MUMBAI, July 16 (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports): What happened in the last minutes of the biggest possible ODI ever played has brought about constant changes in the rules that will be debated and discussed for a long time.
The rule was clear from the beginning, explained categorically to the two captains once again before the start of the Super on by the field referees Kumara Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus : "If the Super on is tied, the team that scored more boundaries in the match, right from the start, will be declared winners".
There was no confusion at that moment in time. The confusion is elsewhere. For a format that is 48 years old now, it has witnessed 12 World Cups, represents a total of 40 tied games, watched a World Cup playoff game in a draw 20 years ago and has suffered a lot of changes rules, some continued with, some altered, others discarded: it is surprising that the governing body of the game has never ensured the continuity of the rules, forgetting the continuity of thought.
Of the 40 tied ODIs, only four matches in the history of the format ended in a result and three of those four had a different rule to decide the winner.
Here are the instances: The World Cup final decided on Sunday the winner with a Super on; The winner of the 1999 World Cup semifinal between Australia and South Africa was decided on head-to-head results. And (surprisingly) in two ODIs in the late eighties - India versus Pakistan at Hyderabad in March 1987 and Australia versus Pakistan at Lahore in October 1988 - winners were decided on the basis of which team lost fewer wickets while batting.
All of ICC's high-profile technical committees, cricket working groups and constant rule changes have not been able to design a simple conclusive rule for a tied game of more than 50 years in all these years.
Sunday, therefore, was an anomaly of sorts, But logic has anyway not been given its due where the format is concerned. Given the kind of grounds that England has - diametrically different in shapes and sizes, some boundaries way too short, some corners abruptly deep - every team was bound to play with their own strategy and not every captain flew in here with the idea of hitting boundaries to win a game.
But this is how the ICC has worked in the game over the years. Presenting soft signals for referees, demerit points to punish players, allowing bowlers two new balls but without changing the goalkeeper rule, regulating the handling of the balls but without worrying about the weight and sizes of the bats and for all practical purposes, following the T20 form in a game of more than 50.
Deciding the fate of a party and a nation in the vertices by counting the number of limits they scored is just a reminder of how they have been so completely lacking in the imagination.
The super on the rule
In the event of a Super on tie, the team that hit more boundaries (combined from the main match and the Super on ) shall be the winner.
If the number of boundaries hit by both teams is equal, the team whose batsmen scored more boundaries during its innings in the main match (ignoring the Super on ) shall be the winner.
If still equal, a countback from the final ball of the Super on will be conducted. The team with the higher scoring delivery shall be the winner. If a team loses two wickets during its over, then any unbowled deliveries will be counted as dot balls.
The other rolling family
In 1999, the decision to award Australia, and not South Africa, the win after their tied semifinal game, was also controversial, as it took into account Australia's win over the Proteas in a Super Six match.
The fire of exit
The inaugural world T20 in South Africa in 2007 featured a bowl between India and Pakistan in the group stage after the game was tied. India hit the stumps three times and Pakistan failed. This ridiculous rule was discarded almost immediately.
Other rules contained
Rain pain: A shower that lasted 10 minutes turned the target of 22 of 13 balls into 22 of 1 and knocked South Africa against England in the semifinal against England in Sydney.
