Can someone explain the rationale of these rules

[Pollack]

8 hours ago, zen said:

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

No. I am damn sure. Atleast not the kind of whining like this. 

[bowl_out]

50 minutes ago, Sean Bradley said:

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.

Agree. So putting generic statements like more boundaries means awarding aggressive cricket makes no sense. It is all situation based.

 

That said both teams knew the rule before hand, so NZ is to blame for their loss.. But that doesn't take away the fact that the rule is stupid and meaningless, and a result of lazy rule-making by ICC

 

[Sean Bradley]

29 minutes ago, bowl_out said:

Agree. So putting generic statements like more boundaries means awarding aggressive cricket makes no sense. It is all situation based.

 

That said both teams knew the rule before hand, so NZ is to blame for their loss.. But that doesn't take away the fact that the rule is stupid and meaningless, and a result of lazy rule-making by ICC

 

Yes absolutely lazy rule making, it would have been interesting if the boundaries were equal too, what would happen in that case ?

[bowl_out]

24 minutes ago, Sean Bradley said:

Yes absolutely lazy rule making, it would have been interesting if the boundaries were equal too, what would happen in that case ?

Maybe they look at which captain got better grades in high school 

[Unstable Joe]

15 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.

It wasn't really on luck, NZ qualified on a criteria that measures consistency and the margin of wins and losses. It doesn't penalize different styles of play. NZ are accumulators while England are power hitters. Of course they'd have more boundaries. Also, NZ have a stronger bowling attack and took more wickets. Why wasn't that considered? 

[Unstable Joe]

1 hour ago, bowl_out said:

Agree. So putting generic statements like more boundaries means awarding aggressive cricket makes no sense. It is all situation based.

 

That said both teams knew the rule before hand, so NZ is to blame for their loss.. But that doesn't take away the fact that the rule is stupid and meaningless, and a result of lazy rule-making by ICC

 

I can't even completely blame NZ as England got 6 runs where they only should've got 5 even taking the overthrow boundary into account. 

[bowl_out]

9 hours ago, Unstable Joe said:

I can't even completely blame NZ as England got 6 runs where they only should've got 5 even taking the overthrow boundary into account. 

Then it would have been 3 required of the last ball and Stokes would have played a different shot for a full toss on leg stump. Too many hypothetical situations

[sarcastic]

9 hours ago, Unstable Joe said:

It wasn't really on luck, NZ qualified on a criteria that measures consistency and the margin of wins and losses. It doesn't penalize different styles of play. NZ are accumulators while England are power hitters. Of course they'd have more boundaries. Also, NZ have a stronger bowling attack and took more wickets. Why wasn't that considered? 

No body here is claiming that "taking more wickets" is not as good criteria as "scoring more boundaries". The rule laid out at the beginning of the tournament states that scoring more boundaries is given importance if the super over is a tie. To my knowledge, no body is really defending that it is the best rule.

However, given that such a rule has been made prior and known to the teams, it is fair to apply that rule in deciding the winner of the trophy. That's all is being said. 

Do the rule needs to be removed and replaced by who takes more wickets. By all means in the next world cup or whatever series, such a rule change can be made. And then, applying that rule will be fair whoever is the winner or the looser is. 

[JourneyMan]

In a week from now nobody outside of new zealand is going to care anymore. 

 

[Vilander]

On 7/15/2019 at 2:15 AM, JourneyMan said:

I wouldn't try and change a rule which is only applicable in the rarest of cases. 

why not ? since the cases are rare its ok to let the rule *up ?

[Vilander]

This is the best perspective i have seen on the matter and it astonishingly comes from some American lol. One thing is certain this game had made the world take notice of cricket which is good.

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/7/15/20694541/cricket-world-cup-tiebreaker-england-new-zealand-super-over

 

"Deep in cricket’s rules there’s a protocol for what should happen when the ball is deflected like this. Essentially a new shot is recorded from the moment the ball leaves the fielder’s hand. England had scored one run and were returning for their second when the ball was released, made contact and went for four. This should have been recorded as five runs, because Stokes never made it back before the ball was thrown. Instead the match umpires ruled it as six, as if Stokes had made it back already. "

 

 

[Vilander]

this was funny to read

 

"

Drama in the Super Over

The pressure of this situation can’t be understated. Honestly, it might be the most tense element of any sport, for everyone involved. Two players have to not only score as many runs as possible with six attempts, but also think about trying to swing for the fences in case it hits another tie.

"

[bowl_out]

Great read on Cricinfo. Very well written

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27200532/why-count-boundaries-determine-wins-world-cup-here-three-better-ways