Why were S. Africa not declared winners & the match abandoned even after achieving par score vs Zim?

[Major]

Why were S. Africa not declared winners & the match abandoned even after achieving par score vs Zim?

So what happened in the South Africa Vs Zimbabwe game today, it rained and the game was reduced to 9 overs each side.

Zimbabwe gave a target of 80 runs. SA came, De kock hits the first over for about 24 runs and than it starts raining. Eventually SA would come back and score 51 runs. The game had been reduced to 7 overs and target of 64

Now the DLS state in T20 that minimum 5 overs each side need to be played for the game to have a result.

Interestingly, if the game was reduced to a 5 overs a side, South Africa had achieved par score.

Had the rain stopped and the stumps been knocked in, both captain would had shaked hands as South Africa had achieve par score. Even though at that point 5 overs would not had been completed still.

But because rain didn't stop before cut off time, even though SA has achieved par score, game is abandon and both teams share points.


A massive flaw in the DRS system?

 

[adzzy786]

It is beyond stupid

 

[jnaveen1980]

I won't say it is a flaw. It is a kind of technical necessity. Zimbabwe can always claim we would take 10 wickets in the next 2 overs. It is not realistic. But theoretically possible.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

Not sure.

I'd think there should atleast be 5 overs for a match to be considered a match.

I won't call it a flaw in DLS.

You can't predict a game over such a small sample as 18 balls.

You use any methodology to determine a winner - they'd expect atleast 5 overs to be bowled for it to be called a match. If Zimbabwe had taken 4 SA wickets or 10 in 3 overs, it would still be a draw and rightly so.

Overall right call in my opinion, although it leaves SA in a very unfortunate situation.

On the plus side, it helps Pakistan .

 

[Xoib]

Wickets can fall that changes DLS par score, it's not perfect but technically correct method.

 

[jnaveen1980]

SA always runs into these weird situation. Who would want a rained out match against minnow. Mind you it may very well happen to any of us. This somehow will help Pakistan breathe easy. They just have to beat SA and all the other sides. Let us assume India loses to SA and beats others. That rained out match will work against SA.

 

[Asif321]

These rules are joke . SA have been robbed of a win

 

[Major]

I won't say it is a flaw. It is a kind of technical necessity. Zimbabwe can always claim we would take 10 wickets in the next 2 overs. It is not realistic. But theoretically possible.

Not sure.

I'd think there should atleast be 5 overs for a match to be considered a match.

I won't call it a flaw in DLS.

You can't predict a game over such a small sample as 18 balls.

You use any methodology to determine a winner - they'd expect atleast 5 overs to be bowled for it to be called a match. If Zimbabwe had taken 4 SA wickets or 10 in 3 overs, it would still be a draw and rightly so.

Overall right call in my opinion, although it leaves SA in a very unfortunate situation.

On the plus side, it helps Pakistan .

I understand your point, it makes sense.

But the problem is, had the rain stopped before cut off time. Time was already wasted, so what had to be done was knock the stumps in, no ball was required to be bowled. The captains would shake hands and thats it.

Even though the overs bowled were less than 5 overs, it was 3 overs, but because par score was achieved thats why.

So it was not about overs anymore it was about rain stopping before the cut off time

it is a massive flaw if you think about it

 

[WengerOut]

Stars have aligned for an Ind - Pak final

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Now this is a very real flaw in the rules unlike the hullabaloo about the free hit byes yesterday.

How the hell does it matter if SA come back on the field or not if they have achieved the par score for the 5 over mark ?

Ridiculous.

 

[Major]

Wickets can fall that changes DLS par score, it's not perfect but technically correct method.

you are right but, the situation is that par score has been acheived, so had rain stopped and both captains came in, no ball was gonna be bowled and SA would had been declared winners even without a ball bowled

 

[Bilal7]

We don't question these things when they work in our favor. Just let it be.

Things are pretty simple for Pakistan: Just win every game from here on out and we guaranteed a place in the semis. Not having to worry about NRR will help immensely.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

.

 

[SamNJ]

We don't question these things when they work in our favor. Just let it be.

Things are pretty simple for Pakistan: Just win every game from here on out and we guaranteed a place in the semis. Not having to worry about NRR will help immensely.

India vs South Africa game also is a dead rubber now. If India beat Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Netherlands they are through.

 

[Ab Fan]

No MS Dhoni active also to lose a game deliberately in process of saving his NRR now

 

[DeadlyVenom]

DLS only kicks in after 5 overs.

So the 54 is quite fluid. If they had lost wickets it wouldn't have been 54.

There was therefore no par score and the match rightly abandoned with a point each.

But its a shame for South Africa as they were pretty much certain to achieve those points.

 

[Ab Fan]

India vs South Africa game also is a dead rubber now. If India beat Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Netherlands they are through.

It is important for South Africa though so can't be called a dead rubber.

 

[Major]

We don't question these things when they work in our favor. Just let it be.

Things are pretty simple for Pakistan: Just win every game from here on out and we guaranteed a place in the semis. Not having to worry about NRR will help immensely.

i dont care whether Pakistan benefits from this or not. I saw this game, and saw an issue with it. This can even hurt Pakistan aswell in future.

Also, shared points is more bad, not a good thing for Pakistan. It would had been better if one team got 0 points because in case of a tie , we would go to RR.

 

[Major]

DLS only kicks in after 5 overs.

So the 54 is quite fluid. If they had lost wickets it wouldn't have been 54.

There was therefore no par score and the match rightly abandoned with a point each.

But its a shame for South Africa as they were pretty much certain to achieve those points.

you are right. But lets say, rain stopped 1 minute before cut off time and covers removed. The commentators said that no ball would had been bowled. The stumps would had been knocked back and the captains would shake hand and than it would be SA declared winner. So you see, there is a slight flaw in it.

But i understand your point aswell that zimbabwe didnt have an advantage as they lost overs due to rain.

 

[WengerOut]

It is important for South Africa though so can't be called a dead rubber.

Better India win that match and we could be spared the countless "Evil BCCI plot " threads.

 

[jnaveen1980]

India vs South Africa game also is a dead rubber now. If India beat Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Netherlands they are through.

We gotta be patient. Both india and pakistan can very well have rained out matches. We are still at the mercy of weather.

 

[SamNJ]

It is important for South Africa though so can't be called a dead rubber.

South Africa win or lose against India, they still have to beat Pakistan.
(Assuming no more point sharing or upsets).

 

[Ab Fan]

Better India win that match and we could be spared the countless "Evil BCCI plot " threads.

We should give chance to Deepak Hooda and Rishabh Pant and make KL Rahul captain in that game vs SA.

Rahul as captain guarantees that one thing, i.e. loss.

 

[WengerOut]

We should give chance to Deepak Hooda and Rishabh Pant and make KL Rahul captain in that game vs SA.

Rahul as captain guarantees that one thing, i.e. loss.

If that is a dead rubber, KL could turn into cross between Viv - ABDV and run away with the match.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

DLS only kicks in after 5 overs.

So the 54 is quite fluid. If they had lost wickets it wouldn't have been 54.

There was therefore no par score and the match rightly abandoned with a point each.

But its a shame for South Africa as they were pretty much certain to achieve those points.

Apparently after 5 overs , even if they were 54/9 they would have been declared winners as per DLS.

They should have just given SA the win.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Apparently after 5 overs , even if they were 54/9 they would have been declared winners as per DLS.

They should have just given SA the win.

Wow I wasn't aware of that.

Yeah that does seem very unfair then!

 

[jnaveen1980]

Apparently after 5 overs , even if they were 54/9 they would have been declared winners as per DLS.

They should have just given SA the win.

This is not the first time this has happened lol Happened a few times since the inception of DLS.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Requirement for SA is rain just has to stop briefly. They won't even have to face a ball. They just have to show up. They will be declared winners lol That definitely should be the case.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

I understand your point, it makes sense.

But the problem is, had the rain stopped before cut off time. Time was already wasted, so what had to be done was knock the stumps in, no ball was required to be bowled. The captains would shake hands and thats it.

Even though the overs bowled were less than 5 overs, it was 3 overs, but because par score was achieved thats why.

So it was not about overs anymore it was about rain stopping before the cut off time

it is a massive flaw if you think about it

Because let's say 2 more overs were bowled as a minimum requirement (to reach 5 overs) and SA lost 10 wickets. Then par score would have shifted. Par score is par only for a certain number of resources left for the overs bowled (and a minimum number of overs must be bowled.)

 

[Major]

Because let's say 2 more overs were bowled as a minimum requirement (to reach 5 overs) and SA lost 10 wickets. Then par score would have shifted. Par score is par only for a certain number of resources left for the overs bowled (and a minimum number of overs must be bowled.)

heres the thing. Had they started play again, no ball would had been bowled.

After the 3 overs intially bowled, the par score was achieved and time was up. Commentators said that both captains would shake hand without bowling a ball and SA would had been declared winners even with 3 overs bowled.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

heres the thing. Had they started play again, no ball would had been bowled.

After the 3 overs intially bowled, the par score was achieved and time was up. Commentators said that both captains would shake hand without bowling a ball and SA would had been declared winners even with 3 overs bowled.

That is not my understanding - given minimum overs have to be bowled in all cases. In that case, I may be wrong.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

OK you are right, "The rain has come down hard and the umpires are calling on for the covers. Is rain going to rob South Africa at a World Cup again? The cut-off time is in eight minutes. South Africa are ahead as far as the five-over DLS target is concerned. So, essentially, if the rain relents, they just need to come out, not even face a ball; just get the ground ready and get ready to bowl; doesn't matter if it rains after that".

on a side note, it also says Zimbabwe bowlers couldn't bowl properly at all in the rain due to slippery conditions. So e SA had tremendous advantage. Maybe 60:40 justice.

 

[Major]

OK you are right, "The rain has come down hard and the umpires are calling on for the covers. Is rain going to rob South Africa at a World Cup again? The cut-off time is in eight minutes. South Africa are ahead as far as the five-over DLS target is concerned. So, essentially, if the rain relents, they just need to come out, not even face a ball; just get the ground ready and get ready to bowl; doesn't matter if it rains after that".

on a side note, it also says Zimbabwe bowlers couldn't bowl properly at all in the rain due to slippery conditions. So e SA had tremendous advantage. Maybe 60:40 justice.

yup, nagarva injured due to the slippery surface and the Zimbabwe captain was smart enough to protect Muzrabani and Jongwe after that.

Fair enough but still it bothers in the back of the mind that with the minimum target required, SA had achieved it.

DLS is a good system and is better than having non, but there are some slight flaws

 

[Ashmal]

It would be really unfair for Zim to give the game to SA.

The conditions were really unfit for play.
The fielders were slipping all over the place, bowlers struggling to grip the ball, they also had an injury to a frontline bowler.

There's a reason that Qdk was hitting almost every ball to the fence.

Zim didn't even bowl their best bowlers to avoid any injuries to them.

 

[sam_ahm]

Because officially the game was never reduced to 5 overs. So it doesn't work that way that you assume a 5 over game.

Moreover in this case they were literally playing in the rain throughout that 2nd innings, probably because Zimbabwe are less valued, had it been any major nation they wouldn't have got on the field. In the end it's only fair that a point was shared.

 

[Major]

Because officially the game was never reduced to 5 overs. So it doesn't work that way that you assume a 5 over game.

Moreover in this case they were literally playing in the rain throughout that 2nd innings, probably because Zimbabwe are less valued, had it been any major nation they wouldn't have got on the field. In the end it's only fair that a point was shared.

Yeh, i noticed that too.

And zimbabwe didnt delay or even protest. They just did as they were told. Nice of them but poor stuff by Match referee Boon

 

[Mas-LFC]

Poor SA. Always get hard done by these sort of weather issues.

 

[arif_2021]

Let’s just hope pakistsn games don’t get rained out

 

[Kianig89]

You can run even after getting bowled rain didn't stop before cut off time alot of crap in ICC RULES who will knock some sense in them

 

[mon858]

rules are rules. DLS is way better than the farce we had in 1992 world cup. Umpires tried their hardest to get the overs in even with heavy rain.

The argument for minimum 5 overs, is you always have possibility that bowling side could get more wickets. Unlucky for South Africa. only other thing they could have done is sent Miller, not sure why Bavuma even came out. All they had to be looking is only 4s and 6s, nothing else. DeCock did that, but Bavuma got 2 singles. 2 sixes could have done it perhaps. or a bit better death bowling in their innings.

Lesson for Pakistan, on rain forecast/shortened day, they must not send Babar and Rizwan if chasing small total in rain affected match against minnow bowling. They must go with just hitters to open. Imagine Rizwan 2 of 12 balls in a 5-9 over chase.

 

[shokz1408]

I feel bad for SA they got so many runs in 3 overs, obviously played really well and deserved a win. However I’m happy with the end result as the odds of qualifying for us increases.

 

[ZafarKhan2022]

This whole sport is rife with stupidity, outdated thinking, and indian corruption.

 

[Madplayer]

This whole sport is rife with stupidity, outdated thinking, and indian corruption.

Pretty much sums up the t20 format.

There should be no use of D/L in t20s. 5 overs is nothing anyway. It's ridiculous.

Just slot the game in the next day. You telling me you cant find 3 hours for a t20 game the next day or in the coming days?

Advertise these reserve 3 hours well in advance so that ticket buyers know about it before hand. Plan, use your brains.

 

[jnaveen1980]

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...s-for-continuing-play-on-wet-outfield-1341535


Zimbabwe coach Dave Houghton was fiercely critical of the decision to carry on with his side's game against South Africa even as the rain in Hobart grew heavier, saying he didn't believe the "conditions were right to play", and that Zimbabwe "shouldn't have bowled a ball".



Does Houghton have a point?

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

It is important for South Africa though so can't be called a dead rubber.

No it is not, SAF can loose against India with out being eliminated but they can't afford to loose against Pak, sort of their match has become qf, of course assuming India don't loose against lower rank team

 

[sweep_shot]

As per current rules, a T20 game needs at least 5 overs for a result to happen.

I think that's a fair rule considering how short the format is.

 

[jnaveen1980]

No it is not, SAF can loose against India with out being eliminated but they can't afford to loose against Pak, sort of their match has become qf, of course assuming India don't loose against lower rank team

or two rained out matches for India against minnows and SA winning the rest.

 

[ChTab]

Stars have aligned for an Ind - Pak final ��

I can't watch a repeat of 2007

 

[Local.Dada]

South Africa and Rain rules: the greatest tragic love story of all time.

 

[Kroll]

No need to over analyse or over complicate things. If required minimum overs is not reached to constitute a match then game's a bogey.

PS: It's traditional for SA to be cheated by the weather in a WC.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Looks like a zimbabwe bowler got injured bowling wet conditions

https://www.t20worldcup.com/video/2873430

 

[Ab Fan]

No it is not, SAF can loose against India with out being eliminated but they can't afford to loose against Pak, sort of their match has become qf, of course assuming India don't loose against lower rank team

What if SA and Pak gets washed. Then their match vs India will be important. So, SA vs India is not a dead rubber by any means and that was the discussion about earlier.

 

[Major]

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/...s-for-continuing-play-on-wet-outfield-1341535


Zimbabwe coach Dave Houghton was fiercely critical of the decision to carry on with his side's game against South Africa even as the rain in Hobart grew heavier, saying he didn't believe the "conditions were right to play", and that Zimbabwe "shouldn't have bowled a ball".



Does Houghton have a point?

yup he does. it was raining when zimbabwe went in to bowl. They were bowling in rain. Nagarva got injured after bowling.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

or two rained out matches for India against minnows and SA winning the rest.

What if SA and Pak gets washed. Then their match vs India will be important. So, SA vs India is not a dead rubber by any means and that was the discussion about earlier.

Yeah you both are right, I was not counting the rain part.
Well if one pak is rained out then things will become more interesting.
I am counting on KL bhai to score heavily against Netherland, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe to take us in semi.
Rohit also like these teams.

 

[Ab Fan]

Yeah you both are right, I was not counting the rain part.
Well if one pak is rained out then things will become more interesting.
I am counting on KL bhai to score heavily against Netherland, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe to take us in semi.
Rohit also like these teams.

Yes, I am gonna make KL Bhai my captain in my fantasy team XI and hopefully it pays off well unless ofcourse the other guy who is competing against me also makes KL as captain.

 

[ZafarKhan2022]

Pretty much sums up the t20 format.

There should be no use of D/L in t20s. 5 overs is nothing anyway. It's ridiculous.

Just slot the game in the next day. You telling me you cant find 3 hours for a t20 game the next day or in the coming days?

Advertise these reserve 3 hours well in advance so that ticket buyers know about it before hand. Plan, use your brains.

Good suggestions

 

[msb314]

rules are rules. DLS is way better than the farce we had in 1992 world cup. Umpires tried their hardest to get the overs in even with heavy rain.

The argument for minimum 5 overs, is you always have possibility that bowling side could get more wickets. Unlucky for South Africa. only other thing they could have done is sent Miller, not sure why Bavuma even came out. All they had to be looking is only 4s and 6s, nothing else. DeCock did that, but Bavuma got 2 singles. 2 sixes could have done it perhaps. or a bit better death bowling in their innings.

Lesson for Pakistan, on rain forecast/shortened day, they must not send Babar and Rizwan if chasing small total in rain affected match against minnow bowling. They must go with just hitters to open. Imagine Rizwan 2 of 12 balls in a 5-9 over chase.

Read the posts above. The match was never shortened to 5 overs hence the NR.

Nothing Bavuma could have done because SAF were short by 21 runs. Even if he those 2 sixes off two hypothetical balls - SAF would still be short by 9 runs and the result would be the same..

 

[msb314]

Pretty much sums up the t20 format.

There should be no use of D/L in t20s. 5 overs is nothing anyway. It's ridiculous.

Just slot the game in the next day. You telling me you cant find 3 hours for a t20 game the next day or in the coming days?

Advertise these reserve 3 hours well in advance so that ticket buyers know about it before hand. Plan, use your brains.

Good suggestions

You have to be practical.

Fans, players, match officials will not book an extra day at a hotel just in case rain happens. Too much costs.

Plus logistical challenges for preparing a ground, sponsors and advertisers for a reserve day at the last minute..

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Stars have aligned for an Ind - Pak final ��

I will be pleasantly surprised if Pak even makes it to Semi finals.

 

[Hyder]

DLS targets and minimum overs

Just saw this nz vs ind game and zim vs sa game.
Sa had already scored the par for 5 overs and only if the rain stopped and target was revised they would ve won. So the question is if minimum overs are not bowled but the team has scored more runs than the revised target would ask then why not give that team a win instead of waiting for the rain to stop and then revise the target and give the win.
So sa wouldnt have been robbed of a clear win and it might be applicable in many more scenarios in the future too as games are being disturbed far more often than ever by rain

 

[Sidilicious]

Just saw this nz vs ind game and zim vs sa game.
Sa had already scored the par for 5 overs and only if the rain stopped and target was revised they would ve won. So the question is if minimum overs are not bowled but the team has scored more runs than the revised target would ask then why not give that team a win instead of waiting for the rain to stop and then revise the target and give the win.
So sa wouldnt have been robbed of a clear win and it might be applicable in many more scenarios in the future too as games are being disturbed far more often than ever by rain

Because they could lose a couple of wickets in the next over and increase the DL target. The par dl score is based on a combination of overs and wickets lost.

Having said that, I do agree with the premise of the argument. When a team is way ahead in the game, like NZ were today against India, and SA against Zim, there should be some way to declare them as winners

 

[MenInG]

South Africa faced the same in 1992 on 22 March