The rain rule.

[ZoraxDoom]

You example was considering the second innings is rained out, and no play is possible. In that case, I said abandon the game. And the decision from the refree is ONLY if both the skipper really want a result. There could always be split point, or in must win games, re-matches later.

D/L is fair because it is the best method which favours the team with most resources at it's disposure, (Ie, wickets in hand, comparitive run rate).

Give me a percentage of controversial/silly results by D/L method of all games involving D/L. It'll be almost certainly under 5% (1 in 20)

D/L isn't perfect but then Cricket isn't predictable which means that there will never be a completely perfect method.

As many have said before, Players and Admin are happy.

1) So having 9 wickets in hand guarantees a win? A flying start means you will score 300, no prob? It doesn't happen, and rarely ever does nowadays. Collapses have become fairly common from weaker teams, and bowlers have becom more frugal in the middle overs. Just look at Aus vs. WI (Last 9 wickets for 29 runs) and Aus. vs. Ind (Flying start squadered when spinners came on)

2) How would you know if it was controversial by the scorecard. A batter could be struggling, (Sachin struggled against Fidel Edwards, yet got a boundary) and on the verge of being dismissed. Momentum could have been swinging, or maybe the team had been told the D/L target was something else and ended up needing something else. This way, it is bound to increase to atleast 1/5 times.

3) Then why need to go so complicated? Why not take a simple route? Ever heard of simplicity is gold?

4) How do you know they are happy? Are you in their dressing rooms when this announcement is made? Of course they aren't gonna complain. This isn't a WC game, just a torunament. They have an image to maintain. It is like complaining about Murali's arm, the ICC or ground maintainence. Players who do usually complain get in a big tangle and get fined. Let me tell you, there will be a day when they will say enough is enough. Currently the issue is player burnout. If D/L robs teams of a few more wins, you might see an outrage.

 

[zimrahil]

C) But if the second innings is just reduced, they have to just chase the same RR that they had to even if they were batting 50 overs. The field restrictions are reduced accordingly in proportion, and the match can resume.

What is wrong with this, I ask you??
.

Is you seriously need to ask then there is no point in continuing the discussion

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I'm serious. It is just a reduced overs match. What do you think is wrong?

 

[prarara]

What's wrong with abandoning the match, especially in tournaments, and holding them at a later date where both teams can play both innings again; or rather, why not just cancel it alltogether?

 

[andrew_nixon]

I'm serious. It is just a reduced overs match. What do you think is wrong?

We've already explained what is wrong with the run rate rain rule, but you seem to be ignoring us.

What's wrong with abandoning the match, especially in tournaments, and holding them at a later date where both teams can play both innings again; or rather, why not just cancel it alltogether?

Let's see now......

TV companies have paid money to broadcast the match.
The general public have paid money to watch the match and see a result.

You're right, no problem at all.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

All you've said is that scoring 101/9 thing. I addressed that. If there was anything else worthwhile, I missed it.

 

[manee]

Please listen...who are you concerned for here...the players, coaches, umpires, the ICC, because all of them are happy with the D/L rule...

I know India were unluckily handled by the D/L method in both games but thats life,

Life isn't fair, but its as close as can be made, and so is the D/L method

 

[andrew_nixon]

All you've said is that scoring 101/9 thing. I addressed that. If there was anything else worthwhile, I missed it.

We have also addressed the situation where the overs are reduced before the second team bats.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

How do you know they are happy? For all I can tell, they must be frustrated, but have better things to worry about.

No it isn't. Let me explain. With a target of 200 in 50 overs, the team will set about their chase in a certain manner, with a certain run rate acceleration.

A target of 100 in 25 overs would be set about with a completely different rate of acceleration.

History shows that scoring 100 in 25 overs is acheived much more often than 200 in 50 overs.

The D/L method gives a much more realistic target of 133 runs in 25 overs.

The run rate method is based on the complete falacy that a team scores at a constant run rate throughout their innings.

You mean this?? I don't see your point. The RR the bowlers worked so hard to keep their opponents to was 4. The RR the batters had to chase thanks to the bowlers is 4. Why is it fair that they have to chase a higher RR? it eludes me. If the batsmen tried hard enough, they could get 200 in 35 overs too. It is the oppostions fault that they scored slowly. lets take a total of 280, reduced to 140. Does it seem that easy now? No, because the team batting first scored a better score at a better rate.

 

[JamesyJames3]

Zorax, it seems you may be a bit bitter because your team lost. The simple fact is Duckworth Lewis has been used for years and is the same for everybody equalling a fair result.

 

[zimrahil]

Why is it fair that they have to chase a higher RR? it eludes me. If the batsmen tried hard enough, they could get 200 in 35 overs too..

For the last time, they didn't try 'harder' as you call it because the team batting first assumed they had the full 50 overs to bat, hence they assumed they had another 15 overs in which to accelerate the run rate

If they knew from the outset they only had 35 overs, then yes I am sure they could get 200.

This really is a most incredible discussion.

 

[manee]

In twnety20, teams score 160 in 20 overs, is this done in 50 over matches, no, it is a different mentality, please read my post above, it will make the most sense

 

[ZoraxDoom]

For the last time, they didn't try 'harder' as you call it because the team batting first assumed they had the full 50 overs to bat, hence they assumed they had another 15 overs in which to accelerate the run rate

If they knew from the outset they only had 35 overs, then yes I am sure they could get 200.

This really is a most incredible discussion.

I was reffereing to the team batting second...
You guys just aren't understanding me!!

Team A scores 200
Nixon says 100 of 25 is achieved often, so a reduced target of that isn't fair
But then again, the beggining target was small to start with
The team batting second doesn't need 50 overs to chase it, they could do it in 35
The same way they could easily chase 100 in 25. The RRR is the same.
If the target was, 280 off 50, 140 off 25 would be fair enough.

Get me now???? If you don't, then please don't argue with me. It is wasting my time.

And James, I have been bitter with D/L for a long time now, the India thing has just pushed me over the edge...

 

[zimrahil]

I was reffereing to the team batting second...
You guys just aren't understanding me!!

Team A scores 200
Nixon says 100 of 25 is achieved often, so a reduced target of that isn't fair
But then again, the beggining target was small to start with
The team batting second doesn't need 50 overs to chase it, they could do it in 35
The same way they could easily chase 100 in 25. The RRR is the same.
If the target was, 280 off 50, 140 off 25 would be fair enough.

Get me now???? If you don't, then please don't argue with me. It is wasting my time.

And James, I have been bitter with D/L for a long time now, the India thing has just pushed me over the edge...

Hate to say it but I think you are wasting everyone else's time as everyone else seems to be in agreement except you?

Also please explain things more clearly to avoid confusion

 

[Sureshot]

I was reffereing to the team batting second...
You guys just aren't understanding me!!

Team A scores 200
Nixon says 100 of 25 is achieved often, so a reduced target of that isn't fair
But then again, the beggining target was small to start with
The team batting second doesn't need 50 overs to chase it, they could do it in 35
The same way they could easily chase 100 in 25. The RRR is the same.
If the target was, 280 off 50, 140 off 25 would be fair enough.

Get me now???? If you don't, then please don't argue with me. It is wasting my time.

And James, I have been bitter with D/L for a long time now, the India thing has just pushed me over the edge...

I don't see how it's unfair though.

Because all teams abide by the same rules and play in the same competitions. Sometimes your team will get it in perhaps a slightly favoursome way, in others a slightly unfavoursome way.

D/L is the best method available, if you think otherwise then E-mail the ICC with it, although if no one on here agrees with you it doesn't bode well.

ZD, D/L only applies to the team batting second, it has no bearing on the team playing in the first innings in any way, shape or form.

Andrew actually gave the 101/9 as an example of you saying that a method based on run rate alone isn't feasible. Which it isn't.