Is boundary count rule (To decide World cup) cruel and unjustified ?
- 6 months ago
Yes it is. Both teams got tied up twice. That itself showed how close a contest it was.
What happened in Wimbledon final this year? Djocovic and Federer were tied up at 2 sets all (2:2) and the final set went into tie breaker. There too the matter could not be resolved at 6:6 so they played on and on till it was 13:11 in favor of Djocovic and he won the title. Did they decide the title at 6:6 of the 5th set by comparing the aces of the two players? No. Then how can a tied over of an ODI be decided by the number of fours? It's a ridiculous rule asking to be changed immediately.
- BettyLv 76 months ago
Yes it's a nonsense....it should have been on loss of wickets...
- 6 months ago
It could be that way?
- ZapataLv 66 months ago
One day matches where the run totals were tied always used to be decided based on the number of wickets each side had lost. I don't know why it was changed this time, but the old way seemed much fairer and a better measure of proper cricket skills.
I suppose the number of boundaries is meant to encourage attacking batting, but it seems a very arbitrary measure to split two equal teams.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Carlos IglesiasLv 66 months ago
In poker 4 4s beats 3 6s, apparently this is also true in cricket now.
- Anonymous7 months ago
If England lose then yes. If they win then it is perfectly fine. :)
- 7 months ago
Probably, but this was the rule going into the tournament so it's not like the teams weren't aware.
- curtisports2Lv 77 months ago
No. It's an arbitrary rule that all teams entering the tournament were fully aware of. All teams played under the same rules. That the rule that applied to ALL teams happened to go against the team you wanted to win doesn't make it cruel and unjustified. Claiming so makes you look like a whiner and a sore loser.
An argument can, and has been made, that a tiebreaker could be most wickets taken. New Zealand would have won in that case. But the time for deciding what the rules are is before the games are played, and you don't whine about it afterward when those rules are applied. If the powers that be of the sport want to change the rule for tiebreakers, then let them. And all who play the games then will know about it and accept it by choosing to play. And then the fans of those teams should shut up and accept it when that new tiebreaker doesn't go their way.
- 7 months ago
It's a ridiculous way to end a competition that has taken 7 weeks. Neither team won and neither team lost.
Since when has the number of boundaries ever been a measure of performance? If one team hit more boundaries in reaching the same score doesn't that mean the other team bowled more dot balls?
Why is the standard based entirely on batting and not bowling?
I get the impression they didn't put much thought into it, since the chances of a tied final followed by a tied tiebreaker must be a million to one, but I really hope they change the rules so this cannot happen again.
What was the plan if the number of boundaries had been equal? Another super over? What if that was a tie? Rock-paper-scissors? A game of darts? An egg and spoon race? Or should both teams drop their pants and measure length and girth?
Would it really have been such a tragedy if the trophy had been shared? I think that would have been a very popular decision. This farcical result will be talked about forever, although the official record will show that England won it will never truly be accepted by most people. It stinks and will continue to do so.
- LônLv 77 months ago
That's what was decided BEFORE the match had started so it was fair. Had they decided on that after the tied match, then it would have been unjustified.The same goes for rugby cup matches where, if the scores are tied after extra time the team who has scored more tries wins. It's tough on the losers but it's more fair than tossing a coin.