,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The easiest thing in the world is to rant about the rules. The most inconvenient thing is to subject your rant to the same rigour you expect from the rule.
Maybe it is time to have a discussion over the playing conditions. But remember when the teams are asked if they want any changes, they accept the rules as they are.
The counting of boundaries is not a new rule. It has been there for a long time. Remember, before the Super Over, World T20 games were won with players bowling to unguarded stumps!
Should the final of Wimbledon be decided by a tie-breaker? Should the final of a World Cup be decided by who scores more penalties? There are pluses and minuses with every system but teams and players are shown these and they agree to play within them.
Could it be decided by the no of wickets lost? Would that reduce flair and risk-taking? Could it be decided by no of runs minus extras? Does that paper over some deficiencies? Should a cricket match have joint winners if a super over is tied?
We accept so many things within a game. An lbw verdict where a projected path (a fine approximation but still an approximation!) determines that 48% of a ball was hitting a stump and not 51%. Remember these rules came out of the same process you will now subject this game too.
There are many imponderables, many human frailties at work in sport. But that is how we play it.Everyone sits together,accepts the rules & within them,somebody wins. This final has thrown up a certain kind of result. When emotions calm down,we can see if there is something better
