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.