ICC teaches FIFA. No Penalties! If game is tied after ET team with most corners wins

[91Jmay]

I thought winning a World Cup would be the best thing ever but I didn't realise the Aussie fume on top of it would make it this sweet. Absolutely love to see it.

 

[stephen]

Haha there is no "Aussie fume". Nobody is denying you won the cup fair and square and according to the rules. The debate is whether England won the match or "just" the tournament.

It's a technicality sure, but it's an interesting one.

Personally I think "tie" is a more just outcome and it should have been that, but since the tie breaker was boundaries scored in the final, I think it has to be "England won the final as well as the cup".

The rules are stupid and the ICC should be embarrassed that their premiere tournament was decided on something so arbitrary.

The alternatives - count back based on take position or previous head to head result or net run rate all favour England anyway. The only alternative that doesn't is "share the trophy". And England still hold a cup on that scenario.

Tl;dr the rules are arcane but England won both the match and the tournament.

 

[Athlai]

I know in my head that I believe England didn't win the match but instead won the tournament.

 

[sledger]

This is the worst kind of mental gymnastics.

This is how socialism starts.

 

[TheJediBrah]

England didn't win the match, but they won the World Cup, and deservedly. It's not that complicated guys.

 

[mr_mister]

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27194150/sharing-trophy-better-deciding-more-boundaries


A few professional cricketers refusing to accept the result as it stands

 

[TheJediBrah]

FWIW it appears that a decent portion of the professional cricket community more or less agree with the delusional view. Some in the NZ camp feel it's not too late to decide to share the trophy! Keen to see how this plays out

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27194150/sharing-trophy-better-deciding-more-boundaries

Macgill: Shame on all media who fail to highlight the fact that this was a tie.


^is the sentence I agree a lot with

Yeah the reaction has been worse than even I expected. I'm wondering what the view on 2019 World Cup result will be years from now, whether it will improve or always be a bit of a black spot.

The thing people need to remember is that regardless of how the final finished, England did deserve to win the World Cup for everything that came before it. They finished ahead of NZ on the table, and beat NZ in the group stages. By any sensible metric they should have been awarded the win regardless.

 

[mr_mister]

I tired to edit my post to make it a little less inflammatory but you got a quote in

Ah well

 

[TheJediBrah]

why would you want to be less inflammatory

 

[mr_mister]

I agree completely re the league stage thing separating a tied game, am just shocked the boundary countback gets used after one tied super over

A tiebreaker should be given a bit more of a chance to separate a game before we go into the extremely odd countback mode

What's the odds of a super over being tied?

I know technically it's around 1 in 36 but realistically most super overs fall between 6 and 18 runs, doesn't seem a decisive enough thing to only allow one then packing the stumps away and ordering the handshakes

 

[stephen]

A super over works in t20 cricket. 5 overs a side would be more representative for odi cricket. And the team batting first should bat first again, so that the team batting second can't just send in set batsmen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

What's the odds of a super over being tied?

I know technically it's around 1 in 36 but realistically most super overs fall between 6 and 18 runs, doesn't seem a decisive enough thing to only allow one then packing the stumps away and ordering the handshakes

Yeah it's not because not every score has an equal chance in occurring, as you alluded to. I think the chances of a super over being tied would actually be relatively high

 

[Shri]

argentina won the wc despite maradonna's hand in it

i mean this would be called a fluke win but a win

lucky to win? sure

didn't "deserve" it? yeah

but they are wc "winners" without a doubt

but funny winners more than legit winners

winners

winners

 

[cnerd123]

For reference - only 37 ODIs until the final in the history of ODIs had ever gone to a tie

This WC Final was also the first ever tied ODI to go to a super over, meaning this was also the first ever tied Super Over in the history of ODI cricket

 

[TheJediBrah]

For reference - only 37 ODIs until the final in the history of ODIs had ever gone to a tie

This WC Final was also the first ever tied ODI to go to a super over, meaning this was also the first ever tied Super Over in the history of ODI cricket

So it was actually the first ODI super over ever played? And it was tied?

 

[cnerd123]

So it was actually the first ODI super over ever played? And it was tied?

Yes

So worth cutting the administrators some slack for not foreseeing this happening

 

[Athlai]

*****, you should never cut administrators slack. Occurrences like this are just reminders of how poorly they do their jobs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes

So worth cutting the administrators some slack for not foreseeing this happening

that's not what I was getting at. If anything the opposite. Further goes to show that super overs being tied is not that rare an occurrence and hence how dumb it was making it the only proper tie-breaker to decide a 6 week tournament.

 

[cnerd123]

that's not what I was getting at. If anything the opposite. Further goes to show that super overs being tied is not that rare an occurrence and hence how dumb it was making it the only proper tie-breaker to decide a 6 week tournament.

wrong again

this was the first ever tied super over in international cricket.

Wikipedia has a list of all instances in Domestic and Associate Cricket, and seems there have only ever been 5 tied super overs so far:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_over#Matches_decided_by_super_over

it's a fairly rare occurrence. On top of the already crazily rare occurrence of a tied ODI game

The administrators clearly didn't see this as a likely scenario, and probably also felt boundary count-back would be an appropriate way to determine a winner. You can disagree with their decision on the latter, but there is no question this is a freak scenario that we are almost certainly never going to see again.

 

[TheJediBrah]

wrong again

this was the first ever tied super over in international cricket.

Wikipedia has a list of all instances in Domestic and Associate Cricket, and seems there have only ever been 5 tied super overs so far:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_over#Matches_decided_by_super_over

it's a fairly rare occurrence. On top of the already crazily rare occurrence of a tied ODI game

The administrators clearly didn't see this as a likely scenario, and probably also felt boundary count-back would be an appropriate way to determine a winner. You can disagree with their decision on the latter, but there is no question this is a freak scenario that we are almost certainly never going to see again.

M8 there's actually quite a few ties in there, for not a very big sample. It's not that rare.