Had New Zealand won based on boundaries, would public reactions have been the same?

[bowl_out]

There's lot of public outrage given how NZ "lost" and England "won" the World cup. Immense criticism of poor rules and NZ hard done by ICC.

 

I wonder if public reaction would have been the same had NZ won on the basis of scoring more boundaries. Would public have said rules are rules and NZ won fair and square, or would there have been the same level of criticism of rules that we have today

 

Adding a poll too.

[Norman]

Public outrage is about the overthrow rule. Not the boundary rule. 

[SK_IH]

As the dust has settled, my view has changed. I think cup should have been shared. Not to take anything away from England, they won within rules. But it's really flummoxing to see a world cup winner being decided based on boundaries. 

[SK_IH]

In football, they go to sudden death if the scores are equal after 5. Similarly in tennis 5th set sometimes is decided by who blinks first.

 

However incompetent ICC is always leading in buffoonery. England eventually won the WC because of ICC's nonsensical rule. 

[I6MTW]

10 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

As the dust has settled, my view has changed. I think cup should have been shared. Not to take anything away from England, they won within rules. But it's really flummoxing to see a world cup winner being decided based on boundaries. 

Yes exactly, I started a thread on that. But, a petition should be signed for the world cup to be shared between England and New Zealand.

[R!TTER]

8 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

However incompetent ICC is always leading in buffoonery. England eventually won the WC because of ICC's nonsensical rule. 

Had Santner not ducked under the last ball this wouldn't have come up, having said that I don't feel sorry for NZ at all - they used truck loads of luck against us, even if we didn't deserve to lift the trophy!

[SK_IH]

13 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

Had Santner not ducked under the last ball this wouldn't have come up, having said that I don't feel sorry for NZ at all - they used truck loads of luck against us, even if we didn't deserve to lift the trophy!

I am neither pro NZ nor anti England, but a world title concluded in the most inconclusive way.

[Vilander]

who stopped the umpires to have an other super over to break the tie ?

[I6MTW]

Just now, Vilander said:

who stopped the umpires to have an other super over to break the tie ?

Something called the ICC rules. 

[vvvslaxman]

Yes . Hehe :)

[Vilander]

2 minutes ago, I6MTW said:

Something called the ICC rules. 

does it say not to use a super over to break a tie ?

[vvvslaxman]

They should have had a rule in the event of tie

 

"Count only the runs scored by people who were born in that country and wickets taken by those who were born in that country"

 

NZ would have thrashed them 

[I6MTW]

3 minutes ago, Vilander said:

does it say not to use a super over to break a tie ?

Yes. If a match is tied, then a super over will be conducted to determine the winner. And if the super over itself is tied, then the team which scored more no of boundaries will win the match. And if boundaries are tied, then I think it goes to the team which finished higher in the group stage(though this I am not sure, I remember reading a coin toss to decided the winner also somewhere).

[nevada]

Yes. It is a ridiculous rule and will always attract a lot of criticism when applied.

[rkt.india]

Had umpire not given 6 over throws, it would not have reached to that situation. NZ would won by one run

[haiwan]

according to early rules, the team which lost less wickets was declared as a winner which makes much more sense than who hit more boundaries. There was no concept of super over then. Really stupid rule of ICC. People even get boundaries of edges.

If the super over got tied, they should have ideally played another super over or should have considered no of wickets lost instead of boundaries.

[R!TTER]

16 minutes ago, haiwan said:

according to early rules, the team which lost less wickets was declared as a winner

Which rule?

[haiwan]

6 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

Which rule?

The old rule of ICC. I have seen teams having lost less wickets declared as winner in case of a tie.

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, I6MTW said:

I remember reading a coin toss to decided the winner also somewhere

well atleast it did not come to that, i think its too much to expect from ICC to get a fair game. 

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, haiwan said:

If the super over got tied, they should have ideally played another super over

yup, you would imagine, when the first tiebreaker is a super over and if the super over tied then it will be time for a tiebreaker, only with ICC it's not. We just count boundaries or toss a coin.