Sunday, 16 September 2012

It's Official - Law 21

The Official Result - See Law 21
BigAl writes - I know, I know, but hang in there. It's true that once again he makes an invalid point, but it is one that I will address, lest others be confused by a similar misunderstanding. He writes:
Interestingly, and not for the first time, you're wrong. But "you" are not the issue this time.
The Hampshire match was not a tie despite betfair settling it as a tie with very few complaints.
The match was won by Hampshire within the allotted overs and without any further play required to ascertain a winner.
The official match result is a Hampshire win. Check the ECB website.
In matches which require a super over, the official match result is given as a tie. But not in this situation.
Betfair rules state the market is void if the official result is a tie. It isn't and they shouldn't have.
They have settled incorrectly to stay in line with the Indian market.
As many of you will realise, by 'official', Betfair mean the 'official' laws of cricket, which, similarly to the official laws of football, do not have any problem with a match being tied or drawn. Look at any league table. In the Match Odds market, Betfair rules include:
If the official result is a Tied Match in any Test, County or Limited Overs Match then all bets on Match Odds markets will be void.
If the official result is a tied match and there is no such eventuality offered in the market, all bets on match odds markets will be void.
After 40 overs each yesterday, the result of the game was a 244-244 tie, not dissimilar to a football match ending 1-1 after 90 minutes. The 'official' laws of cricket, which determine the 'official' result for the Betfair market, do not say that in this event, the winning team is the team losing fewest wickets. They simply state that the 'official' result is a tie.
Law 21: The result. The side which scores the most runs wins the match. If both sides score the same number of runs, the match is tied. However, the match may run out of time before the innings have all been completed. In this case, the match is drawn.
However, the rules of the competition - important to distinguish from the official laws of cricket - do state that in the event of a tie, the winner shall be determined first by the team losing fewest wickets, but this is a competition rule, and is not an official rule.

Thus Betfair were correct in settling the game as a tie, because by the official laws of cricket (not the competition) - the official result was a tie. Neither Betfair nor myself are wrong in calling this result a tie, no more than Betfair would be wrong settling the 1994 World Cup Final Match Odds as a draw.

This game was officially a tie, with the tie-breaker being a competition rule, and the 2004 World Cup Final was a 0-0 draw, with the Cup going to Brazil by virtue of their penalty shoot-out win.

Incidentally, most people know that in football, a shoot-out is usually considered for statistical purposes to be separate from the match which preceded it.

The suggestion to check the ECB website is an irrelevant distraction. The market was voided by Betfair because the official result was a tie. The reason there were not many complaints is because Betfair were correct. The official result of the game was a tie.

I have laboured the 'official' part deliberately in the hope that BigAl understands it. I really don't want to be trying to explain it all though November if I can possibly avoid it, but the key to it I feel is that 'official' refers to the 'official' laws of cricket, not some 'competition specific' tie-breaker, which really would be confusing.

It really is quite shocking how many people trade in markets without knowing the rules for that market, and the rules pertaining to ties and overtime situations often see mistakes made.


AL said...

this is getting funnier!!

maybe it depends on what time of the month the game could be drawn?!

BigAl said...

You're wrong again

The reason there weren't many complaints is because a similar situation has happened before and a precedent has been set.

LAW 12 For both one innings and two innings matches,

21.2. A Win - one innings match
The side which has scored in its one innings a total of runs in excess of that scored by the opposing side in its one completed innings shall win the match. See Law 12.3 (Completed innings). Note also 6 below.

12.3. Completed innings
A side’s innings is to be considered as completed if
(a) the side is all out
or (b) at the fall of a wicket or the retirement of a batsman, further balls remain to be bowled but no further batsman is available to come in
or (c) the captain declares the innings closed
or (d) the captain forfeits the innings
or (e) in the case of an agreement under 1(b) above,
either (i) the prescribed number of overs has been bowled
or (ii) the prescribed time has expired
as appropriate.

BigAl said...

Sorry. LAW 12 had some text missing.

1. Number of innings
(a) A match shall be one or two innings for each side according to agreement reached before the match.
(b) It may be agreed to limit any innings to a number of overs or to a period of time. If such an agreement is made then
(i) in a one innings match a similar agreement shall apply to both innings.
(ii) in a two innings match similar agreements shall apply to
either the first innings of each side
or the second innings of each side
or both innings of each side.
For both one innings and two innings matches, the agreement must also include criteria for determining the result when neither of Laws 21.1 (A Win - two innings match) or 21.2
(A Win - one innings match) applies

BigAl said...

The important bit of 12 is that the agreement must also include criteria for determing the result when 21.1 or 21.2 applies.

21.2 is the bit about one innings match.

So this part of 12 is saying if neither team has scored more runs then there needs to be another criteria to determine THE RESULT.

The sections of law you have quoted are not the relevant laws.

BigAl said...

(when neither 21.1 or 21.2 applies. Which is of course when the scores are level).

It's tricky to make it clear here as you have to go from one section of the laws to another. However, trust me, you are wrong.

I do wish your readers who can be bothered to comment wouldn't follow such a sheep mentality in assuming you are right.

BigAl said...

I left out 21.4

Matches in which there is an agreement under Law 12.1(b)
For any match in which there is an agreement under Law 12.1(b) (Number of innings), if the result is not determined in any of the ways stated in 1, 2 or 3 above, then the result shall be as laid down in that agreement.

The law you quote is 21.5 which is "all other matches - a tie or a draw". This would include matches which have no agreement as to how to settle a result if the scores are level. But in the case of the match in question, there is an agreement as to how to settle a result if the scores are level.

Bloody hell this is difficult to explain in this comments section, but go through laws 12 and 21 in the correct order and you will see you are wrong.

BigAl said...

It's possible you're looking at an abbreviated set of laws.

Check out,47,AR.html

BigAl said...

"It really is quite shocking how many people trade in markets without knowing the rules for that market, and the rules pertaining to ties and overtime situations often see mistakes made."

I couldn't agree more. How's the mirror?

Tony said...

I wish the webcams were on for reality betfair bettor that cassini wrote about the other day. This is hilarious.

BigAl said...

This cricket discussion is hilarious? Or something else he wrote.

All that crap above is merely to correct the most arrogant blogger I have ever come across.

One day maybe he'll admit he's wrong.

If anyone else pointed out the rules above he would be the first to admit his error. But he likes to attempt to mock people more knowledgeable in an attempt to prove superiority. For some reason, people take what he says as gospel, but I suppose that's only the ones who can be bothered to comment

Could be small man's syndrome, but don't know his height. Even if I guessed it correctly, I'd be wrong.

AL said...

I think we need to get mark Iverson to referee this one as he has been trading cricket a long time.