sensible-indian Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 A lot of folks mistake fairness with desirable outcomes. There are times when both these do contradict and therefore' date=' you go with the former rather than the latter.[/quote'] Absolutely. Say in a WC final, with one team all out for 100 and another say 85-7, arbitrary decisions to go or stay would be crazy.
Crookbond Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 That's a simpler approach. Agreed. Not necessarily. It depends on the innings and not pre-decided. If you have pre-decided, it is the same for everyone across countries and conditions.
zen Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Silly ICC rules I must say not to let them score 15 more runs :/ Valid point but it is hard to forecast, how long the teams would take to get those 15-20 runs. May be allow the team 30 mins more to get those runs if the team wishes or take lunch (like the extra 30 mins in tests)
sensible-indian Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Not necessarily. It depends on the innings and not pre-decided. If you have pre-decided' date=' it is the same for everyone across countries and conditions.[/quote'] Huh? He is saying have the break whether the team batting first gets out in 47th over or 4th. It is a simpler approach.
moniker Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 We can have it similar to the test rule of delaying the break by half an hour. If you have only one wicket to take to win the match, delay the break. If you need 25 runs to win the match, delay the break. (Considering 250 runs as the average ODI score and 25 to be the average score per wicket)
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Huh? He is saying have the break whether the team batting first gets out in 47th over or 4th. It is a simpler approach. Even this is simple - time for breaks are fixed. I think people are confused between viewer simplicity and consistency simplicity. The ICC rules is more consistently simple than views simple. It is NOT dependent on the events on the ground. A pre-decided time does not depend on conditions, bowlers etc. It is fixed across matches.
bulbul Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Even this is simple - time for breaks are fixed. I think people are confused between viewer simplicity and consistency simplicity. The ICC rules is more consistently simple than views simple. It is NOT dependent on the events on the ground. A pre-decided time does not depend on conditions' date=' bowlers etc. It is fixed across matches.[/quote'] ICC can always bring the rules used in tests of extending match by 30 mins.
Stuge Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 What is the problem in following rules used in tests? Additional 30 minutes can be given in such scenario. This makes more sense to me .
Crookbond Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 ICC can always bring the rules used in tests of extending match by 30 mins. That is fine as well; it doesn't change much but only makes it reasonable.
YCCC Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 This caused much chuntering among the Headingley faithful last summer in the domestic 50 over tournament. If there's anything we yorkies hate even more than Lancashire and the South it's a lack of common sense
Desi Cartman Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 this isnt stupid, its about having rules and following them. Line has to be drawn somewhere and followed. There is nothing wrong in it. My suggestion would be to make innings break as the only break and keep it to 30mins.
Desi Cartman Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 They have dinner at 6pm? Yes and late night snack at the Casino:two_thumbs_up:
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