# Thread: Solution for rain rule

1. ## Solution for rain rule

Matches in the US Open in tennis go on till 3 am in the night if there are rain delays. They are completed the next day other wise. Cricket used to have one day matches finish in the second day. But then then you had the rule of 25 overs and matches to be completed within that day.

We rely on some maths formula to get a score which is not apt. The match for example between India and Australia could have continued late into the night and no one would have minded.

I think there should be a rule to finish matches where feasible late into the night (say by 3 pm) or continue (and not reply as has been the case in some tournaments) the next day. Conditions may change but they may on the same day too. People would like to see a result not based on maths formula I think. If the matches dont finish by 3 AM, they can continue the next day from 2-3 PM and if it cant still be completed, the match can be abandoned.

The D/L system, though calculates fairly some times, is not a solution. Nor is the 25 over rule.

If a tennis player was leading 2 sets to one and rain occured, awarding the match to the player leading would be ridiculous.

2. You cannot compare Cricket and Tennis - Cricket has strict schedules, making rain days a very rare thing.

I wonder would this have been posted had Lee not hit 6 off the 3rd last ball? I very much doubt it.

D/L takes into account almost every game ever played at ODI level in determining the target.

3. I don't know about other countries but in England you have to agree before hand the latest you are going to have a day / night match last till. Due to public safty / local residents / policing concerns. The latest any local authority normally gives day / night games to finish by is 11pm. So it would be against the law for the game to carry on past that and any county gound that did go over that time would probably not be given a licence to hold another day / night game.

Its a bit of a pain but with most county grounds being situated right in the middle of residential areas its often the case.

4. There are restrictions as to how late the game can go. Goverments will only allow the games a certain amount of time to keep the lights on. And players have exhausting schedules @TM as it is, to add to that would be at the detriment of the game. I'm sure the last thing players want to do is play until 3am, then get up at 9 to continue the game and the get a plane in the afternoon to play a game the next day. Anyway, how many people would you expect to turn up the next day, not many would trun up IMO. We can't do anything about the rain, it is frustrating, but it is life.

IMO the D/L method isn't great, and I would rather see something else that is fairer, but at least it gives us a chance for result if play is stopped short or continued after rain.

5. Just remember the players here, if a game was to finish at 3am the players would have been at the ground from mid morning and wouldn't leave until the early hours of the next day... now admittly rain would be involded so wouldn't be playing the whole time, but if where I worked turned around and said oh tommorow could you just do a 18 hour shift, you can just think of the reply :saint:

And as Marc I think said the matches are way to packed to use rain days and what happenes if it rains on the rain day to?

SpaceMonkey made a very very good point also about the locations of grounds and the effect it would have on the local housing etc

And the last a final point is how many of you supporters would hang around till 3am to watch a game finish? when the vast amount of fans have School, Work etc the next day.

6. ## Re: Solution for rain rule

Originally posted by Pratyush
Matches in the US Open in tennis go on till 3 am in the night if there are rain delays. They are completed the next day other wise. Cricket used to have one day matches finish in the second day. But then then you had the rule of 25 overs and matches to be completed within that day.

We rely on some maths formula to get a score which is not apt. The match for example between India and Australia could have continued late into the night and no one would have minded.

I think there should be a rule to finish matches where feasible late into the night (say by 3 pm) or continue (and not reply as has been the case in some tournaments) the next day. Conditions may change but they may on the same day too. People would like to see a result not based on maths formula I think. If the matches dont finish by 3 AM, they can continue the next day from 2-3 PM and if it cant still be completed, the match can be abandoned.

The D/L system, though calculates fairly some times, is not a solution. Nor is the 25 over rule.

If a tennis player was leading 2 sets to one and rain occured, awarding the match to the player leading would be ridiculous.
Obviously the tennis rule you have stated is not a good idea then since only the US Open do it not the other 3 Grand Slams.

And what the hell you on about leading 2 sets and winning it because rain came? We don't do that with cricket, we readjust the total and not just give the win to the leading team.

7. you can't play cricket till 3am in the morning.

i) the players - it's just far too taxing to be doing that. Fair enough they do it at one tennis tournament (which shows no others think its a good idea), but tennis doesn't start at 2 in the arvo.

ii) the neighbourhood - most cricket grounds are around houses. I live right across the road from the SCG and i'd be majorly ****ed off if at 3 in the morning 35 000 people just streamed out onto the street. Not to mention the noise from the crowd would constantly wake everyone up.

iii) licencing - the governments just simply won't allow it. Pubs around houses have to close by midnight in Sydney and i presume the rest of Australia.

iv) the crowd - as funny as this sounds, the state that some members in the crowd would've drunk themselves into by 3am in the morning would not be a pretty sight at all. probably be copious amounts of alcohol poisoning.

8. New York open is different to the other tournaments due to the stritch US television networks. They like matches to start on time so they can play their adverts round it.
If a match got move due to another match having to be played from the night before they wouldnt be too happy. So if possible matches are finished the same day they are scheduled.
Plus the US open doesnt have as many courts as say wimbledon i believe so they have to play day and night to be able to fit all the matches in 2 weeks.

9. Originally posted by marc71178
I wonder would this have been posted had Lee not hit 6 off the 3rd last ball? I very much doubt it.

D/L takes into account almost every game ever played at ODI level in determining the target.
yeah, while the current system is far from perfect its far better than nothing, hell it produced a hell of a game from nothing last night

10. that rule is good but its called 1 day cricket not 2 day cricket

11. + its a little unfair on the players havin to wait around,until like 3pm how tired would you be

12. Originally posted by Damien Martyn
that rule is good but its called 1 day cricket not 2 day cricket
Actually it's called limited-overs cricket.
"One-day cricket" is just a slang term everyone uses.

13. Originally posted by age_master
yeah, while the current system is far from perfect its far better than nothing
I doubt we'll see a better or fairer system for a fair few years.

It's never yet produced stupid targets which cannot be explained.

14. I would have said this if India lost or won. aussies did desrve to win that match, so there is no question of me saying this coz India lost, Marc.

As far as the comparison between tennis matches which wouldnt be acceptable to be over if a player is two sets to one ahead, the one day matches can get over if 25 over in each inning is completed. So it is like which team is ahead at the moment, much like a player leading 2-1 in a 5 set tennis match.

The 3 am thing came to my mind as I dont think any one would have complained if the VB series match could have extended for 2 more hours. When a match can be extended 45 minutes in case of rain (as per ICC rulings, why not 2 hour 45 minutes?

There are often back to back one day matches. A completion of a match wouldnt mean playing for the full time. So if players stop playing at 2 AM. (if 3 am seems too radical to some cities), and start off the enxt day at 2 PM back again to finish the match, why would any one complain for 2 hours of exciting cricket to decide the true winner?

If matches cant be decided over 2 days, it can well be abandoned rather than awarding a winner to a team on which team is ahead at a particular stage. I just dont like the idea of having half matches as even thuogh they turn up very exciting in some cases, the 2 day concept would be far more exciting and not as taxing to the players I believe. They already play 5 day cricket matches and here they are only completing a match on the second day as opposed to playing it out on the full.

15. Originally posted by Pratyush
As far as the comparison between tennis matches which wouldnt be acceptable to be over if a player is two sets to one ahead, the one day matches can get over if 25 over in each inning is completed. So it is like which team is ahead at the moment,
Not entirely true though.

Say Team A bat first and after 25 overs have made 120-0 when rain comes.

Team B go out with exactly 25 overs to bat and score 150 - they'd lose!

Page 1 of 2 12 Last