• Where Did That Rule Come From?

    “We wuz robbed!” is the classic cry of the disappointed losers of a closely contested sporting contest – it is very much to the credit of the Black Caps that we heard no such sentiment from them following the stunning (and, for them, shattering) denouement of the Cricket World Cup final.

    No one can doubt that England won the match fair and square within the framework of the rules that were applied.

    Yes, the Black Caps had their share of bad luck, not least in respect of Ben Stokes’ boundary when the ball ricocheted off his bat as he was diving for the crease – but luck plays a part in most sporting contests.

    And there is little point in bemoaning the closeness of some of the calls – as when Martin Guptill attempted to complete a second run to win the match in the super-over. Close calls are always with us in top-level sport.

    And no Kiwi could complain that Trent Boult signalled that a six had been scored when he caught the ball on the boundary from an English bat, and trod on the rope – we expect nothing less from our Black Caps.

    But we might want to take a more critical look at the rule that was applied in order to decide the outcome of the match. Where did that rule come from?

    How was it that the criterion adopted was the number of boundaries scored by each side in the course of the match, especially when, on the face of it, a much more obvious and appropriate criterion was available.

    The common currency of scoring in cricket is runs and wickets. The point of the game is to score more runs than one’s opponents while, in order to do so, at the same time not losing wickets. In principle, one would have thought that if two teams score the same number of runs but one loses just eight wickets whereas the other is bowled out, the conclusion must be that the one with wickets still in hand has had the better of the game.

    Why was this obvious distinction between the two sides not adopted as the deciding factor? Indeed, I would go further and say that it should have been such a decisive factor as to render unnecessary any super-over or other such device.

    By opting instead for the number of boundaries scored, the rule-makers gave a double advantage to the England team, since the value of the boundaries they scored had already been taken into account in the total of runs they had accumulated.

    This is not a plea to re-adjudicate or re-litigate what was a wonderful match of which England were worthy winners. But I do suggest that the ICC (or any successor authority) should think more carefully about the rules they adopt when the two finalists finish in a tie.

    Let us at least hope for a rule that is based on some rationale in cricketing terms and is not just plucked out of the air. Here’s to another great final in 2023!

    Bryan Gould
    15 July 2019

1 Comment

  1. Jeremy Callaghan says: July 15, 2019 at 10:16 amReply

    Absolutely! The deficiency of this rule is that it is essentially arbitrary and for either team impossible to take into account as the match progresses, especially so for the team batting first in the regular overs. Even with the unsatisfactory Duckworth Lewis calculation the players can have a look skywards and take a punt on a fast scoring start.
    You might just as well give the match to the best-dressed spin bowler as the team with the most boundaries (well almost).

    This takes nothing away from the excitement and quality of the match and it is no criticism of the tournament winners (of course one cannot say the winners of the final). My brother said on the phone (from England!) that this was probably the greatest sporting occasion he had ever witnessed and I think he is right. What a shame that the ICC could not have had the good sense to see that in the event of a tie, the tournament trophy should be shared.

    Regards Jeremy Callaghan