ICC's boundary-count rule that decided World Cup winner slammed by former players
New Delhi: Former and current cricketers, including India's Rohit Sharma and Gautam Gambhir, criticised the International Cricket Council's boundary count rule that decided the World Cup title in England's favour and denied New Zealand after a pulsating final in London.
In a thrilling encounter on Sunday night at the Lord's, England were adjudged the winners of the world Cup on the basis of their superior boundary count - 22 fours and two sixes -- to New Zealand's 16 after the epic final, and also the ensuing Super Over, ended in a tie.
"Some rules in cricket definitely needs a serious look in," tweeted Indian opener Rohit Sharma on Monday.
The sentiment was shared by former opener Gambhir, who is now a parliamentarian.
"Don't understand how the game of such proportions, the #CWC19Final, is finally decided on who scored the most boundaries. A ridiculous rule @ICC. Should have been a tie. I want to congratulate both @BLACKCAPS & @englandcricket on playing out a nail biting Final," Gambhir wrote on his twitter handle.
Gambhir's former teammate Yuvraj Singh also disagreed with the ICC rule of deciding the World Cup winner on boundary count.
"I don't agree with that rule ! But rules are rules congratulations to England on finally winning the World Cup, my heart goes out for the kiwis they fought till the end. Great game an epic final !!!! #CWC19Final," he wrote.
Former New Zealand all-rounder Scott Styris called ICC a joke.
"Nice work @ICC ... you are a joke!!!," he wrote.
Indian spin legend Bishan Singh Bedi was also scathing in his criticism of the ICC rules.
"Grossly unimaginative ICC rules help #England win World Cup..Ideally it would have been better if both Eng & NZ were declared joint winners..& shared the Cup..as underdogs #NZ did more to create such an amazing result..while #Eng were expected to win hands down..Think ICC think!," he tweeted.
"The DL system is actually based on runs and wickets lost... yet the Final result is only based on Boundaries hit? Not fair in my opinion. Must have been great to watch!," wrote former Australian batsman Dean Jones.
Opting to bat, New Zealand had put up a modest 241 for eight. In reply, England ended at the same score leading to the one-over eliminator.
In the Super Over, England batted first and the duo of Ben Stokes, who kept the hosts in the game with a brilliant 84 off 98 balls, and Jos Buttler made 15, and New Zealand also ended at the same score but for the loss of one wicket, paving the way for an English victory on boundary count.
Former New Zealand cricketers were also left hugely disappointed by the ICC's rule, describing it as "absurd" and "unfortunate". Former Black Caps all-rounder Dion Nash said he felt cheated after the finals.
"I feel really empty, and a bit cheated," he was quoted as saying in stuff.co.nz.
"Clearly, it's ridiculous... really absurd. It's about as random as tossing a coin." Nash, however, said there was no point complaining as the rules were laid down much before the tournament.
"But you also have to look at it from the (view of the) people setting the rules. I mean who thinks it's going to be a draw, and then you draw in the Super Over? What are the chances?
"You can't complain, it was done at the start of the tournament. But I think that's probably indicative of where the game's mindset's at. Why not credit the guys who took the most wickets?
"The real measure that was used for generations was least amount of wickets lost. So why have we changed that?"
Kyle Mills, who was part of the 2015 team which lost its first-ever World Cup final to Australia, felt that the decision could have been on the basis of wickets lost.
"I guess the game of cricket is about runs and wickets and when the runs are tied, it'd be ideal then to take it back to how many wickets were lost," he said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
