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.
Allahabad HC pulls up UP govt for not filing response in a case related to Bahraich demolition
Lucknow, Oct 23: The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government on why it has not filed a detailed response till date despite clear directions in a case of issuing notices of demolition in Bahraich district.
A Lucknow bench expressed annoyance as to whether the spirit of the order could not be understood by the state authorities.
The bench was of the view that it had specifically asked Chief Standing Counsel Shailendra Singh to obtain complete instructions in the matter regarding category and norms applicable about the road in question but the only objection was being raised about maintainability of the PIL yet again.
The bench, however, asked Singh to file the objection on maintainability of the PIL in the registry of the court, deferring the hearing till November 4.
A bench of justices AR Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on a PIL filed by Association for Protection of Civil Rights.
Hearing the PIL on Sunday after constituting a special bench, the court had extended the time enabling the affected dwellers to file their response to notices within 15 days instead of three days as granted by the PWD.
This had thwarted the preparations of the district authorities for removing the alleged illegal constructions made by the dwellers who had been slapped short notice. In course of hearing on Wednesday, the state counsel sought to file objection against maintainability of the PIL.
At this, the bench reacted strongly as to whether the spirit of the previous order passed on Sunday was not understood by the state authorities.
In the previous order, the bench had asked the chief standing counsel to complete his instructions regarding category and norms applicable on the road in question. The bench had stressed that besides maintainability, it would consider all aspects of the matter.
Hearing the PIL on Sunday, the bench had said that the concerned persons may file their response to the notices within 15 days and also directed the state authorities to consider these replies and pass speaking and reasoned order on the reply.
Filing the PIL, it had been argued that the state has issued the demolition notice in illegal manner and its action to initiate demolition drive is in violation of the Supreme Court's recent directives, banning bulldozer action except in certain cases.
On behalf of the state government, the chief standing counsel had raised the objection about maintainability of the PIL and he yet again pointed out this on Wednesday as well.
Ram Gopal Mishra (22) of Rehua Mansoor village died of a gunshot wound he suffered on October 13 during a communal face-off in a village in Bahraich district over music being played during a procession.
Notices were served to 23 establishments, including 20 belonging to Muslims, in the area by the public works department (PWD).
The PWD had carried out inspections in the Maharajganj area last Friday and took measurements of 20-25 houses, including that of Abdul Hamid, one of the accused in Mishra's killing.
The notices were served under the Road Control Act, 1964.
