TrueTelangana

Is there a need for ICC to revisit the rule-book?

The biggest cricket festival is over, and in the most dramatic way England has become the world champions. After this final, many cricket analysts, former cricketers and fans around the world expressed their distress over ICC rules and how they favored England to emerge victorious in the World Cup final, which will be referred to as the game of ages.

Before we dive in, let’s make sure one thing that the rules are same for every one and they are not created today. Coming to Guptil’s throw, which was deflected by Stokes ‘ bat towards the long-stop boundary for four runs, was really unintentional for both players. Finally, it was considered a Guptil overthrow form and gave the batting team four runs that seemed cruel.

Imagine this rule was made to avoid intentionally hitting the running batsmen by the fielders and to ensure the batsman’s safety. If there was no such rule, while throwing at the stumps, fielder wouldn’t mind the batsman in line. It’s as simple as that. Sometimes rule might look harsh, but you can’t blame them just because you’ve been bitten by hard luck.

The second argument is that when there is a tie, the winner can not be decided by an arbitrary (as they say) rule making. Here, England was declared winners as they had hit more boundaries than NewZealand. If it wasn’t by the boundaries margin, it would be by the wickets margin. It would be by the margin of points won in the league stage by the team (as it is if the game gets washed out). There has to be a rule and that’s it.

To be frank, NewZealand knew the rules before the game, after the innings, before the super over and even before the final delivery of this 102-over match. There is nothing to blame ICC in this issue as the rule book is wide open to all and if bad luck hunts a team in a nail biter, it is not the fault of the ICC. We don’t think that the highest cricket council in the world would even consider these demands as they are so legitimate and logical with their rules and there is no need for them to re-visit the rule book.