey, basketball and even football that happens during playoffs. Eventually one side will give. That is the fair way and should be the ONLY way to decide a cup. Not some moronic rule of highest number of boundaries. Whoever came up with that rule should be paraded on a donkey with a placard saying "I'm stupid as shyte"

[ExtremeBrainfade]

12 minutes ago, Audiophile said:

Keep playng super over until someone wins. As simple as that. Here is baseball, ice hockey, basketball and even football that happens during playoffs. Eventually one side will give. That is the fair way and should be the ONLY way to decide a cup. Not some moronic rule of highest number of boundaries. Whoever came up with that rule should be paraded on a donkey with a placard saying "I'm stupid as shyte"

Yep.  Chances are it will take no more than 2 overs to decide.  

[ExtremeBrainfade]

20 minutes ago, Cricketphile said:

Also just to add, England did crush New Zealand in the group stages. So head to head, more wins, net run rate, whichever way, England deserved to win the World Cup. They have been the best side over the past 2 years, unbeatable at home, reinvented the game, the most improved side after the 2015 World Cup (similar to India between 2007 and 2011), and showed great mental strength and character playing 4 high pressure games back to back when they were pushed. Against the 3 best sides in the tournament. And they didn’t back off. They played their aggressive brand of cricket too and showed a plan b game to lift the trophy 

While all true, the "reason" they were given the trophy was that they hit more boundaries.  And that is stupid. 

[Pollack]

5 hours ago, IndianRenegade said:

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.

If rules don't make sense then whine before the game not after your favourite team failed to win match because of those. 

[IndianRenegade]

42 minutes ago, Pollack said:

If rules don't make sense then whine before the game not after your favourite team failed to win match because of those. 

1. Hardly anyone was aware of this rule. I am sure many players themselves wouldn't have been. We are fans with little to no authority to change the rules, what else do you expect us to do other than whine?

 

2. Take a look at my posts in the match thread, I backed and wanted the England to win this game. In fact, I wanted them to trash the Kiwi's, so it isn't the case whining about the rules because the team I wanted to win didn't

 

[Cricketphile]

I could be wrong but I believe that Pollack’s views r coming from reading a lot of posts demeaning england and their achievement. It’s one thing to say the rules should be changed or the icc should reconsider the rules (I agree with this too). However many posters r claiming that England did not deserve to win (when they won fair and square with the rules that were set for both teams, in front of them) or that New Zealand deserved to win more than England, or somewhere along those lines. I think that belittles a champion side and the effort that they put in. 

But overall, yes I do believe that the rules need another look but England deserved to win Sunday fair and square and they r world champions 

[IndianRenegade]

49 minutes ago, Cricketphile said:

I could be wrong but I believe that Pollack’s views r coming from reading a lot of posts demeaning england and their achievement. It’s one thing to say the rules should be changed or the icc should reconsider the rules (I agree with this too). However many posters r claiming that England did not deserve to win (when they won fair and square with the rules that were set for both teams, in front of them) or that New Zealand deserved to win more than England, or somewhere along those lines. I think that belittles a champion side and the effort that they put in. 

But overall, yes I do believe that the rules need another look but England deserved to win Sunday fair and square and they r world champions 

Even if that’s the case, there is reasonable doubt if they won it fairly as per the rules of the game.

Should England have got five, not six for overthrows?

 

[Cricketphile]

4 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

Even if that’s the case, there is reasonable doubt if they won it fairly as per the rules of the game.

Should England have got five, not six for overthrows?

 

Agreed. The matter should have been taken up then and there. The moment the umpires gave it, stokes equation in his mind had changed. Perhaps we would have gone for a boundary instead of a double the last ball with the new mindset and maybe there would be no superover. Or maybe not. So many variables come in. The point is that those runs were awarded by the umpires then and England won the game. Fair and square 

[IndianRenegade]

4 minutes ago, Cricketphile said:

Agreed. The matter should have been taken up then and there. The moment the umpires gave it, stokes equation in his mind had changed. Perhaps we would have gone for a boundary instead of a double the last ball with the new mindset and maybe there would be no superover. Or maybe not. So many variables come in. The point is that those runs were awarded by the umpires then and England won the game. Fair and square 

Before Looking at the article I would have agreed with the “fair and square” part. But since the rules seems to have not been followed, it’s not fair. 

 

Also so when talking about these rules, it should also be taken into account how umpires who are supposed to know the rules, make mistakes or didn’t know that they shouldn’t count the second run. So how is it okay to expect a fan shouldn’t “whine” about the rules?

[Cricketphile]

6 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

Before Looking at the article I would have agreed with the “fair and square” part. But since the rules seems to have not been followed, it’s not fair. 

 

Also so when talking about these rules, it should also be taken into account how umpires who are supposed to know the rules, make mistakes or didn’t know that they shouldn’t count the second run. So how is it okay to expect a fan shouldn’t “whine” about the rules?

1. It’s Not England’s fault that it wasn’t checked 2. There’s no guarantee that England would have lost/new zealand won even if that run was not given. I can understand it if this was 1 to win and the last run was not given, and then they got out or something. So ignoring everything else and saying England didn’t deserve to win does seem like whining to me. And if that was the case, they should have an issue with every single game where a wrong decision was made by the umpires and I suspect that’s atleast 20% of all games played. However I don’t see this issue popping up that’s often, it mostly only happens when the teams they don’t want to win wins, or the teams they like lose. Just my 2 cents. Fans have every right to complain or cry just like they can celebrate of course. No harm in either :-) cheers 

[kushagra29]

9 hours 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?

Honestly, Nz haven't lost to ENG but to **** ICC Rules

[kushagra29]

9 hours 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?

No, ENG have scored more boundaries than NZ. 

ENG - 4's-22 & 6's-2

NZ - 4's-14 & 6's-2

Yeah, I too feel, its not fair to decide the match winner based on boundaries. Sharing the trophy would have been the right decision

[rtmohanlal]

what to explain???  some dumb asses in ICC made these rules .... plain & clear...