Can someone explain the rationale of these rules

[Pollack]

It should be number of wins or total points. If same then NRR. Continuing super overs is very time consuming.

[Ajju]

Should have played another game and take into the deep

[Mariyam]

11 hours ago, flamy said:

NZ got more wickets. That should have sealed the deal right there.

 

Boundaries criteria is the most stupid I have heard

After a tie in the super over, a dance off would have been a better way to judge the winner than the existing rule.

 

I'd put my money (haram, I know) on Lockie Ferguson. He looks like he can dance.

[flamy]

6 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

After a tie in the super over, a dance off would have been a better way to judge the winner than the existing rule.

 

I'd put my money (haram, I know) on Lockie Ferguson. He looks like he can dance.

He definitely looks like he has surprises to offer.

[bowl_out]

25 minutes ago, Pollack said:

It should be number of wins or total points. If same then NRR. Continuing super overs is very time consuming.

It's the World cup final. Deciding that by number of wins or points is totally unfair..  

I fail to understand how some people think it is okay for the World cup champion not to Win the final match.

The "higher number of boundaries" rule is like saying Federer-Djokovic playing until 12-12 and could not break the tie, so whoever served the most aces wins.. how is that victory?

 

Super over is time consuming yes.. but it is the only way to decide a winner.. the other alternative is to share the trophy which seems an acceptable alternative as well.

Edited July 15, 2019 by bowl_out

[JourneyMan]

99 times out of 100 this rule wouldn't even come into play. How often will a match be tied and the super over also tied after that? I wouldn't try and change a rule which is only applicable in the rarest of cases. 

 

[Mariyam]

1 minute ago, JourneyMan said:

99 times out of 100 this rule wouldn't even come into play. How often will a match be tied and the super over also tied after that? I wouldn't try and change a rule which is only applicable in the rarest of cases. 

 

So is the death penalty, in India.

 

But you don't make rules thinking about probabilities and what not. You make rules thinking about justice, and in this case the notion of fair play.

[ShoonyaSifar]

Whatever these rules were, they were applicable and known to every team from day 1. Can't complain now.

[bowl_out]

16 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

After a tie in the super over, a dance off would have been a better way to judge the winner than the existing rule.

 

I'd put my money (haram, I know) on Lockie Ferguson. He looks like he can dance.

Exactly, at least the dance off happens after the 50 overs, so each team gets a fair chance 

Edited July 15, 2019 by bowl_out

[bowl_out]

4 minutes ago, JourneyMan said:

99 times out of 100 this rule wouldn't even come into play. How often will a match be tied and the super over also tied after that? I wouldn't try and change a rule which is only applicable in the rarest of cases. 

 

The rarest of the rare cases happened in a world cup final, arguably the most prestigious title played for in cricket

[sarcastic]

4 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

So is the death penalty, in India.

 

But you don't make rules thinking about probabilities and what not. You make rules thinking about justice, and in this case the notion of fair play.

There is no unfairness here. Teams are encouraged to score as many boundaries as they can in their 50 overs of batting. There are better rules..> Sure consider them. No body is claiming this rule is ideal but let us not say it is unfair to some team because the could not score boundaries. We have to go by some rule and NZ is quite far behind in the number of boundaries and the rule is made way before the match happened. 

[coffee_rules]

A bowl out would be better after super over. Bowlers hitting stumps is like penalty shootout.

[Sean Bradley]

The idea behind this rule is basically who showed more intent while batting, the one who batted with intent won the match. 

[Moochad]

Looks like umpires possibly missed a different ruling during the match

 

[bowl_out]

1 hour ago, Sean Bradley said:

The idea behind this rule is basically who showed more intent while batting, the one who batted with intent won the match. 

This aint T20.. Michael Bevan's run a ball 60 without any boundaries might be so much more valuable than a 60 off 75 balls that has 6 boundaries.

 

There is no idea behind the rule.. It is simply lazy rule writing by ICC because they didn't expect such a situation to arise, particularly in the biggest stage of cricket

[Unstable Joe]

46 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Looks like umpires possibly missed a different ruling during the match

 

NZ got screwed over so many times in this match...... This is just so heartbreaking......

[coffee_rules]

15 minutes ago, Unstable Joe said:

NZ got screwed over so many times in this match...... This is just so heartbreaking......

Given that they came to semis purely on luck, I don't feel so bad for them. But  to their never-say-die attitude.

[bowl_out]

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Given that they came to semis purely on luck, I don't feel so bad for them. But  to their never-say-die attitude.

I wouldn't say they came to semis on luck.. Yes, rules are rules.. But NZ's semis qualification came from a tried a tested rule that has worked well and been acknowledged for years..

This is on more boundaries looks childish and lazy on ICC's part.

[zen]

If Ind or NZ had won, would the rule have been discussed here?

[Sean Bradley]

13 hours ago, bowl_out said:

This aint T20.. Michael Bevan's run a ball 60 without any boundaries might be so much more valuable than a 60 off 75 balls that has 6 boundaries.

 

There is no idea behind the rule.. It is simply lazy rule writing by ICC because they didn't expect such a situation to arise, particularly in the biggest stage of cricket

Bevans run a ball sixty vs Afridis 17 balls 50, what is more valuable? Such hypothesis can go on endlessly.  NZ scored 20 runs in last 18 balls, no one stopped them from scoring boundaries, just that they ended up being on the wrong side of the rule. The rule was set before the world cup started, not that i am trying to defend ICC here, rule was there for everyone and no one should complain but abide by it. At the end of the day, cricket is a game of boundaries and sixes.