Methods used to separate ties in sports finals

[Phantom Menace]

To give comparison here is how other sports determine winners when there are ties.

Football (Soccer):

1) 30 minute overtime, highest end score wins
2) Best of 10 penalty shootout
3) Sudden death penalty shootout.


Golf:

1) Tied players face each other on playoff holes until someone wins a hole


American football:

1) Overtime with first scorer in over time winning.
2) Repeat as many overtimes as needed.


Basketball:

1) 5 minute overtime, highest score at the end wins
2) Repeat as many overtimes as needed


Tennis:

Historically + French Open:

1) Final set continues forever until someone gets a decisive 2 game advantage

Post 2018/9 rule change

1) Final set continues up to maximum of 12/12 (Wimbledon only)
2) Tiebreaker, first to 7 points or more with 2 point lead

Worth noting that this came in to effect for the first time at Wimbledon yesterday and even though it offers a clear winner there was still many complaining its not as fair and decisive as the previous rule.


Field Hockey:

1) Best of 10 penalty shootout
2) Sudden death penalty shootout


Volleyball:

1) Final set continues forever until a team has decisive 2 point advantage


Rugby:

1) 20 minute overtime, highest end score wins
2) Penalty kick shootout
3) Sudden death penalty kick shootout

Worth noting that most people think the penalty kick shootout is a farce waiting to happen in rugby because the sport is based around scoring tries not taking penalty kicks. This is a similar problem to a bowl off in cricket where to goal is to score runs so why decide the match by bowling to wickets with no batsman. However rugby is a brutal game with minimal breaks in play and players playing both offense and defense so playing overtime forever is unappealing to World Rugby Board due to player safety. Ultimately a decisive winner is still found even if its kind of a farce.


Baseball:

1) Additional innings are played until a decisive winner is found


Ice Hockey:

1) Golden goal overtime


Handball:

1) 10 minute overtime, highest score at end wins
2) repeat overtime
3) best of 10 7m throw off (Effectively a penalty shootout)
4) Sudden death 7m throw off


CRICKET:

1) Super over
2) Arbitrary decision



Out of all major sports on the planet cricket is the only one that uses an arbitrary decision to decide a winner of its flagship event.

 

[Phantom Menace]

As for how I would personally decide tied games in cricket

1) 5 over innings for each side, 5 bowlers with 1 over each and standard 10 wickets available with highest score winning
2) Super over
3) Sudden death super overs

 

[Aman]

The rules will be fixed, it's too late for us unfortunately.

It's a shame the rule makers weren't thinking when the decided upon these rules.

 

[Smbhayi]

They should brought bowl out, similar to penalties..

 

[Salma_T]

The rules will change as the rain rule changed after the 1992 World cup. As ties in finals are so uncommon in 50 over games no one ever thought it would ever come to that.

 

[Gullycricket]

Cricket rules are a joke and thats why they are always changing them

 

[Captain caveman]

To give comparison here is how other sports determine winners when there are ties.

Football (Soccer):

1) 30 minute overtime, highest end score wins
2) Best of 10 penalty shootout
3) Sudden death penalty shootout.


Golf:

1) Tied players face each other on playoff holes until someone wins a hole


American football:

1) Overtime with first scorer in over time winning.
2) Repeat as many overtimes as needed.


Basketball:

1) 5 minute overtime, highest score at the end wins
2) Repeat as many overtimes as needed


Tennis:

Historically + French Open:

1) Final set continues forever until someone gets a decisive 2 game advantage

Post 2018/9 rule change

1) Final set continues up to maximum of 12/12 (Wimbledon only)
2) Tiebreaker, first to 7 points or more with 2 point lead

Worth noting that this came in to effect for the first time at Wimbledon yesterday and even though it offers a clear winner there was still many complaining its not as fair and decisive as the previous rule.


Field Hockey:

1) Best of 10 penalty shootout
2) Sudden death penalty shootout


Volleyball:

1) Final set continues forever until a team has decisive 2 point advantage


Rugby:

1) 20 minute overtime, highest end score wins
2) Penalty kick shootout
3) Sudden death penalty kick shootout

Worth noting that most people think the penalty kick shootout is a farce waiting to happen in rugby because the sport is based around scoring tries not taking penalty kicks. This is a similar problem to a bowl off in cricket where to goal is to score runs so why decide the match by bowling to wickets with no batsman. However rugby is a brutal game with minimal breaks in play and players playing both offense and defense so playing overtime forever is unappealing to World Rugby Board due to player safety. Ultimately a decisive winner is still found even if its kind of a farce.


Baseball:

1) Additional innings are played until a decisive winner is found


Ice Hockey:

1) Golden goal overtime


Handball:

1) 10 minute overtime, highest score at end wins
2) repeat overtime
3) best of 10 7m throw off (Effectively a penalty shootout)
4) Sudden death 7m throw off


CRICKET:

1) Super over
2) Arbitrary decision



Out of all major sports on the planet cricket is the only one that uses an arbitrary decision to decide a winner of its flagship event.

Potw!

 

[Salma_T]

Yesterday Roger Federer actually won more points than Djokovic over 5 sets.....but the rules in tennis stipulated that Djokovic won the match due him winning those clutch points. The need to be looked at but speak to any person who follows the above sports religiously will tell you that they are not fair.

 

[dhump]

ICC can add the total of numbers on the back of player jerseys their current rule is equally relevant to the game.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Why not just have another super-over??

Just makes more sense to do another super-over if the games ends in a double tie rather than some outrageous choices mentioned here and the boundary count one used by ICC.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

They should brought bowl out, similar to penalties..

I don't think anyone wants to see something as stupid as a bowl-out again.

Also, the approximation to penalties is not correct because in penalties the keeper has a significant probability of denying the shot. Just hitting the wickets is something so arbitrary and feels like such a farcical way to end a game where the two sides couldn't be separated.

 

[nextover666666]

As for how I would personally decide tied games in cricket

1) 5 over innings for each side, 5 bowlers with 1 over each and standard 10 wickets available with highest score winning
2) Super over
3) Sudden death super overs

This is the way to go why just play one over . Five overs is better and it's not a lot either if still tied after the 5 overs than do the super over and if still tied than continue until you have a winner

 

[Fahdi]

I think cricket should go the tennis route. Have another super over this time NZ, or the super over chasing team, bats first. Keep repeating until you have a winner.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Keep it simple. Unlimited super-overs is the easiest method.

 

[Mamoon]

A second super-over is clearly the best solution. Also, the same bowler should be allowed to bowl the second over and the same set of batsmen can play as well, even if they have been dismissed in the first super-over.

 

[IMMY69]

Whilst they’re at it they should look st the DRS rules too...

 

[neonoir]

This best way in the scenario we had yesterday would be unlimited super overs, similiar to sudden death in football

 

[Syed1]

Good post, also one thing I would like to add that cricket might be the only sport where broadcasters determine when the game should end by.


For example the Superbowl can go on for however long it takes to find the rightful victor. Same is with the NBA. In cricket they start cutting overs because they have to end by a certain time


Archaic sport with archaic rules. I wish Pakistan starts taking up other sports and moves away from cricket. There is a reason why football is played at a good level by 100+ countries and followed by billions. While cricket is restricted to 10-12 countries and BCCICC is a major reason for that. Heck people in the UK themselves were split between following the WC final and the Wimbledon final. That should tell you about the importance of the sport.

 

[aloo paratha]

Yep the rule is a very bad one. It will be changed but it's too late for NZ now.

 

[Majid Khan]

A simple way is instead of a Superover match like yesterday, if there is a tie the go to Penalties like football.

Except in this case it’s 5 bowlers each team chooses who bowl at three stumps. If it’s 5-5 and all bowlers have hit the stumps, then carry on until sudden death.. when someone misses or bowls a no-ball/wide.

 

[kingusama92]

I'm stunned they needed something like this to happen before making the rules. This is obvious. You play until there's a winner even if that means multiple super overs.

 

[aloo paratha]

I'm stunned they needed something like this to happen before making the rules. This is obvious. You play until there's a winner even if that means multiple super overs.

It takes the ICC until somebody gets screwed to look into stuff. SA in 1992, now this.

 

[barah_admi]

How many ties are there in ODIs? How many ties can there be in a super over?

I do like the idea of repeat super overs till there's a winner but lets be realistic, last night was not a fluke or a robbery. The better team in the tournament won the tournament.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Should have had another super over, different batsmen and bowlers been selected and you continue till theres a winner.