Sunday 16 September 2012

Lords v BigAl

I think BigAl has set a new record! Eight comments, to himself basically, yet not one showed anything to overturn the opinion of Betfair, their army of lawyers, just about everyone else as evidenced by the 'very few complaints' and myself, that the 'official' result of the CB40 match between Hampshire and Warwickshire was a tie. Competition rules decided the winner, not the official rules of cricket. Fewest wickets was a tie-breaker - an unofficial rule to 'break' the 'tie'.

And I really did try very hard to make it easy for BigAl to understand.

Perhaps, but I doubt it, BigAl will accept the opinion from Lords, where the match report starts off with:
In the 50th year of one-day finals at Lord's, the two best teams in the country served up one of the best climaxes to any final, as Hampshire lifted the CB40 trophy. Neither side deserved to lose, and as it turned out neither did. But Hampshire were the ones to return home with a second trophy of the 2012 season after a last ball dot secured a tie - cruelly taking the game from Warwickshire's grasp by virtue of the fact they lost more wickets.
Get that? Neither side lost. The last ball dot secured a tie. From Lords - the'Home of Cricket' and the game's spiritual 'headquarters'.

I'd say that was pretty official, and forgive me, but I'll take that opinion over your:
However, trust me, you are wrong.
I'd really love to, but you know, I need just a little more evidence that my trust would be in good hands, and frankly, I'm not feeling it.

According to my stats, BigAl - or someone from his IP address - has made no less than 10 visits to my blog today, plus 12 and counting to the comments link, but the bottom line is, I can't help him if he didn't understand the rules. I don't trade cricket too often, but I am aware that there is a possibility of all bets being voided. In fact, based on the last week, it happens EVERY time I trade cricket!


BigAl said...

So a match report written by some low calibre of journalist employed to look after their website carries more weight than

a) the official result on the ECB website

b) the official laws of the game. Which you have of course suddenly chosen to completely ignore now you have seen they actually show you to be wrong - despite you earlier claiming they showed you to be right.

I understand the rules perfectly. I knew how betfair would settle as it is not a new situation.

I also know how they SHOULD settle based on their own rules.

Would you care to explain how the combination of rules 12 and 21 show you to be correct? Afterall, you were quoting (incorrectly of course as you didn't read or understand them properly) the game's laws as proving your point earlier.

BigAl said...

Final point, just to make it quite clear as you deliberately mislead your readers with your selective comments and disregard for the proof of your error.

Once you've gone through the official laws and linked them together properly, the laws of the game clearly indicate (i use the word indicate, as the words "fewest wickets" aren't used) that the fewest wickets rule is an "agreement" made to decide the match result if neither team scores more than the other.

They also clearly state that a tie only occurs in circumstances where no such agreement has been made.

It's black and white. However you argue against it, you are incorrect. And I suspect you are of that fact.

BigAl said...

(you are aware of that fact)

Cassini said...

You are getting very boring. Take the issue up with Betfair if you feel you are right.

Tony said...

Just call it a draw :-)

Cassini said...

Rule 12.6, sorry 21.4, sorry 17.5, sorry this is very confusing, just trust me on this, states that in the event of a draw, the official result is a tie. The Sad Life trophy will be awarded to the winner of a comment shoot-out, so BigAl takes this one by about 11 to 1. Bummer.

infom said...

When did this blog become a virtual dick-swinging contest ?

BigAl said...

Infom, when Cassini started it I would think.

He simply doesn't ever have the balls to admit he's wrong.