World Cup semis and finals not to be decided by boundary count, rules ICC

[SM1989]

England edged past New Zealand on the boundary count to win their maiden World Cup earlier this year, leading to a massive uproar regarding the rule. In the final at Lord's on July 14, England were adjudged winners of the World Cup on the basis of their superior boundary count - 22 fours and two sixes - to New Zealand's 17 after the match ended in a tie after regulation play and Super Over.

Following on from a recommendation from the ICC Cricket Committee headed by former India skipper Anil Kumble, the Chief Executives' Committee agreed on Monday that use of the Super Over as a way to decide results at ICC events will be retained. Both the Cricket Committee and CEC agreed it was an exciting and engaging conclusion to the game and will remain in place covering all games at both ODI and T20I World Cups.

In group stages, if the Super Over is tied the match will be tied. In Semi-Finals and Finals, there is one change to the Super Over-regulation in keeping with the basic principle of scoring more runs than the opponent to win, the Super Over will be repeated until one team has more runs than the other.

https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cr...undary-count-rule-scrapped-1609335-2019-10-14

 

[msb314]

Better late than never!

 

[Ab Fan]

Good decision but not sure if this will happen in a WC final again in any one of our lifetimes.

On a normal bilateral, it's definitely possible.

 

[sweep_shot]

Very good decision. It was a stupid rule and I am glad they are changing it.

 

[Usman]

If ever there was a time to say, the horse has bolted, it is now! The ICC might as well issue a ruling that " If a batsman hits the ball in the air and it lands on the moon, that will constitute 12 runs" - it is never, ever going to happen again.

The question should be asked, who came up with the ridiculous rule in the first place? And how many other unknown stupid rules exist that we don't know about?

For New Zealand fans, this news will be like sticking a plaster to heal the wound of an amputated leg!

 

[Aman]

Better late than never!

It is too late, the chances of this happening again on a bigger stage (another WC Final, there is nothing bigger) are almost zero.

Worst case scenario has already happened.

 

[ManFan]

Old men in straw hats catch up when it’s too late.

ENG pulled off the greatest robbery in professional sports of the 21st century due to a pathetic guideline.

 

[Saj]

ICC need to also look at the rule of overthrows if a fielder hits the stumps.

 

[HitWicket]

ICC need to also look at the rule of overthrows if a fielder hits the stumps.

Nah, fielders just shouldn't go for the stumps unless they think it's worth the risk. If you hit the stumps and it goes for overthrows then evidently the throw was unnecessary.

 

[Aman]

ICC need to also look at the rule of overthrows if a fielder hits the stumps.

This is probably next, but they'll probably wait a while for the dust to settle before doing that otherwise they'd be admitting their incompetence.

 

[Aman]

Nah, fielders just shouldn't go for the stumps unless they think it's worth the risk. If you hit the stumps and it goes for overthrows then evidently the throw was unnecessary.

I think Saj is referring to deflections of the bat or player. It's an unspoken rule among players not to run when that happens. The ICC never made it official though.

 

[HitWicket]

I think Saj is referring to deflections of the bat or player. It's an unspoken rule among players not to run when that happens. The ICC never made it official though.

If that's the case what rule would you suggest should be put in instead?

 

[leatherface58]

Top class timing lads! Absolutely love it.

 

[Danyaalr01]

ICC need to also look at the rule of overthrows if a fielder hits the stumps.

No stumps but off the bat or body of batsman.

 

[Abdullah719]

Top class timing lads! Absolutely love it.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Next on the agenda: Better binoculars for the Ice spotters on the Titanic <a href="https://t.co/nwUp4Ks3Mp">https://t.co/nwUp4Ks3Mp</a></p>— Jimmy Neesham (@JimmyNeesh) <a href="https://twitter.com/JimmyNeesh/status/1183856698601041920?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 14, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[MenInG]

Trevor Bayliss:

Commenting on the new change of rules, Bayliss said: "That's fair enough. Whatever rules the governing body has for any competition, rules to be played to. In the World Cup, everyone knew what the rules were and it's not that we made up the rules in the last moment. We were just lucky enough to end on the winning side."

https://sportstar.thehindu.com/cric...inal-eng-vs-nz-ben-stokes/article29728296.ece

 

[MenInG]

Many former players and fans criticised the rule after the nerve-wracking final of New Zealand vs England.

He was the first to recommend it and cricket legend Sachin Tendulkar on Wednesday welcomed the ICC’s decision to stop boundary count as a way of deciding knockout games in its global tournaments like the World Cup.

The International Cricket Council on Monday changed the Super Over rule for all its major tournaments following the uproar over the outcome of the men’s World Cup final in July when England were declared winners against New Zealand on boundary count.

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

“I felt this was important as it is a fair way to obtain a result when nothing else separates the 2 teams,” Tendulkar tweeted in favour of the move.

England were adjudged winners of the July 14 final owing to more number of boundaries — 22 fours and two sixes to New Zealand’s 16 — after the regulation game and the ensuing Super Over ended in a tie.

Two days later, Tendulkar endorsed a second Super Over to decide the winner instead of applying the boundary count rule.

Many former players and fans criticised the rule after the nerve-wracking final, prompting the game’s governing body to rethink.

The ICC on Monday said in a statement: “In group stages, if the Super Over is tied, the match will be tied. In semifinals and finals, there is one change to the Super Over regulation in keeping with the basic principle of scoring more runs than the opponent to win, the Super Over will be repeated until one team has more runs than the other.”

The change, however, did not find favour with New Zealand all-rounder Jimmy Neesham and the team’s former batting coach Craig McMillan, both of whom mocked it as a late-in-the-day decision.

Tendulkar also congratulated his former teammate Sourav Ganguly, who is to be appointed as next BCCI president.

“Congrats on being elected the [MENTION=14959]bcci[/MENTION] President, Dadi. I am sure you will continue to serve Indian Cricket like you always have! Best wishes to the new team that will take charge,” the batting great wrote on the microblogging site.

https://www.thehindu.com/sport/cric...cs-super-over-rule-change/article29698870.ece

 

[Mamoon]

New Zealand should stop whining now. No one stopped them from hitting more boundaries than England.

The rules were the same for both teams and England were rewarded for their positive batting in spite of losing wickets, while New Zealand went into their shell instead of trying to hit out at the end of their innings.

This “good guy” act is getting tiresome now. The likes of Neesham and co. need to accept the fact that they lost the final fair and square.

As far as the “New Zealand were unlucky” crowd is concerned, these are the same people who called New Zealand lucky and undeserving when they qualified for the semifinals at Pakistan’s expense, so these people do not have a shred of credibility.

The bottom-line is that England are the World Cup champions and they won it fair and square.

 

[Ahmed216]

New Zealand should stop whining now. No one stopped them from hitting more boundaries than England.

The rules were the same for both teams and England were rewarded for their positive batting in spite of losing wickets, while New Zealand went into their shell instead of trying to hit out at the end of their innings.

This “good guy” act is getting tiresome now. The likes of Neesham and co. need to accept the fact that they lost the final fair and square.

As far as the “New Zealand were unlucky” crowd is concerned, these are the same people who called New Zealand lucky and undeserving when they qualified for the semifinals at Pakistan’s expense, so these people do not have a shred of credibility.

The bottom-line is that England are the World Cup champions and they won it fair and square.

Fair and square?? U'll go to any extent it seems.
Is cricket not a game of wickets too? NZ picked more wickets in that match.
Now c'mon start again with ur good english and try to fool ppl here

 

[Mamoon]

Fair and square?? U'll go to any extent it seems.
Is cricket not a game of wickets too? NZ picked more wickets in that match.
Now c'mon start again with ur good english and try to fool ppl here

I don’t have to fool anyone. The rules are the rules, and England won within the rules enforced by the ICC.

The rules stated that if the super-over doesn’t settle the result, then the team that hits more boundaries would be declared as the winner.

The rules DID NOT state that taking more wickets would be a factor. If it did, New Zealand would have won fair and square.

If the rules stated that the captain who can do more pushups in one minute would be declared as champion, then the captain who would have performed more pushups would have won fair and square.

You can debate whether a rule is appropriate or inappropriate, but as long as it is enforced, the team that wins according to those rules is the rightful winner.

I agree that the boundary count rule wasn’t great and the ICC also agrees which is why it has been abolished.

However, it was the rule that was enforced in the World Cup final to knowledge of both teams, and England clearly won according to the rules which is why there is no dispute over their World Cup win.

 

[Danyaalr01]

I don’t have to fool anyone. The rules are the rules, and England won within the rules enforced by the ICC.

The rules stated that if the super-over doesn’t settle the result, then the team that hits more boundaries would be declared as the winner.

The rules DID NOT state that taking more wickets would be a factor. If it did, New Zealand would have won fair and square.

If the rules stated that the captain who can do more pushups in one minute would be declared as champion, then the captain who would have performed more pushups would have won fair and square.

You can debate whether a rule is appropriate or inappropriate, but as long as it is enforced, the team that wins according to those rules is the rightful winner.

I agree that the boundary count rule wasn’t great and the ICC also agrees which is why it has been abolished.

However, it was the rule that was enforced in the World Cup final to knowledge of both teams, and England clearly won according to the rules which is why there is no dispute over their World Cup win.

Yes we know England won. No one is criticising England. People were criticising the rule which was a stupid rule. It doesn't matter how you get the runs if the end result is the same.

 

[Mamoon]

Yes we know England won. No one is criticising England. People were criticising the rule which was a stupid rule. It doesn't matter how you get the runs if the end result is the same.

People question the legitimacy of England’s win but there is nothing to question. They clearly won according to the rules enforced at the time.

Criticizing the rule without questioning England’s win is fair, and that is what the ICC have done anyway.

 

[Technics 1210]

Good decision but I doubt any of us will ever see another Super Over in a World Cup final.