• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Dumb rule gets obvious fix

S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
You can guarantee the original rule was drafted by someone who's never really played the game. Imagine sitting around a table and deciding the number of boundaries hit would be a sufficiently suitable result to appease all parties. I mean, just sit back and digest that. Someone came up with this idea with the belief it would actually be a satisfactory outcome. Incredible.

And this is from someone who doesn't really care about the result, because I couldn't possibly be more proud of my side and the effort they gave. One more run would've made me happier on the day but not now
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Lillian Thomson said:
You clearly need a tie-breaker. It’s all very well sharing the trophy, but how do you share a quarter-final or semi-final?
Click to expand...
Highest on the ladder in the group stages. Basically anything that rewards achievement in the actual contest being played, rather than some arbitrary mini contest that doesn't reflect who's the better 50 over team was in any way.
 
Last edited:
CricAddict

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
Red Hill said:
Highest on the ladder in the group stages. Basically anything that rewards achievement in the actual contest being played, rather than some arbitrary mini contest that doesn't reflect who's the better 50 over team was in any way.
Click to expand...
It is not a mini contest. Just look at it as a 51 over or 52 over match instead of a 50 over match. Super over is a perfect solution for ties in LOs.

On the new ruling, I would have been happier if they had given a guideline that the same batsmen/bowlers cannot play again in the next super over, at least if they get out in the first one.
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
CricAddict said:
It is not a mini contest. Just look at it as a 51 over or 52 over match instead of a 50 over match. Super over is a perfect solution for ties in LOs.
Click to expand...
Agree that the super over is a good solution, but it definitely is more of a mini contest than a natural extension of the game, given how you can choose people who’ve got out to go back in there.
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
CricAddict said:
On the new ruling, I would have been happier if they had given a guideline that the same batsmen/bowlers cannot play again in the next super over, at least if they get out in the first one.
Click to expand...
Yeah agreed. Don't let them use any of the players who batted/bowled IMO.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Bahnz said:
Regardless it works fine in the current WC format, and this is my preferred option. Super over favours the team that bats second too much in ODI's
Click to expand...
I hate super overs. Always. Every one of them. About as exciting as the backyard version of cricket kids play.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
CricAddict said:
It is not a mini contest.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is a mini-contest. It rewards the team who have 2 players who can slog best for 1 over, rather than the team who has proven themselves to be the best team in the actual format.

The only conceivable way I could not view it as this is if the two teams were obliged to use the two batsmen who were still in at the completion of each innings.
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
Red Hill said:
It absolutely is a mini-contest. It rewards the team who have 2 players who can slog best for 1 over, rather than the team who has proven themselves to be the best team in the actual format.

The only conceivable way I could not view it as this is if the two teams were obliged to use the two batsmen who were still in at the completion of each innings.
Click to expand...
Even with that, the issue with batting is that the two batsmen who JUST finished their innings are likely all set at the crease and need to face 6 balls, versus two from the other side who have been on the field for 50 or so overs.
 
andruid

andruid

Cricketer Of The Year
Prince EWS said:
I'm not sure this was necessary at all. A tie is fine unless it's a knockout or a final IMO.
Click to expand...
If you don't like it we can decide it in a super over :naughty:


On a more serious note I reckon it's just a move to crank up the excitement of the game
 
SillyCowCorner1

SillyCowCorner1

Request Your Custom Title Now!
When will this change?:

Four runs to win, last wicket in the middle. Bowler delivers, raps batsman on his pads, appeals, given out after balls crosses the boundary. Batsman reviews. Decision overturned. No runs awarded.
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
SillyCowCorner1 said:
When will this change?:

Four runs to win, last wicket in the middle. Bowler delivers, raps batsman on his pads, appeals, given out after balls crosses the boundary. Batsman reviews. Decision overturned. No runs awarded.
Click to expand...
A successful DRS for the batting side should be ruled a dead ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top