• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Super Overs: Why Only One?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Augustus Gloop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Surely it just encourages a more exciting over?

Anyone I don't care I don't even like cricket tbh, one question though, what do they go off is the boundaries are tied aswell?
 

Augustus Gloop said:
Tbh, it’s not the super over, it’s the unfortunate ‘who scored more boundaries’ rule.

To make an analogy, it’s like football using ‘who had more completed passes’ to determine the winner if teams are still tied after 5 penalties.

The number of boundaries should be immaterial, in the context of the game it’s the runs scored, not how they were scored.

But them were the rules, and England’s style of play was more suited to take advantage of this specific wrinkle.

Like someone else stated, I don’t think that anyone ever thought a super over would be tied, but it’s still a horrible way for NZ to lose the World Cup. The injustice is on par, if not worse, than the debacle of South Africa needing to score 20-odd runs off the last ball to win their semi final that one World Cup.

That situation led to a re-think of how to restructure shortened chases (and eventually DL), and I think this situation should similarly lead to a re-think of how to handle a tied super over.

Maybe it is keep playing super overs until it ends (kind of like basketball where they keep adding overtime) or else maybe it then transitions to a super ball or maybe it is something else altogether.

Either way, it shouldn’t be ‘let’s rewind the clock to something that already happened’.. the one exception possibly being awarding it to the team that better in the group stages (by which measure England would have still won, bit it wouldn’t have felt so unjust)
Click to expand...

The number of boundaries rule was brought in to encourage batsmen to attack. The England batsmen attacked more, they benefitted from the rule.

Like I said no matter what defining statistic is to win a game in the event of tie, somebody will moan about it. After watching England succumb to 2 horrendous lbw decisions in the 1992 final I don’t care how unlucky NZ were tbh, the rules were there at the start of the game & both teams had an even chance of winning it by those rules.
 
Last edited:
The logistics of having more than one super over are ridiculous, who bat's next? It's not like its a quick change around to go from fielding to padded up and out batting.

It's never going to be ideal but there has to be a winner and surely its better to base ii on something that happened in the actual final rather than the group stages?
 
I remember listening on the radio to previous tie breakers where teams had one over each to bowl at a stump, bowling alternately each ball. It then became sudden death if still level ball-by-ball. A bit like a penalty shoot-out but with Diana Ross taking the kicks.
 
I don’t really see the boundary thing as a problem, since both sides entered the final over and it was clear that 15 won for us and 16 for them. Everything was clearly defined. I wouldn’t like it to be messy with conditions like 15 and 2 boundaries wins it for us, 15 and 3 boundaries or 16 wins it for them, but as it was the super over was clearly defined and the tie effectively removed.

Also they didn’t really tie as the wide was never a wide, so they only scored 14 proper runs so can do one as far as I’m concerned. Should have been chasing 16 off 5 not 15 off 6. What goes around comes around
 
TravellingMackem said:
I don’t really see the boundary thing as a problem, since both sides entered the final over and it was clear that 15 won for us and 16 for them. Everything was clearly defined. I wouldn’t like it to be messy with conditions like 15 and 2 boundaries wins it for us, 15 and 3 boundaries or 16 wins it for them, but as it was the super over was clearly defined and the tie effectively removed.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
The boundary count was only a last resort, in the incredibly slim, almost impossible chance of two ties.
It'll probably not happen again for another 3-4,000 ODIs.

I notice no real complaints have come from the Kiwis - solely from bitter Indians and Aussies.

For a game that can appear overly complicated, let's not complicate it even more.
Both sides knew, going into that last over, exactly what the permutations were; what each side had to do to win. There were no on-the-hoof calculations, or guessing.
I'd say exactly the same if the rule was wickets lost, and I'd say exactly the same if it was England who lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bri
The Hesford Diet said:
I remember listening on the radio to previous tie breakers where teams had one over each to bowl at a stump, bowling alternately each ball. It then became sudden death if still level ball-by-ball. A bit like a penalty shoot-out but with Diana Ross taking the kicks.
Click to expand...
I think that was more to decide a winner when there was a full wash out rather than a tie.

Augustus Gloop said:
Reality was a bit more mundane. If tied on boundaries the teams would have been declared joint winners
Click to expand...
So they would have gone on boundaries but completely ignored the fact one team was bowled out?

TravellingMackem said:
Also they didn’t really tie as the wide was never a wide,
Click to expand...
But then we didn't really tie as we should only have had 5 for the overthrow too.
 
Last edited:
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
I think that was more to decide a winner when there was a full wash out rather than a tie.


So they would have gone on boundaries but completely ignored the fact one team was bowled out?

But then we didn't really tie as we should only have had 5 for the overthrow too.
Click to expand...

Except that’s not even true is it? When the ball hit the bat, we’d ran 2. 2+4=6. Rules are quite clear
 
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
The LAWS are clear and you don't know them. The only significant thing is when the fielder threw the ball. You have to cross before that for it to count.
Click to expand...

The wilful act of a fielder. Throwing the ball in and it ricocheting off something is an act caused by the fielder, therefore a wilful act of the fielder. As you say, yes, very clear
 
TravellingMackem said:
The wilful act of a fielder. Throwing the ball in and it ricocheting off something is an act caused by the fielder, therefore a wilful act of the fielder. As you say, yes, very clear
Click to expand...
You are wrong, I have actually done an umpire's course, but most cricketers know the law properly anyway. The "act" in question is the act of the fielder which needn't be an actual throw. The ball subsequently hitting the bat doesn't matter. That's not even an act anyway, and as the law specifies "wilful" it wouldn't even apply.

5 runs and Stokes significantly returning to the non-strikers end should have been the correct call.
 
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
You are wrong, I have actually done an umpire's course, but most cricketers know the law properly anyway. The "act" in question is the act of the fielder which needn't be an actual throw. The ball subsequently hitting the bat doesn't matter. That's not even an act anyway, and as the law specifies "wilful" it wouldn't even apply.

5 runs and Stokes significantly returning to the non-strikers end should have been the correct call.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.
 
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
I'm really not. You just don't know what you're talking about. How much cricket have you played?
Click to expand...
So you know better having played a bit of hobby cricket and sat a low level umpires course compared to blokes who are officiating at the top level all round the world for years and made it to umpiring a World Cup final?

That’s like Houghton Ref calling Pierluigi Collina a knob for getting a throw in shout wrong.
 
TravellingMackem said:
Two international umpires also don’t know what they are talking about clearly. Just grow up and stop embarrassing yourself
Click to expand...
Which two?

Sadly, it's you who is embarrassing yourself, ignorant of the laws of our national game.

Flared Hicks said:
So you know better having played a bit of hobby cricket and sat a low level umpires course compared to blokes who are officiating at the top level all round the world for years and made it to umpiring a World Cup final?

That’s like Houghton Ref calling Pierluigi Collina a knob for getting a throw in shout wrong.
Click to expand...
They made a mistake, which has been pointed out by others. It's possible they may have thought the batsmen had crossed at the time of the throw, and didn't have the replay to prove otherwise.

Yeah, I played shit cricket, my second top score was only 96 and I was hardly a greyhound in the covers, although I did hold the London branch record for most catches in a season for several years and managed 20 years for 2 club sides. But on that shite course they did teach us the same laws of cricket used by everybody.

Who was the fella who booked somebody 3 times in the same world cup game? Oh aye, one of our top referees.

You're an idiot. And I'm very right about this.

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Last edited:
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay said:
Which two?

Sadly, it's you who is embarrassing yourself, ignorant of the laws of our national game.


They made a mistake, which has been pointed out by others. It's possible they may have thought the batsmen had crossed at the time of the throw, and didn't have the replay to prove otherwise.

Yeah, I played shit cricket, my second top score was only 96 and I was hardly a greyhound in the covers, although I did hold the London branch record for most catches in a season for several years and managed 20 years for 2 club sides. But on that shite course they did teach us the same laws of cricket used by everybody.

Who was the fella who booked somebody 3 times in the same world cup game? Oh aye, one of our top referees.

You're an idiot. And I'm very right about this.

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
Mate you're absolutely spot on with the Laws, but there's no need to throw around the sanctimonious insults because people weren't aware of a barely (if ever) used Law...
 
TheRey said:
Mate you're absolutely spot on with the Laws, but there's no need to throw around the sanctimonious insults because people weren't aware of a barely (if ever) used Law...
Click to expand...
I think you'll find I was very polite until they started insulting me, when they both clearly refuse to accept somebody else can possibly be correct.

Perhaps they'll believe you and feel a bit embarrassed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top