Dumb rule gets obvious fix

[OverratedSanity]

The unprecedented conclusion to the 2019 men's World Cup final has prompted an ICC rule change, putting an end to boundary countback as a way of deciding knockout games.

After board meetings in Dubai, the ICC resolved that in semi-finals and finals in future world tournaments, if the teams score the same number of runs in their Super Overs, the Super Over will be repeated until one team wins.

Had the new rules been in place for the 2019 final, England and New Zealand would have played another Super Over, rather than the game being decided on the technicality of England having scored more boundaries over the course of the final.

An ICC statement said that the change was "in keeping with the basic principle of scoring more runs than the opponent to win," and added that both its cricket committee and the chief executives' committee agreed the Super Over represented an "exciting and engaging conclusion" to a game.

The Super Over will also now be in place for every game in both 20-over and 50-over World Cups, having previously only applied in the knockout stages.

In the group stages of a tournament, if a Super Over is tied then the match result will be logged as a tie.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27844486/no-more-boundary-countback-icc-change-super-regulations

 

[_00_deathscar]

Haha yea saw that earlier. Can we now finally strip England of the World Cup title?

 

[Prince EWS]

The Super Over will also now be in place for every game in both 20-over and 50-over World Cups, having previously only applied in the knockout stages.

I'm not sure this was necessary at all. A tie is fine unless it's a knockout or a final IMO.

 

[harsh.ag]

Rematch! Put the title on the line, England!

 

[Arachnodouche]

For it to be struck off so soon after the final does not look good on the current champions' resume.

 

[ankitj]

Giving title to the team that was ranked higher in league stage would have worked just fine. Although that might not help if the finalists were from 2 different groups in league stages in a multi-group format.

 

[Red]

Ugh. If at the end of the pre-determined contest (50 overs per side), both team are equal, it's a tie. There's no need for any tie-breakers, the result stands as it should.

Eng and NZ were joint WC2019 winners. The rest of it is bull**** and farce.

 

[Burgey]

Nah, you want a result in a KO game, and the super over is perfect for that. A draw in a final is like kissing your sister.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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?

 

[marc71178]

Ugh. If at the end of the pre-determined contest (50 overs per side), both team are equal, it's a tie. There's no need for any tie-breakers, the result stands as it should.

Eng and NZ were joint WC2019 winners. The rest of it is bull**** and farce.

Oh bore off.

 

[Burgey]

Red Hill is, of course, correct though as regards the result of the WC final. Basically England had one of their biggest ever cricketing summers, and the best they could do in the test and LO centerpieces was a draw on their own soil. Very poor return on investment, I'd have thought.

 

[Dan]

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?

Triple threat match

 

[Starfighter]

I'm sure this was necessary at all. A tie is fine unless it's a knockout or a final IMO.

One step forward, one step back.

 

[GIMH]

Logical move.

Silly to say we'd had another super over if this rule was in place in the final though. If this rule was in place, we'd have gone into the final over knowing we needed a dot ball rather than giving up the single.

I mean I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened. Just irks me when people seem to think that making a fundamental change would result in the same outcome when both teams know the rule at the time of the super over.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nah, you want a result in a KO game, and the super over is perfect for that. A draw in a final is like kissing your sister.

Confusing but arousing?

 

[Athlai]

I thought they'd try to hide their shame by doing this in a year or two hidden among other arbitrary rule changes.Fairly telling indictment when they do it 3 months later.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

A Bowl-out was on the table of considerations?

 

[Bahnz]

Logical move.

Silly to say we'd had another super over if this rule was in place in the final though. If this rule was in place, we'd have gone into the final over knowing we needed a dot ball rather than giving up the single.

I mean I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened. Just irks me when people seem to think that making a fundamental change would result in the same outcome when both teams know the rule at the time of the super over.

Yeah, if this rule had been in place, there's no way the game would've gone to a second super over.

Guptill would've smoked the last ball for 6 and everyone would've sighed in relief that Stokes' double-hit 6 didn't ruin a deserved NZ win.

 

[mr_mister]

I like the idea of super overs in any 50 over game in theory. I've always thought ties made sense in sports where they were common, like soccer. But in cricket since they're nearly a once a year event they can really mess up a points table I think - except with so many rain interrupted matches it may not be that glaring

 

[Bahnz]

Giving title to the team that was ranked higher in league stage would have worked just fine. Although that might not help if the finalists were from 2 different groups in league stages in a multi-group format.

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