Originally posted by siablo14
View Post
Still, a line has to be drawn somewhere. They put a 5 day limit on tests after they used to go on for weeks on occasion back in the day, and the slow over sanctions now, then introduced the 50 over and 20 over games so the sport could be played in a timely fashion and people could get on with their day. The odds of an exact tie in a 50 over games, then an exact tie on a super over must be microscopic, what if there was another tie, how many do you play? The game had already overrun massively. It's still a better shake than the South Africans got in 1999.
As for the runs when the ball hit Stokes, if he didn't change his line I don't see an issue people could have, its the same as any overthrows, there's always the risk, they didn't need the wicket at that point they'd have been better off saving the runs.
Fate was cruel to New Zealand on this occasion, but on the other hand, they benefitted from the structure that allowed then to go through to the semis instead of Pakistan, despite losing to them, because someone deemed net run rate was the decider in result of a tie in that circumstance. They also got a bit of luck with their semi against India getting stopped for rain when India had them on the ropes and they were able to come back on a fresh day when India seemed to have lost their edge. And the rain that allowed them to get a point for a tie against India while Pakistan a point against Sri Lanka when I'd have picked India and Pakistan to win those games. So they did get a bit of help from the rules aswell.
Comment