Cricket World Cup 2019

[Smiley]

4 hours ago, bwfcfan5 said:

Its like winning a penalty shoot out - awful if you lose, brilliant if you win.

But if a penalty shoot-out ends 5-5, we go to sudden death. We don't say - oh, you had more corners during the game, so you've won. And that's how the CWC was decided.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

6 minutes ago, Smiley said:

But if a penalty shoot-out ends 5-5, we go to sudden death. We don't say - oh, you had more corners during the game, so you've won. And that's how the CWC was decided.

Seem to remember Lancashire losing a cup game a few years back after rain washed it out.

Had a bowl off at one stump indoors or something similar.

That would have been an exciting experience for the crowd.

[Traf]

19 minutes ago, Smiley said:

But if a penalty shoot-out ends 5-5, we go to sudden death. We don't say - oh, you had more corners during the game, so you've won. And that's how the CWC was decided.

Were the rules in place before the tournament?

Were the rules made available to all teams?

If the answer to both is yes, then it's fair.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

10 minutes ago, Traf said:

Were the rules in place before the tournament?

Were the rules made available to all teams?

If the answer to both is yes, then it's fair.

Yep. As stokes admitted to, doubt many players knew them, but that, ultimately, is their fault.

 

[bwfcfan5]

6 hours ago, Smiley said:

But if a penalty shoot-out ends 5-5, we go to sudden death. We don't say - oh, you had more corners during the game, so you've won. And that's how the CWC was decided.

But some might argue that say, shots on target over 120 minutes is more indicative of who should win than a single penalty kick. 

[MickyD]

2 hours ago, bwfcfan5 said:

But some might argue that say, shots on target over 120 minutes is more indicative of who should win than a single penalty kick. 

Some might...

But they'd be wrong.